Applicable to business – Page 31 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Oh, of course: DACcountantcy

Was reminded by this seer peer (no typos) in a casual remark that DAOs (DACs) may change quite a bit about the world as we know it. “DAOs are a game changing invention enabling a new model for human collaboration. #blockchain #C4ACC” (© him) — but apart from human collaboration (note the pejorative weight of the early ’40s this stil carries with it even today, in continental Europe), also the value of Trust in singular persons may shift.
DAOs then being of course, of course, the element I forgot to mention in my roboccountant post.

So, with this one linked in, now all the elements of that post make sense. In which the ensemble may have surpassed me. Or:

[Materially a circle, to any human accountant and dress codes displayed, are of the apparent relaxed Big4 dc’s of today; DC]

Na de accountant, de kolenboer

[In Dutch] Nou ja, over de volgorde valt te twisten. Over de beider in één mandje niet. Zoals uiteengezet in dit werk, is beroepsmatig alles eindig. Al zullen rechters (en helaas ook advocaten en vergelijkbare beroepen, en nog veel helazer politici) nog wel een tijdje meegaan, alles kent z’n tijd. Ook de tovenaarsleerlingen-die-eigenlijk-nooit-echt-van-de-grond-zijn-gekomen, de IT-auditors, zien hun einde al naderen — vooral vanwege dat niet van de grond (modder) losgekomen zijn. Ingehaald, voorbijgevlogen door ballast-lichteren (onder henzelf) die de fundamenten van het zwaarder-dan-lucht-vliegen begrijpen, doorvoelen en ernaar handelen zonder zich in bigger (heavier) is better te verliezen dus hard on principles, soft on rules spelen. Spelen, ja, op de Huizinga’se manier. Grappig, achter die linkref stond (31-10) nog: “Nog niet verschenen” — onze Westerse lineaire-tijdbijziendheid speelt op.

“De directeur leidde me destijds [2011] trots rond en zei: ‘Die mensen zijn mijn belangrijkste kapitaal.’ In 2015 zijn ze allemaal vervangen door robots.” … ” We houden het niet meer tegen en de wereld draait door.”

Nog afgezien van het afschuwelijke misbruik dat van die leugen over FTE’s werd en nog heel veel wordt gemaakt… Robots zullen we allen zijn … of niet zijn.

Nou ja, you’ve been warned … En:

[~~Make no little plans, my friend~~ make no little men …]

Privvezy Protrection

An off the cuff — where’s gentlemens’ style, these days? — remark hit a nerve. When an interesting company had some very interesting speakers and me. On IAM, data leakage and … well, what was it, data protection XOR privacy …?

Because the little collateral remarks was about Privacy being the ethical imperative, but being implementable straight away, would need translation to operational Data Protection.

Yes, where the core of legislation is about the latter, in an attempt to achieve the former… to the degree feasible, achievable, and wanted.
Demonstrating that all legalese, even of the EU kind, is just about white washing whatever you’d want to get away with.

A sore reminder that when one would want (hypothetically, for the sake of the argument that such would be theoretically possible) Privacy, one’s still on one’s own. Against all that is formally formed or not as Institutions, against the windmills that all want you to believe don’t exist or have power over you…

But hey, I’m a happy bunny so I’ll leave you with:

[When Penzance would be at Bergen On The Beach]

As Einstein said. Did NOT…!

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

Or
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results”

But then, the original goes something like:
“Insanity is making the same mistakes and expecting different results” … (emphasis mine)

Which is obviously what all the misquoters do: Making the same mistaken attribution and expecting anyone to still laugh and/or understand but to the formers’ dismay this doesn’t happen.
And for good reason. #2 above is maybe the most worthwhile; in an ever faster changing world one hardly can expect the same result when all context has changed so pervasively. Through which #1 would be outright false: It wouldn’t be insanity, but the opposite…!
Oh how people are like colanders: the coarse stays, the fine stuff falls through and is discarded. False shortcuts for simpletons remain, e.g., the whole TLD thing. From a (relatively…) philosophical angle that might even make some sense, but the small-minded little eager beavers make something completely missing the point of it by zealous but unfortunate misinterpretations due to lack of sophisticated understanding.

But then, what is aimed for, is the actual quote: Not seeing the above.
Just sayin’. Now get over it.

[Reminds me of someone’s hair. Just can’t get my head (sic) ’round to recalling whose.]

Define ‘Risk’…

This should be an easy one, by pointing at ISO 31000 and its definition the effect of uncertainty on objectives. But that same easy def also raises more questions than it answers, e.g.,

How to define [ hence | and ] classify effects,
How to define [ hence | and ] classify uncertainty (a biggy …!),
How to define [ hence | and ] classify objectives,
How to establish measurement of effects,
How to establish measurement of uncertainty,
How to establish measurement of objectives

that all have an impact on, and are impacted by, the definition. Hopefully, I don’t have to elucidate define hence classify, define and classify or establish measurement regarding effects, uncertainties or objectives. I’ve been at the subject before (here and many posts since) so much that it hurts, me too. But still, many won’t listen and remain stuck in their proven (sic) mistaken belief that the World we’re dealing with, can be caught in models to ‘predict’ the future and/or at the same time remain stuck in, by now approaching hilarious, classifications like Basel II-IV’s… or the slowly but steadily outdating of the classical information security mantra of CIA — those three classes of objectives don’t cut it anymore.

For the more advanced reader (approx. 90% by now — hopefully), the question remains: How to define and classify uncertainty, effect(s!) and objectives ..? Standard classifications all had their stab at it, but failed for the fuzzy nature of those phenomena. Some leaned to the Uncertainty side, trying foremost to classify threats. Some, to the effects side with their vulnerabilities-first approach — via the Impacts classification. Some even had Objectives in mind when pondering the downside potentials of loss-of-upside potential, including scour-for-opportunities to any (0-100%) degree. And then, there’s the abovementioned surefire laugh over ‘Event’ driven analysis… yes consistency, completeness and orthagonality remain essential.
But above all, none captured the time-fluctuation confluence of causes, effects, impacts, … [what have we] that all have such unanalysable structure. Due to their continuous nature; contrasted to the discrete nature often but cannot-be-more-false’ly assumed. [If you don’t get the fundamental difference between discrete and continuous phenomena, go study core math in depth, length and breath. Which is helpful against so great many ills of mind…] And due to the enormously-over-three body problem of interactions [link is about grand business not the petty risk analysis kind but the link therein is valid for the above, too].
Modeling in order to understand may work, but only to understand the exaggeratedly dumbed-down model, the conclusions of which if normative are (in this case, there is such a thing as absolute) certain not to apply or work so why bother. Oh, maybe you may bother, to get a feel of your inadequacy. [Note: I don’t feign to be above that. But I don’t allow you to assume you are as that is both a theoretical and practical logical error.]

Yesy, yes, I know; there very probably is no One Classification Fits All, then. But we may dream, and strive for it, don’t we ..? And at least be very, very clear about it — it being the approach we do take, and what it might potentially (with the probability being above zero but certainly being far off 100%) achieve. Aren’t GUTs, like the Standard Model or the hyperdimensional string theories, the dreams that stuff are made of, too ..?
As always, your suggestions, please. And:

[Just wait till Etna Says Boom. Or don’t.]

T.L.D. Richelieu

A.J. du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac, a.k.a. ‘Big R’ in quotes-land, was ahead of time to say “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”.

Surely, he meant to instate the ‘prove me’ idiocy that pervades the TLD prison found in so many organizations, where regular folks trying hardest to manage, aren’t allowed to because they first have to comply (completely, slave-style) with filing requirements that can only be read to deliver the above-mentioned six lines. If only it were the six lines! Books have to be filled with full proof of having followed each and every petty little rule, that like a spider web was only designed to catch the little bugs whereas the big ones just bumble through.
The joy really starts, for at least some — not the managers but the ‘auditors’ and other improductive on-lookers — when necessity (sic) calls for alternative execution and registration due to customer satisfaction requirements not aligning with the One-Size-fits-the-Universe design of ‘processes’. Where the accused has to deliver a guilty plea with perfect documentation, to a bigoted law. The latter qualification, because it runs counter to the ultimate and ulterior goal of the organization, proven by a deviation being necessary to serve the latter. In client requirement versus framework consistency, the former always should take precedence and the latter is a fallacy, also in view of the ever-faster changing external and internal world, but things are all too often the other way around.

So, “Here, we have followed to perfection a slight deviation from the once-planned process steps, in order to serve the customer better and hence raise profitability” is about all the six lines one needs…

I feel sorry for your loss of innocence (-disguise of evil spirit)… hence to sooth:

[Intensive human farming; squeeze till dry then dump]

Old, new, borrowed, blue or is it?

Some claimed Über was (sic) disruptive. Others try to figure out how to ‘disrupt’ themselves or their (?) industry. Mostly, the latter comes down to analysis of how things are / are done in the industry, and finding radical improvements.

Now here’s three things re the taxi ride market:
a. Where traditionally, supply and demand happened to be present at the same location in the street, or demand waited for supply to show up, we now have a pre-match. Or hold it: that existed by calling a taxi co.
b. Supply has been upgraded in quality. Nothing revolutionary here; premium services have always been available.
c. Rules as set by democratic society, are circumvented. E.g., rather operational/technical minimum requirements, pricing standards (against driver/customer extortion and surge pricing and similar Hobson’s Choice trapped-demand ploys) and limits to (over)supply, by taxi regulations. In many places, the newcomer just did the outright illegal. Huh, quite a feat but should remain culpable.
d. [I dislike proper counting] There’s a feedback option on the quality from and to both sides. Drivers, and customers. Obviously doing the latter a sizeable disservice they still seem to swallow (possibility for recourse!? legally required per privacy laws, where they exist; maybe not the USofA…). Doing the former a further tie-down into a minion’s position (far beyond what also already existed, called a phone, you know, those things with curly wires?), enslaving.

Now, by my guess, of the above only most minor, gradual differences apply. If nothing at all radical is disruption …

I’ll leave you on the curb with:

[Disrupted lives, but of the ultimate Honour kind that the above is the opposite of; Arlington Nat’l]

Nothing as powerful as ill-guided over the top Lean (i.e.) self-destruction

Where Lean creates its own calcification — compared to, and evoking, its Schumpeterian nemesis the long tail start-up disruptors sphere of true customer service.
Because, think of it: Lean is about reducing the handling of variance, of inputs, processing, and outputs. But nobody wants ever less adapted products. The Makers‘ Movement is on its way for a reason..! No-one cares for the hyper-efficient execution of ever more useless processes. Oh fine that you’re doing things so six black belt’y sigma-less (sic); nobody will give you a cent for it. As your value would be in the opposite: The attention to each and every individual quirkiness. Ecce homo idolaticus, ecce shrinking spiral, ecce dull prophets …

Just wanted to share this insight, though. And:

[Verrry much unfinished business… ’15 DC]

Lanier will Boomerang on you

Those of you who are in the know, are in the know about my tendency to favor proof of Lanier’s thoughts, when not if dystopian…
And then, there’s Boomerang‘s org model.
14.000 creatives, all vying for a handful of odd jobs. Showing that this kind of dismal disruption can happen anywhere …

Oh well:

[This not even referencing the hugeness of the failure, even; sculpture garden, DC]

The Bureau of Chaos, by Theory

As a side note to, e.g. this here masterpiece…:
The tendency of bureaucracies to ever further detail its rulesets, that quickly become so burdensome [apart from other ills, ethically much graver], that is evident wherever (top-down) principles are translated in quasi- (not even semi-) mathematical ways, algorithmically almost, to the level of pervasive implementation, stems from the ultimate control approach to life clashing with the ultimate finest-grain detailed descriptions of the universe. Intentional, and definitely normative, description (in order to control! Man over Nature!) banging heads with extensional description.
Which will petrify, then fail because it creates its own Chaos structure, as described here. Where ‘repairs’ to the System are attempted over and over again since the initial values were not infinitely exactly known, can never be. So, one builds rulesets than behave like fractals (zoomed into), in particular when studied to understand and maybe subsequently fight.

Still, the Why of latter-day Bureaucracies (for once, I tried to avoid the overly negative, accurate and pejorative ethical (and esthetical) qualifications I commonly give to these totalitarian, inhumane structures — the latter qualification because of the Will to un-humanize it all) remains in doubt, as the Man over Nature thing (setting rules, hence achieving predictability) is somewhat less valid than otherwise; a bleak reflection of what we feel is a better description of motive.
[Intermission: Be aware as you were, that the b rulesets might be the spelled-out kind but the unwritten rules- social group kinds are also included.]
Ah, back to Maslow, maybe? Yes,yes, was dissed over the past couple of years; attempted to — and failed, probably due to unawareness of its deep values and not only superficial Meaning. Exceptions, the uncontrolled (by definition, and as the Outside is by definition, too), are threats to the achieved in that pyramid. ..? Though the higher up one is, the better one can handle ambiguity, uncertainty, the unexpected, black swans and Extremistan.

Just wanted to put it down for you. And at at last a somewhat positive turn, I’ll leave you with:

[Royal waiting (room) for Godot (i.e., National Railways everywhere), Amsterdam — notice the almost perfect horizon .. little less perfect but hanging in there … whoops! of the horizontal orientation]