Innovation, economics, society at large – Page 23

You Don’t Call The Shots

I.E., You Are Not In Control !

This, as a consequence of the ‘In Control’ definition. Where the controlling and ‘steering’ (what Steering Committees are about, if properly functioning … ) are the same.
But as explained previously, such steering doesn’t happen (is impossible) already in a Mediocristan world its complexity, let alone the mix-in (to say the least) with Extremistan that you’ll find everywhere and certainly in your business.

NO you can risk-manage your business to the hilt, or even make it extremely brittle, anti–resilient by totalitarian bureaucracy that leaves no human breathing space but switches to full 100% bot-run enterprise, DAO-style ops (hence will fail with complete certainty when interacting with humans like, e.g., your clients),
because complete risk-managed stuff still weighs costs so is imperfect or isn’t…
And of the imperfection of fully-reactive quod non-‘security’, see the above and many of my previous posts…

So either way, things will happen that you didn’t order. Estimates run from 50-50 (where you have zero clue about which 50 you do control) to 90%, 95%, 99% not-your-call shots. The latter category since your brain is not wired [link: huh] to deal with more than 10% ‘free will’ and the rest is, as scientifically determined, reactive to the environment however clever and deep-minded you think yourself to be (the more the latter, the less you are … If you have to say you are wise, you aren’t). Which make the majority of what happens to you and your organisation, accidental and from the outside. Which is by the very definition not you being ‘in control’.

Despite all the ‘GRC’ liars that should be called out for that quality.

[Edited after scheduling, to add: In this here piece, there are very, very useful pointers to break away from the dismal Type I and II In Control (quod non) Statements of all shades. Should be studied, and seen to refer back to the foundations of auditing ..!]

Oh, and:
[Designed to belittle humans — failing since they’re still there…; DC]

On your own, or forever be weak

Just a note that ‘cyber’security vendors (that hate #ditchcyber) will not save you whatever their claims are. Because they live off the perpetuation of the problem, and will make you weaker by lack of upkeep of your strengths at whatever levels they were.
Just a note that this applies to ‘intelligent’ devices of whatever sorts, too. Like, The Shallows squared; Home voice-recognising butlering devices (is there a category name for those already? The Echo’s, Alexia’s, Home’s I mean) or the bots out there on the ‘net, self-driving cars, etc.etc.

So, ed-ju-cay-shun is still to be pursued, in all directions! And:

[Yes art education as well, to not skew your persepctive…; DC sculpture garden]

Hoog op Flut! Alweer, inclusief Laag op Nut

Onderstaande, alweer, nog steeds… Inclusief de toevoeging (sic; aan deze tekst) dat een en ander (of gewoon een) stevig wordt verergerd qua domweg (sic) On-gezond, door een stellend gebrek aan (NB) voldoende groente — reden? hooguit dat de Cock geen idee heeft hoe hij (…) daarmee moet omgaan terwijl dat bij de basics hoort, toch? Dan maar volgemieterd met nog een pak ..:

Kan de gezamenlijke restaurantwereld in NL nou eens ophouden met die nonsens van “Hoog Op Smaak” en gewoon toegeven dat er door iedere gang een AKZO-jaaromzet zout gaat omdat de ingrediënten zó goedkoop moesten dat er geen enkele smaak aan zat ..?

[Edited to add: Nog erger als koks gaan beweren niet zo veel zout toe te voegen maar de smaak ‘umami’ maken. Een emmer MSG erbij gooien bedoelen ze dan. De betekenis en vertaling van ‘umami’ was tot voor kort ‘van alles veel’. Toch vreemd, dat we sinds de Romeinen vissaus kennen, vol van ‘umami’-glutamaten en afgeleiden, maar dat we nooit een woord ervoor hadden, of het als smaak bestempelden. Maar ja, het tikt vele receptoren aan hè? Dus het kan geen variant zijn van een van de vier basissmaken ..? Net als marsepein een aparte smaak is tenslotte, want naast heel veel zoet zit er ook een klein beetje andere smaak bij dus zoet op zich is marsepein niet ..?? Iemand een uitleg waar ‘basis’ voor staat in basissmaken ..?
En dat zout en ‘umami’ zo’n beetje hetzelfde effect hebben … Inderdaad, ze hebben beide het effect van smaakkoppoetsing door papillenactivering. Nou en?
Door met wat er al stond; lees aldaar dus MSG als :]

Heel triest om te zien dat ook vele ‘sterren’koks et al., zich er zo consequent aan bezondigen. Goede ingrediënten hebben geen volle Dode Zee / chemiefabriek nodig om smaakvol te zijn. Die sterren zijn ze echt niet waard. Tot nu toe slechts zegge 1 (schrijve: één) (ja ik weet het, zucht) Michelin-ster tegengekomen (i.e., geproefd) die de ster ook echt waard was. De rest (t/m 3*!): Nee hoor; effectbejag met een over de hele dichtgepletterde poging tot ‘umami’ door alle eigenheid aan smaak van de ingrediënten weg te poetsen met 3651 vrachtwagenladingen natriumchloride. Waar waren die sterren ook alweer voor? Toch niet alleen om ze als zodanig te voelen, waar de zon nooit schijnt, na beschikbaarstelling aan de keurmeesters van die bandenleverancier? Want het keukenproduct … oh zo vaak middelmatig, zeer middelmatig. Er is ook een neveneffect …

Dit soort proletarische vervoosde degeneratie-decadentie staat natuurlijk naast natuurlijk een flink aantal niet-sterrententen die het begrepen hebben ‘maar daardoor geen ster halen’. Die gewoon weten hoe je de kwaliteit van ingrediënten kan halen zonder die te vernietigen, door te beginnen met goede ingrediënten en die geen geweld aan te doen. Als de (on)geachte cliëntèle dat niet proeft: Pech. Move over. Ga maar naar de Schotse keten, daar pep je de boel maar op met ketchup en mayo. Dá’s pas smaak, toch …!?

Zout kan je er niet uit halen, wel erin als je aan tafel zo nodig moet laten blijken te grof te zijn voor finesse.

Enfin, zo kan ik nog wel doorgaan. Rest, voor nu:

[Sombertjes; hoog daarboven, op de schouders/berg, een ruïne, beneden rest een zoete kledder (gemiddeld); Ribeauvillé]

Non Dad Bots

With all the attention having gone to the not-so-Russian-or-are-they hacks, and some ransomware and CES17 news, over the past couple of months, one could have forgotten that not too long before, there was the wavelet (not like this) of hype over the, then, sudden exponential roll-out of bots in all sorts of customer-interactive sittuwaysjons.
Have these non dad bots, contrary to the MAMILs, disappeared from the streets ..? Or where are they; not like “out there in the cloud” which means a. they’re on someone’s machines, still, geo-bound as physically these are and hence under someone’s (non!)privacy control, b. nobody cares. But in a sense of ‘market share’ by any measure (which?), and who are the big players, what are the typical products/services and what metrics are there to compare these?
[Edited to add after scheduling the first version: this]

Just wanted to know. Surreptitious developments are ominous in their invisibility already. And working worse than ever… — some help may be thinkable, not yet on its way I’m sure, but that’s a long way off what we’d need…
Oh and I didn’t mean the idea of botnets for attack purposes; that’s done deal and yesterday’s weapons technology, right?
And also not robots, as they have a physical presence which enables some form of physical override options, at least in theory, when required and not hindered…
Not even the personal at-home quasi-sentient devices limiting your world view ever more whilst plucking you bare for unwanted purchases behind your back.
But did mean the kinda chat bot-ish software working in the background…

Until then, we’re stuck with bad not dad bots not bods … With:

[Physical protection, if of the obese/obsolete kind; Nancy (sic)]

Fake-fake-fakes

[Edited to add: this, I wrote a month+ ago, and has of course since been ‘repeated’ over and over, e.g., through the poor Swedes not knowing what hit them…]

Not quite like this, but troublesome: The information explosion brought to us by the Internet, has finally come to the brink of its feared state of drowning-till-death the Truth, under Fake. Where nothing, literally nothing, can be believed anymore, nor can anything be refuted as fake once the humans’ limited context view cannot discard everything that seems legit or on the border of it, for lack of irrefutable, foundational truths that would raise the plausibility to sufficient levels.
On the contrary, the logical-positivists’ traps / blind spots would kick in. We get unprovable ‘double secrets’ and ditto ‘double falsehoods’ (“We didn’t hack the elections”) — so finally, we reach Socrates’ ideal ..!!

The Elysion at last, like:

[Now that’s E Pluribus Unum; Noto oh no it’s reluctantly-unified DunEdin…]

Pres

We’re one month into it, and reminded [this post scheduled 11-1 for release today; obviously true nevertheless] of what Douglas Adams had in The Hitchhikers’ Guide:

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

(Yes quite the cite-quote of Groucho Marx’ maxim…)
But nobody noticed…

Plus:

[You didn’t know which 11-1 I mentioned ..? (Not) the relevant one…!]

Secret Health

The year hasn’t started in earnest, and already we’re swamped in news about the over-easy hackability in and/or frequent leakage of medical data from the Care sector — haha we aren’t swamped but rather, quite ignore the news because either one cannot do anything about it (but complain) or it’s too embarrassing …
Also, it turns out that people are more reluctant to share medical data (info) with their practitioner(s) when they are less secure about the secrecy of it; the very reason there’s such a thing as medical professional code of secrecy (doctor/patient confidentiality) and now, leading to worse care (quality, cost) then if proper secrecy wouldn’t be in doubt.

So, either you medical/care expert have professional pride to provide the best medical care and hence implement proper infosec measures (from ISMS to crypto-details) and chastise your managerial staaf for not doing it properly — or you try to wing it, don’t secure properly hence don’t provide maximal care, and should be banned.

And:

[A good health figure; Barça]

Throwback Thursday’s links

This. T’back, since 2014. ’nuff said.

rr-435-wfa

And … down goes LI

OK, so has a new platform risen yet, where ppl can just have their resumés and contacts and that sort of stuff, beyond the diversion that LinkedIn is on ..?

‘Cause all the talk you read, isn’t about what actual users (not the few that would want and need other, much better tools anyway) have their LinkedIn profile for. So any disruptor can finally get a shot at this. No, Flunkbook and the others with market shares and caps already, have their own niche (sic) and not this one by miles.

So, what’s your guess which one it will be ..? and:

[Old-school defensive functionality; Ávila]