Sociological, psychological notes – Page 30 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

New category: Miss Quotes

Quite literally, literally. The quotes, of motivational nature or other, that you meet every time again — but aren’t, since they are garbled versions of the original. And the original had much more profound wisdom, or was even true where the misquote isn’t.

OK. The first one, then. A favorite of mine, since it is so often True and demonstrates the futility of the busybodies’ eager beaver detailed roadmap approaches:
“Even the best strategy does not survive first contact with the enemy.”
As said, this is true.

But as also said, this does not capture the fullness of the original, which is:
“No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.” [Von Moltke the Elder]
Which is a bit more elaborate (though still an extreme shortest of sound bites, for the period and original language), and for one focuses on the plan of Operations, for a second mentions (no) certainty, and for thirds talks about the enemy’s main strength, not just any lost recce squad.
This, to be interpreted as to say that strategy has no place when it comes to operations, execution in the hostile terrain out there (a.k.a. marketplace, blue ocean, or whatever), really, just completely fugeddaboudit — not quite the elucidation you expected, right ..?
And, instead of the original rather absolute (and slightly pessimistic), here we have a true risk-based approach: Scr.w It Let’s Do It (© Richard B.) has quite a probability to work, to result in positives.
Third, indeed, it’s the main strength that should concern you. What comes before, one can ‘control’ quite precise, in a Sun Tsu sense, right? And (in mirror) may or may not have any bearing on the main force.

So, we all agree that the original Quote was the better? Better enough to diss the latter-day shorthand? Or keep both ..?
I welcome your suggestions, by the way, for the next round of Miss Quotes.

Oh, and of course this:

[Here Be silly mistakes. And Pickett’s Line.]

Your valued info at risk

Ah, just noted: A great many of you may have switched (or, c’mon don’t be a laggard or too late, will soon switch) to self-assessments of risks, even to the level of detail of data security (as part of information security, part of IRM, part of ORM, part of ERM, part of just-freakin’-perfectly-normal-or-are-you-kiddin’-me mundane run-of-the-mill average daily management of which ‘governance’ is the most preposterous windbag label).
Which is all very well, to determine at the shop floor levels, that apparently are the last hold-outs of actual business knowledge beyond the mumbo-jumbo of meddle management (sour joke intended), what the risks, and particularly also, Value of information (data…) processed might be.

But … You’d miss half or more of the picture, then. The value you attach to the info, may very well be what you’d be prepared to fork out to protect it (balancing estimated frequencies of intermittent losses versus continuous costs flying out the window), but you then forget that the attacker isn’t after the value you attach, but the value to the cracker. Which may be completely different. Think, e.g., Sony (and the many others alike): comparatively, there was hardly a nickel value in the ‘stolen’ (exfiltrated, or egressed since it was lying around so obviously) data from the Sony perspective. But the value was enormous from the hacker perspective — whatever the innocuous data was, the mere exposure was of such import that APT’ ing around apparently was worth it.

Now, how’zat (women have deliveries, men have Balls) for all the other info throughout your glocal enterprise/empire ..? Similar to same, I presume.
So, … what about the budgets to be made available to counter data theft/robbery/whatever comparison to physical-world expropriation you’d like to use? And still not trying to overshoot in comparison to the value you yourselves establish for yourselves by yourselves, or you’d run the risk (chance close to 1) of splattering any flexibility and usability under tons of ‘controls’ (quod non, BTW). But then, not protecting ‘regular’ data enough, might expose it too easily — which might be rational but will cost you, e.g., through EU data protection fines … ;-|

So, you’ll not only have to do the multiplication of this and this, but extend in other dimensions as well…
Oh well, the world gets more complicated every day… and:

[Your data protection; Noto]

Who needs slaves ..?

When you can have serfdom? The first, merely meaning physical-legal possession, burdensome. The second one, utter dependence by the subservient of the Master. So, ‘we’ (ahum speak for yourselves) aren’t slaves of SocMed, we’re ‘merely’ not merrily their serfs. Which correlates with the Hobson’s anti-choice to walk away and suffer the withdrawal consequences… Freedom to starve, in the sense of the withdrawal and the great may intertwined and softer linked spheres of being.
Let’s not get depressed. Let’s get detached. And this.
Or what?

Oh, this:

[Once, ruling large portions of the ‘known’ world from here. Now, not so much. Aachen]

The year of No More Oops

… Hoping this year, reps will wise up and don’t treat (insult) their valued customers like they should’ve known they themselves are, i.e., like little children. Why, oh why, would anyone still respond to socmed complaints with “Oops, something’s not right” and all that follows is empty chatter offering no solution at all but first, foremost and exclusively disclaiming any own accountability for poor (or worse) service delivery that the reps are accountable for — just like anyone operating outside the organization’s perimeter yes including outsourced functions however deep subcontracted.
Hey org: I don’t give a batsh.t about how you organise things, and that you employ so many m.rons on the contact surface that matters most… and often, found out, in layers behind that too. Expecting internal selection being proficient in finding the worst cases and setting them as examples through promotions into management all the way to the top. Just ensure that next time around, you have grown-up reps giving definitive, non-conflicting answers that for once don’t turn out to be literally untrue (i.e., lies).

Oh well, lawyers in the wings… and:

[Reprazent house; you kno where …]

Bunch of quote’lets

Just a short list of quotes (#2…), from someone after a life-long study:

“Institutions are the enemy of creativity.”

“So Codes are the mental limitations of short men, short of experience, short of imagination, short of courage, short of common sense. … Inevitably a bureaucrat is a short man, however long his legs may be. His is a mind only fit for a bureau. He is undersized in most respects. … Here is the fatal weakness of Democracy: the bureaucrat. The fatal weakness of Democracy does not lie in gangsterism or political chicanery [both more intertwined than visible on the surface in NL these days; ed.] or civil disobedience or anything like them. It lies in this dumb sheep-like submission to Authority, “the drinking of the vanity of office.”

One need not subscribe to all of the man’s ethics or morality, but have anything of non-temerity to see the truth.

Fittingly:

[Again a tossing out of Codes…; Racine WI]

Aquariunism

After reading Graeber’s exposé on the confluence of ‘human economy’ and communism (Yes. Though those that foulmouth ‘commies’ are probably too low on the IQ scale to be able to grasp the actual ideas…), I wondered: Where in this spectrum is the original-Greek or -Celtic or -whatwasit idea on Golden Man, Silver Man and even Bronze Man (or was that current aeon man) having disappeared after their utter success vis à vis the gods, and where is the (return of the) Age of Aquarius ..?
Especially where the latter might have built the original Sphinx, and bored out the sarcophagus with some tool too advanced for almost today’s science even and the tabernacle having been some nuclear device at today’s cutting edge ..? Yes I’m all in on (Von) Däniken now … Is Global Warming causing a similar Destruction of latter day Neverhavebeensolowonaverage-societyculture ..?

But let that not deter you. Still think about an escape. Into space, or here on earth by means of social reform. Problem is; the percentage of nutters seems constant or growing, whereas societies have been built to sustain (tolerate) inversely proportional percentages of a.holes. We may be doomed after all, with so many (still putting their children into this world but meanwhile vehemently) believing in After us, the Deluge; literally. [Yeah I know, that literally as figuratively was left in the dust of 2015 but this here use is the original, very much valid in 20-16 ..!] And also, since the Mayas seem to have been right about, well maybe not the Aquarius part but the Singularity very certainly.

Which leads to:

[Archeological artifact; Edinburg. Had one, too, in the ’70s ..! In those times antediluvian, immemorial, when even I was cool (..?) — I remember mine was flashier — of course.]

The new, once again

… Just to drop the note that Over 50 is the new Under 30.

Because somehow I need that to be so, since recently.
And, for this:
90dbc931-885c-4063-b469-656cb45c9b72-medium
[Plucked from some LI post.

And, because it’s true. All the brave new world-changing ideas that were dreamt up over the past decade, will now have to integrate in sane society’s organisation and ethics. Which will need that straddle of understanding of freshness (need) and classic history / societal ethics. Which, I will speak for myself here most certainly hopefully not exclusively (huh), the (only just) Over 50’s can deliver.

I rest my case for now. But will return. And:

[Once innovative, but could’ve known; B(er)lin(g)]

Information does(n’t) Matter

Another consequence of the analysis mentioned before about answers flowing upward through infosystems and command and inquiries/questions flowing down: When the latter get viewed as anti-data or even anti-information, we see Information Theory in action.

Where without the creation of potential (difference) by an inquiry standing ready at, say, a sensor [abstracting for a tiny moment away from the complexity that could be in any sensor, assuming it a math point] to capture some data it may produce, the potential may not pull away the data created by a Heisenbergian creation (-by-measurement ..!?) of the data/anti-data pair. Leaving the anti-data, the uncertainty behind. Is this the creation, the maintenance, or the destruction of a Schrödinger’s measurement ..?

More operationally: In what way does this interpretation induce metaphoric (?) insight into the connection between physical world, ‘signals’ (as in Shannon and other Info Theory), and continuous (!?)/discretised sensor-data streams..?
[For once skipping the bullying of those not understanding the fundamental nature of the continuous/(math-)discrete divide]

Well, there’s also this:

[The gift of far-sightedness. SE Sicily you recognize of course]

Bow the Stork Tie

When analyzing the Stork methodology for EU-wide federated eID- and authentication methods and technology, again one stumbles (rather, ‘ they’ do) over the bow tie of CIA, mostly C, controls. Too bad. Usually, ENISA(-involved) stuff is Great quality. Now, quite too much less so.
Which is too bad. To note, we already commented on the classical CIA rating (incl the bow tie fallacy) before. Now, the CIA seems to have something to bring to bear on CIA as well. Better study hard …!

Oh well …:

[Weaving transparency and stability, Cala at Hoofddorp again]

Deinduction

OK. To be, think, human, two things seem to be required:
No, not the dichotomy of deduction versus induction. Not so literally (literally, I mean like owemygawd). But the top-to-ground-then-back-up-again ‘logical’ goal-directed problem-solving reasoning, versus the speculative wandering of the mind. Perspiration, and Inspiration. Taking correlation for causation, versus fuzzy-logic supported hypothesizing. OK, I admit I threw in the fuzzy logic part to confuse, and to discombobulate your comprehension.
But still, therein lies the foundation of Theories, the brickwork of thinking: Is there a priori knowledge, or is everything we know only valid within its own framework of reference..? Is the definition of definition circular or not, or in some circle..? Should, must be, to be basis for theory-building.
Expanded upward by Kuhn and Lakatos, drilled down by a great many, philosophers mostly — that haven’t delivered workable answers yet. Not workable at least, to span the gap in between neurobiology and psychology. Which is where AI-as-we-know-it will have its place, after which it will be vastly expanded to cover it all. Maybe not individually embodied, but will.
And, there’s no either/or. There’s the spectrum ..!!

And all this, relevant for the grounding (both ways, please) of ‘Big Data’. Think that one through!

Also,

[Close, but no torte in the Sacher Stube…]