With the Summer approaching (though not having the weather accordingly yet, here in NL), discussions about closing city centers to “old” diesels (even the types with filters that are cleaner that regular cars!), and changing settings in e-car subsidies because they prove so popular, just consider I drive nicely over 50MpG on average (incl traffic jams, city traffic)…:
Whereas most electric cars run on coal juice … So, putting it straightforward: Sh.t up.
Category: Innovation, economics, society at large
Road rage (autonomous car edition)
Two things about self-driving cars:
- When a fully ready car leaves the factory, it should be programmed completely, at least with all needed to function independently from thereon. Does it think at that very moment “Ugh here I am, just born and already with a huge traffic jam behind me (in the factory)”..?
- Where humanoids will in school and around that, learn quite some data and algorithms by heart just to know them, and acquire experience on how to deploy all that, in the chaos that is the actual world, before being considered an adult capable of independence and accountability in the free world, how will autonomous cars gain such experience once they leave the factory ..? Will they be utterly clumsy during the first few miles / years (sic) ..? Your legal department may need to know.
- [Third, because rebel.] News broke that self-driving cars drive like your granny. Get out the bull bars (originally: ‘roo bars! from down unda) and shove them off the road. [Edited because apparently necessary to add: In no way literally or even close, you m.r.n!]
So. Moving on ….:
[Skewed before screwed; Madrid for no reason whatsoever]
Singularity / M-jumps
Musing with the ideas, suddenly (?) resurfacing the last couple of weeks, of memes being the abstract ideas that spread over human brains like viruses do in the physical world.
Where ‘virus’ taken in a wide sense may include the mitochondria et al., would reflect into the abstract like algorithms and/or Turing engines / data streams.
But that’s just some analogy to just track back. My concern was (is?) with what would happen at the point where ‘machines’ would become so intelligent, or the physical substrate that information (and/or algorithms, analogy from the other side?) rides on, would no longer need human brains, human flesh and bones, to function, procreate and spread. Is that at, or past, or before the Singularity ..? I see [wanted to write ‘envision’ but one should eschew obfuscation!] various scenarios following from there various scenarios. Not all, too happy. Let alone for us humans.
And how would we call such points? Ladies and gentlemen, I coin ‘M-jumps’.
Your comments are welcomed. Even if you expected “you’re”.
Oh well, …:
[Just an off the cuff phone snapshot; Baltimore by night]
Where accountancy will go
Considering the progress made in the accountancy sector with ‘continuous’ assurance, it struck me that until now, process (read: mere procedures) was driven by technology, at least up till now. Because the idea of ‘transactions’ in that, now quickly antiquating, ERP system we all know, was based like it was and is in all the other comparable systems or less, on the ideas before that. And procedures just had to adapt to the software. No, not the other way around; that’s pure marketing babble!
So, now we (hopefully soon) have XML and XBRL to take some work off our hands (?). But also … qua big d analysis (tired of writing / pronouncing that at full length..!) we’re moving ahead. To be able, would be able, to just dump all ‘transactions’ or primitives into a big db and then run ad hoc queries on them, possibly with some AI in the mix. Who needs separate bookkeepers’ accounts when all source data is available in blobs or whatever ..?
Which may require a leapfrog of assurance. But hey, the world wasn’t invented to service that, but the other way around.
Any thoughts ..?
Thought so. hence:
[Oh, the Great Outdoors! … Central Park, NY, NY]
For your To Do
Fun / stagnation
About the difference between boring and Inspirational! in business.
| Old | New |
| Process, procedures, work steps | Request for direction |
| Compliance | Demonstrating failure; to learn |
| Punishment for (anyone’s! esp. higher-ups’) failures | Coaching towards more errors |
| Stepping out of line (even by casual remarks hinting at less than 100% drone motivation) is failure | Pivoting (even for your contribution) is near-mandatory |
| Succes is obedience to the gallows | Success is coming up with / doing the hitherto infeasible, unthinkable |
| The ones exploiting drones (licking up / kicking down) and (only) best versed at sticking to their chair, are promoted | Promotion? We don’t do rank and file here; we like your creative more or less |
| You’re fired – just because you’re a number that turned up in the lottery – that’s held every couple of months because bosses are bored and utterly incapable of coming up with anything revenue-increasing i.s.o. cutting costs and shrinking is growing, right? Even when the shrinking cuts out exactly the very growth-enhancing competences you need ever more desparate. | You’re allowed to pursue a career elsewhere, too but we don’t want to lose you. What can we do to make you like it even more here? |
| “(The ‘innovator’s dilemma’ is that ‘doing the right thing is the wrong thing.’) As Christensen saw it, the problem was the velocity of history, and it wasn’t so much a problem as a missed opportunity, like a plane that takes off without you, except that you didn’t even know there was a plane, and had wandered onto the airfield, which you thought was a meadow, and the plane ran you over during takeoff.” (as here; very instructive) | The same. |
| Fade to grey | “I’m Cool” |
Some solution to your (future) joblessness
You may have noticed I tended towards the dystopian side regarding Singularity things and by-definition jobless growth (or slowdown, or anything), as in this and the posts linked therein.
Possibly, you’re in the category aiming for:
[Wingspread house; good living by FLlW at Racine, WI]
I didn’t discuss time frames.
Though I’m not optimistic about those, either.
But at least, there’s some info that may lull the frightened back into sleep, and help the agile, willing, wanting, forward:
[Plucked from … some socmed post]
Study … and keep in mind: This is for the very (happy) few that have a big head start; are at a quite stellar developmental level already.
Ah, your home controlled by …?
In the race to grasp as much of the market as possible, which is understandable, one party jumps in to create the API of APIs we’ve all been waiting for, among others (since this) in this domotics category.
But … will we surrender even our in-house as-yet unconnected lifeblogging data to one of the parties that don’t have the best of track records re privacy …? I mean this one. With an odd name…
Oh yes, I hear you suppress your fears … with empty words, given that even at chip level intrusion and (data) extrusion seems to have been possible, and in the wild, already for years.
So, this one party grabbing your data at software level may even be an ‘improvement’ for transparency … the devil you know (but still don’t see) – how’zat for self-censorship in your house? Even when with a required warrant, will (tending to casual, ubiquitous) surveillance in your own home be the future?
Well, I’ll go cleaning up. With said product (name) of course…. And:
[Preferably, the non-scratching kind … London already a decade ago]
3+ bodies found in business
… just about everywhere. Of course I refer to the n-body problem set with n > 3 as here.
Because it is so dismally known, and applied. Most starkly (#loveofwords) in ‘business’ ‘strategy’, where the lack of wisdom is clearly demonstrated in the lack of inclusion of all (sic) potential (sic; including chance function estimations) competitors’ moves. Name any market where the latter s doesn’t apply, and report it to (anti-?)cartel authorities.
I.e., the Problem applied to strategy means: Strategising is futile, all your course belong to us. On a side note:
[Alignment; Vienna]
Critical management, not governance
Ah, there’s another authoritative source with a description how leadership and (‘actual’) management should be.
I.e., not the robotic, stupid (when one would be offended, consider this a. reflecting your own insecurity out of gut feeling that it describes you, b. intended, c. still being the most lapidary labelling) totalitarian-bureaucratic ‘governance’ type of ‘control’ (quod non, and this) but actual effective, results-achieving teaming. Like what firms originally were invented for.
OK, just resting my case again. Plus:
[Some parading, but in operation, stealthy over pomp; Baltimore]
