Category: Sociological, psychological notes

Metaphoric company / politics

… Is the political scene of the, still…, figurehead corporatist (or would you know a more pejorative term?) country (hey, check global capita per country and weep) reflected in the developments of the business world; like, a bunch of weirdos (qua hairstyle and behavior) versus ‘governance’-oriented totalitarian bureaucrats,
or is it the other way around ..?

Just struck me. And beware that the former category would not be where the Silly Valley bunch would fit in, as if by association-through-closeness to ’60s SF. Contrarily, they fit perfectly in the latter category. As was exepelainifyed already here.

Also, both categories are so far apart that when one wins, the other will be separate and free enough to maybe not even care. Though I doubt that Latter would not at least give it a try. And possibly succeed.
Both sides really, really should be ware of Pyrrhus. Like, China or even India taking over. The Bear, not so much; internal control is the stretch to the edge already, shot-in-the-dark break-outs will be just that. Oh, and Europe will of course (? … !) be split in an East-of-Centre, Southern (sub-Rhine/Danube) and Northern (trans-Rhine) parts. That will move at very, very different speeds in very different directions…

But then, in the longer run we’ll all not be dead but this.

But then, I’d best leave you with:
DSC_0627
[Wine not whine bunker; Quinta do Vallado]

Poor bungler has no Scandinavian example to make his point

Gerald jeered in dinner discussion
August 19, 2016 by Karen Mikkelsbergen

Gerald Waterson badly lost a series of discussions with his friends last Thursday. The 36yr (old) county clerk of Decatur, IL, didn’t have a Scandinavian example for any point he wanted to make.

During dinner, Gerald proposed e.g., that social security could not continue in its current form with the lax immigration policies, that a fully sustainable energy supply were feasible, that only college grads should be allowed to teach at high schools, that longer prison terms don’t increase general security and that tomato is a vegetable.

“Those were interesting proposals,” Dean Farmour (35) remembers. “We were honestly interested to have ourselves convinced. His arguments however were lacking every time again. Gerald only had a huge stack of scientific reports at hand and a slew of scientific theories. But he did not have one single example from Scandinavia. Not one!”

Megan Drimble (36) too, was disappointed by the defective argumentation of Geralds vision. “If you’re so sure that longer prison terms don’t work, then you’d better have something more than just fifty years of data from a number of countries. I’d like to have data from just one Finnish province, please!”

Megan herself successfully defended that the hunt for moose would need to be deregulated in Georgia: “Isn’t it crazy that the state legislature doesn’t just allow it? In Sweden, the moose hunt accounts for the prevention of many traffic casualties and of serious damage to forests.”

Gerald now knows what to do. “I always thought that I had studied sufficiently on any subject I thought to know but I was jeered at for that. Next time, I’ll make sure to always have some obscure Scandinavian research at hand. The Danish psychologist Sören Larsen showed, by the way, that to give me a far more convincing posture, too.”

discussie

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Gold per capita

Just remembering that line of thought about some ‘handicap’ per country in sports…

  • The original list of Rio 2016 [standings per 16 August ! due to post scheduling ahead of time], sorted per Gold medals, top 50, in this here list
  • The same, but ‘compensated’ by dividing by (GDP per capita times capitae), in that there list
  • And, medals total, handicapped similarly over here.

Pick your country and … have fun with the bragging rights…
Yes, a lot can be said about this; but then also include discussions on colonial history, (sports-supportive) culture over the centuries, et al …

[After drafting and scheduling, this came through. Party/scoop poopers! And desperately lazy using so little of your own, and relatively random, info…!]

In the sphere of Language

Off the cuff. Sphären is closer to Finnegan’s Wake than it is to Nietzsche. Qua language, here and there.

That’s all. And don’t read FW in Dutch; the translabitt is flubby. The others in Dzjerman, qualitate qua.

20160805_151324[1]
[Emulatable qua plomb. The Dutch background, not so much.]

Rio per capita

… Is the medal list per capita out already ..?
[Spoiler: next Thusday’s post has some results for the below…]
For surely, just adding up medals per ‘country’ is ridiculous. When some country may send two athletes (four?) to some contest and can pull from, e.g., 10M citizens, how much infrastructure (economically, culturally etc.) can it muster, compared to some country that has a potentials pool of, e.g. 300M ..?
[Including that some form of compensation should be available for the very fact that population- and surface-wise smaller countries have a much lower ‘pyramid’ of local contestants challenging each other for better performance, and less physical room for training/contest facilities, uniform marketing hence sponsoring, and societal recognition to be had — if at all, see the following.]

Bragging about some idiotic sort of ‘we’ that has collected 1000 medals over the decades, is double nonsense. How many of the medal winners were allowed to procreate so prolifically that, genetically, the ‘we’ is now justified, gene pool wise? Or rather, how many of the medal winners were neglected by society so that they died in ignominy and often even poverty ..!? That’s quite contrary to the ‘we’, those medals should be discounted from any total …

So, where is it, the Per Capita medals list of, e.g., Rio’16 ..?

[No, the Netherlands wouldn’t climb very much higher; close to median in population as it is, and same qua performance (?).]

Next, what would a handicap system look like ..?

And:
20150311_122327_HDR[1]
[a.k.a. ‘The Medal Race’ — or is it a commentary on the financial industry in the midst of which it lies beached ..? [spoiler: yes it is]; Zuid-As Amsterdam]

Quicky: For … eyes only ..?

Because all those high on Mr. Robot, looking alike but wannabe, deep down still would want to be like the center character in this (see the pic below), herewith:
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, can see me through the night in all privacy detail.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, I never need to more can hide.
You can see so much in ev’rything about me, so much in me that’s new all my browsing history ever.
I never felt until I looked at you it hurt me to death.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The love I know you need in me is now full graphics, 3D, the fantasy you‘ve freed in me joke about in glee.
Only for you the world to see, only for you the world to see.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, the nights servers are never cold.
You really know me, that’s all I need about me there is to know.
Maybe For sure I’m an open book because I know you’re mineing my info right now,
But you won’t need to read between the lines.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The passions privacy that collide in totally is no more for me, the wild abandoned side data of me.
Only for you the world to see, for your eyes only WikiLeaks and all.

Which is indeed Number Four in line with this, this and this…

Leaving you with…:
ForYourEyesOnly_Underwater2

Own rules

When ‘Compliance’ are the Spanish Inquisition, keep them to their own rules. Leviticus, in particular; 19:19, 19:27, 24:10-16 and others (note :4 for the commoners outside the C department), and Deuteronomy, e.g., 22:11. Exodus 21:7, too.

We’re looking at a lot of pink slips, and clawbacks, if we’d be too (sic) lenient.

Oh well:
20160805_160230[1]
[Compliance through the looking glass; GlassFever Dordrecht]

Risk Chagrins

It’s just a matter of Karma…

As long as ‘risk’ ‘managers’ deal with negativity (admit it; focusing on the negative is even written into quite a number of definitions involved ..!), they’ll become the sourpusses they want to see all around (remember, the “passing back risk management to the ‘first’ line” ..?), and according to which they’ll behave ever more, finding evidence everywhere they’re on the ‘right’ track.
Quod non, but conspiracy theorists as they are, they will not listen …

Oh, and this:
20150109_145912
[Your ‘risk’ ‘heat map’, accurate picture]

Plusquote: Materiality

Discussions about materiality are not material.

This, after realizing that all too often, the discussions about materiality were/are either by Eager Beavers (not having grown above box checking zealots), or by outsiders qua experience and expertise, e.g., lawyers (q.q.) and ‘governance’ bubbletypes.
Whereas, when ‘materiality’ (or its twin-at-a-right-angle, ‘significance’) its pass-or-fail boundary is discussed, not the precise measure (and hence, rigorous definition) counts, but the very fact that there is a discussion in the first place. That is material, that points at an issue. Wise minds (q.q. probably not directly involved ..!) understand this point and will not want to join the discussion, leaving the latter to the nonderstandables.

Think about it — when the discussion arises for whatever reason, that mere fact already is a signal, which can simply be reported as such, together with all its glorious detail. Must. For it is material significant oh whatever…

Leaving you for the weekend with:
20150109_150127[1]
[“It’s only a model” it aint ..! in Rotterdam — oh wait that’s a scaled re-build…]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord