Sociological, psychological notes – Page 9 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Where’s F Fatigue ..?

Considering the fatigue seen everywhere re fake news, about all that is out there is called into question.
Which led me to search for a meme that just swirled into my mind: ‘Facebook Fatigue’. Boy did I think that could be quite some recent development, with the brag about ‘users’ (meant to mean ‘addicts’; the brag being towards ad salesmen as street corner suppliers, and investors as proceeds rippers ..?) being at something over 1.8B or so.
Boy was I wrong. Already in 2008 … And 2012, and 2015, and since …

When you try the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, you will!

Update later: This here; QED.

Now, where did ‘Newconomy’ go ..?

So there is hope. And there is:

[Paint your castle – is such a hass’le; Dublin C]

Effective presentations

May be elsewhere.
Recently delivered a ppt full of bullets and text [hold it; see below], to gather response and feedback. Put in quite some effort, like two days’ driving to the venue, including overnight stay, lunch and dinner costs, transport expense, sweating away at the location (the venue was only a couple of °s cooler than the 30°+ outside) with an extra night stay at the location, plus lunches, dinners, and a return trip of two days’ driving, incl overnight stay, lunch and dinner costs, transport expense, et al (sic).
For … well, not any sort of renumeration or token gift, even. Not, like, a promisingly large room turning out to be less than 40% (rounded way up) filled.

Which wouldn’t be so bad, if suitable, useful feedback had been received, or only publicity gained e.g., through (live or late) tweeting, LI mention or so.

But now, all I got was not even the T-shirt; all I got was 0. As in: zero.
Yes that’s the number of tips (let alone useful ones), or tweets about the pres (let alone far out reaching ones). I did disclaim the fullness of the slides (sic) to give impressions of all the content delivered (did not read them line by line, mind you), and yes I did before, during and after ask for feedback… Only some old hand pre-known friendlies with form/delivery compliments.

Oh well; at least now I know not to submit for free anymore. And/or, is this the beginning of the Classroom Learning Is Dead for trade conferences ..?
Yes, sponsor opportunities will make conferences et al, still feasible economically, but not when attendee rates will go down. Yes, online webinars et al are still bandwidth-challenged and most often, sketchily interactive at best – which is an opportunity for TEDx style beautifully told fairy tales but not for the ability to interrupt and, in particularly necessary very often with these kind of powering-on talks, correct huge biases, false assumptions, and certainly pastiches of logical reasoning, nor for feedback or pointer tips.

So, where are the (affordable…!) online conferences that are worthwhile to visit?
Not 2-way IRL (‘F2F’ like in the olden days of still today) but virtually – warping the meaning of the latter so far beyond its Original, and not taking it to the limit here but having only the channel un-physicalised, even; where is total two-way VR and/or AR in this ..?

Oh well, and:

[Still only had time for ‘drive-by’ i.e. walk-by tourism…; München]

Simply laborious

After some post recently, I was triggered to summarise – and expand …
Since there is a bit of history missing. Being the Theory of Firm. Which is, among other stuff but au fond, about the creation of the manager. As the go-between of ’employees’, as the go-between between the workforce and Capital. As the foreman, the one in charge of coordination – when the people come together because they can achieve more in cooperation than the sum of their individual efforts, through specialisation of labour, those specialised contributions need coming together in one way or another, and the provider of capital (the thing that other raw materials are paid with hence the about-only thing to receive deferred payment; don’t get me started on the so absolute quod-non of the ‘inherent right’ to rent above trivial liquidity and risk compensation…) will want to talk to just one. Originally, sometimes capital provider and leader/cooperation-initiator/manager were one, until external capital was required from parties that extorted control. Big sic there.
Well, now don’t go blaming me that it is on the capital provider side that criminally biased rules and regulations have crept in. Flash capital, extortionist locust ‘capital management’ groups, et al., have forced their mob ways into ‘normal’ conduct — almost; the Rheinland model [first, learn to pronounce that correctly, then, get to understand it fully, then, return and prostate and happily receive your life sentences for your transgressions] still holds sway, and sometimes veers back a bit. A bit.

So yes, to the latter, that is criminal, and the cause of cushions called management layers, ever more wrongly devised and developed. And yes, we would need some totalitarian revision of organisational structures to cure it all. Including, starting with, the redefinition [i.e., throwing away all that function there smoothly now, as they denounce their incapacity to really do what’s really required] of middle management and refilling the positions. Also capping CEO pay to, say, something like 10 times the average pay of the bottom 10% of the workforce. All contribute, and a CEO may need a little compensation for when [not if; should be law..!] something goes wrong, his (sic) head rolls. But not too much. When the CEO is sacrificed, something went so wrong that many will get hit; the CEO being in the best position to survive it, qua social and economic strata he should be in. Workers, much less so; much less opportunity to have built buffers, capice?

But maybe not absolute only Owners and Professionals. That will simply not work. Both sides would, even in an ideal world of perfect information everywhere, be buried under control information to the mountainous levels that they wouldn’t have time left [if you’d need more than 25 hours a day to do your work, just work that little longer!] to do their primary jobs…
But a revisit of Galbraith’ four information processing capacity increasing routes, as here, is desperately necessary… Surely, herein lies the way forward to much better organisational design, integrating the latest of possibilities qua information processing and internal and external networking, making possible the creation of true networked organisations and individuals…?

Oh, and:
[Completely undoctored, also unsmoked, pic from Toronto]

2FA is illegal!

Just when you thought the solutions to your eternal (not) pwd problems were getting mature enough to deploy – nudged to annoyance by all the vendor FUD – and you forgot the solution is totally easy and already in your infra everywhere, you will find … 2FA is declared illegal …

Oh …, it turns out to concern the party drug kind only, not 2FA but 4-FA. Like, here. Phew!
But stil, kids, don’t rely on 2FA either; help users reduce complexity not hinder ’em!

Oh, and:

[When all sober and straight would have been Boring; Lille]

Surge ethiconomics

There was already quite some debate about surge pricing, in particular re [illegal] taxi services.
What I missed so far, are discussions about the economic or raher ethical character of abusing surges and their price tag instabilities. Like, how would you depict such developments in price elasticity graphs; shooting up and down on-curve, and curve shifts included. Is orderly society permissive of such hog cycle disruptions ..? [Term pointing at the characterisation of the CEOs that not want to see anything in/human in what they do]
The asymmetry (shooting) on the curve, is market imperfection; the curve shifts in the long run, are better captured by ‘classical’ economics. Again: the ethical ramifications aren’t value-free (tauto), aren’t of uninterest to anyone that values freedom — as that requires markets to function, which is done by regulating them. The latter is proven so many times I don’t even want to discuss it here.

Stock markets, and stocks, are capped qua max change (volatility spikes), the most extreme competitive markets out there;
why wouldn’t other markets have the same ..?

Your contributions in comments, please… Plus:

[Stable, safe, cleared for use; Madrid]

No Dutch AI

How far behind is the Dutch (startup) scene with AI ..?
That may seem kurt, but …
Really there is no sign of Dutch AI industry or even industriousness.

Unbefitting the Dutch, is it not? ‘We’ should have all the brains needed, the industriousness, the venturing spirit, the openness to things-new.
But apparently, ‘we’re still stuck in collectivist ideals, where rocking the boat is only allowed when for some naïve progress [Uhm this is no sligh to Boyan Slat; on the contrary I and everyone likes his ideas and heart and soul he puts into it]. When searching for ‘Dutch AI scene, hardly anything turns up. This among the hardly search results; ominously.

So, it’s a Shame. And Why ..!?
Yes I did list some why’s but they don’t cut it, against the Aye’s. We need a new élan! How to get such a thing going!?
And:
[If that is the neo-modernistest that you build / apparently want to spend your money on, then well you may be doomed indeed; Zuid-As Ams]

Per vertical lines of defense

What if … Lines of Defense aren’t three (or four or five) ‘horizontally’, but vertical, like actual protection against things getting out of bounds ..?
Wouldn’t that return the whole concept of 3LD, TLD, Three LoD or what’s your favourite abbreviation, to the already tried and tested process control models of yesteryear and when not if Yes, wouldn’t you be found out to be a sort of bumbling eager beaver when you think you’re still doing great and are Really Important and a GRC star and don’t see your kindergarten Importance is called out to hang high ..?

Because then, you’ll need no more big Risk departments with all the procedural justice, compliance on paper (and actual (operating) effectiveness nowhere!), etc., just some nimble support structure. Then, a major part of the conzulting industry would collapse and core management capabilities would have to be returned to formal and practical education and experience-training.

Oh well, one can dream, can’t one?
And:

[A lot of science and engineering there, inside and out, and how beautiful it is (for it); Valencia]

Making yourself less and less special

Over the last couple of decades, we have seen a rather disturbing development. Negative multipliers.
Where the ‘trickle down’ economies have been proven to be the lies that they were assessed to be but no-one listened because the truth already then was buried in the impostor-syndrome shouting of the powerful (not: autorities; they hadn’t any, not: leaders; they didn’t) that were on their way to prove Piketti correct (despite the nitpicky critiques, he was and is; facts overwhelm secondary/tertiary methodology issues). But this is a digression.

Where, moreover, and foremost, sites, platforms, apps, that tried to ‘cut out the middle men’ by brokering themselves … did all a disfavour.
It started with banks et al., once the epitome of the service industries. A large part of the manual processing was transferred to masses of clients. E.g., transactions entry. Left to masses, millions, of unspecialised users thus costing those users millions of man (sic) hours, still today — ad having saved banks much, much less labour costs as management of the processes, coaching the users and systems etc., grew a little and the cheapest categories of labour only saw some cuts.
So, all are worse off, some more than average, and little was saved or made any more efficient or so. All this was sold as Progress and improvement.

This falsehood has been copied into the app world. Where e.g., real estate agents/brokers, are being cut out by self-service apps. Which means less agents/brokers, that were specialised in what they did hence could do it efficiently and earn themselves part of the savings that accrued to the sellers, buyers, since they outsourced their sides in the process not for nothing. The clients, they could earn a living and make enough to provide the brokers with an income. From which the baker could be paid; the baker could pay the butcher, the butcher could pay the supermarket clerk (indirectly), etc.etc.etc. — your classical definition of multiplier effects.
Now that everywhere, not only are people bound to do all sorts of business to which they weren’t accustomed let alone trained, thus losing valuable opportunity to remain specialised i.e., make the most money of their expertise hence had the most available (hum, more or less I know) to multiply (in an economic sense, you pervert mind),
but also numerous links in the multiplier chains are cut out, turning the positive multiplier chains into negative job loss – spend cut chains. It even brings secondary/tertiary markets to life, even when it’s about almost-no-human business…

But will the 0.1% care ..? Not likely.
So we’re doomed. Or ..?

And:

[No time, money to go flaner anymore; M’drid]

D-raacdronische maatregelen

Okay, for those of you unable to understand the disastrous (understatement) word-play in the title because it’s in Dutch… It’s about a court case (verdict here) where neighbours were in this vendetta already and now one flew a camera drone over the other’s property succinctly the other shot down the drone.
Qua culpability for the damage to the drone, the Judge ruled that a. the drone pilot was trespassing so put the drone illegally where it was shot down, b. the gunman [an experienced shot, apparently] was not to damage other peoples’ property, both are guitly and should share the damage (and share the legal expense).

Side note: the verdict also states through witnesses, that the damage incurred was to one rotor only (after which the drone made a controlled landing; not such a good shot after all) and it had been flown into a tree before the incident (not such a good pilot in the first place), so the damage amount as reported by an independent expert were doubtful, even more so since the independent expert nowhere indicated in the report how the assessed drone was identified or identifyable, as the drone in question or otherwise.
Stupid amateurs.

Moreover, the Judge stated that a breach of privacy weighed no more of less that a breach of property rights. Now there‘s the Error [should be all-caps] in the assessment of current-day societal ethics which in this case, where the Judge appears to demonstrate a sensibility of the case i.e., the vendetta between the neighbours having dropped to a state where mediation is an option no more, would have called for understanding of the derogation of property rights by the privacy concerns as is prevalent (yes; fact) in society in which the verdict should fit. Apparently, neighbour considered the privacy breach already of more value that the risk to his property otherwise would have abstained from the risk of property damage. And the property rights should be compared with the privacy rights one has when e.g., throwing away printed materials; when discarded in the dumpster, one has surrendered one’s right to privacy-through-property re the dumped information. When voluntarily move into or over another one’s property, certainly without consent and against that other one’s want, does one not surrender one’s [protection of!] property rights to the other one? Of course one can ask one’s property back but what if the other one refuses or uses it as security re exchange for something else?

Legal scholars don’t seem to Always have a “hackers’ mentality” when it comes to finding all the side roads … Most unfortunately!
And:

[From the department of infinitely high control; Ronchamps]

Profiling the politics of the GDPR

When looking up the definition of ‘politics’, no-one can escape the notion that it regards something-choice or in any form the application of power to make decisions applying to all members of a group.
When looking up what leeways for profiling there is in the GDPR, even when so completely fellow-traveller-like as e.g., here [apart from the many, many more errors of logical reasoning, of thought, and of morality and ethics in that piece], the special category of data immediately springs to mind … that is about political opinion – representing the individuals’ autonomy in matters of choice. As any behaviour in public of said individuals is a matter of display of preference qua conduct in social affairs. As hence anything that has to do with profiling [even if only for the mundane making decisions of what ads to show to certain groups or not; abstracting even from the right (…) to have a human in the loop, seriously], has to do with political preferences.

Where is the field of study, by the way [not so much; rather a both parallel and intertwined track], of metadata and inference being special² categories of data, not requiring consent but should’ve been outlawed per se ..?

Plus:

[Artful bars, but suppressing; Brittas Museum London]