collaborative economy – Page 7 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Without voice (left); a lot

Sometimes, one sees a recurrence of the remark that those who complain (loud(est)), shouldn’t for they have a good time by apparently standing to lose something but having more than enough, though possibly threatened, to be able to shout around and one should listen to the silent that have no voice by being too weak to raise it and hence need our attention and support much more.
So… which groups in society, of whatever slice or dice, do we hear complain (loudest) nowadays and have no ‘right’ to? Right, compared to the really, seriousy needy. And which groups don’t we hear from though we the String should hear from and listen to?

One need not have studied the Classics — though that may help a lot (as here / search ‘Oh, yeah?’) but many compense by being wise despite lack of formal education and others mistake themselves in the opposite due to the opposite — to see that in any devolved state of affairs in societies, since the Greeks and their philosophers’ ill understanding of the Too Far of Utopian visions taken too far, extremes (sic) of total egalitarianism in ‘democracy’ (quod non!) or absolutism commonly by some boor(s), there comes some time that balance must be brought back, from the extremes, with apparently inappropriate circumvention of the absolutes’ symptoms and have ring leaders that understand and modulate their mob rule to levels where truly, ‘government’ (whether official or not, the latter by filling in the blanks that totalitarian bureaucracy leaves; look ‘Southern Italy’ as a general pointer, not too literally) will start to defend the weak from the strong. [Hey a sudden period. But … clarity and brevity of sentences are quite perpendicular qualitative vectors!] As the strong will be able to look after their own interests per se already, and the weak have none to fence for them — but now will. Noblesse oblige.

So take care ..!
But either you knew this all already, sigh; or it’s pearls before you.

Leaving you with:

[Belittle no one human, my friend; NY ..?]

Ketenregie en legerkorpsvakgrenzen

Tsja en dan denk je terug aan de afgelopen decennia waarin het maar niet lukte om in semi-(quasi-? sub-? nep-?) overheidsland ketenregie op poten te zetten. Nee, nee, nee, er ‘werkt’ misschien hier en daar iets, maar dat komt niet verder dan een operationeel niveau van geen-nucleair-conflict met op tactisch en strategisch niveau een totalitaire koude oorlog.
En ja, in de private sector (op zich al bedroevend, dat er een aparte term bestaat voor wat toch 90+% van de economie zou moeten beslaan maar niet verder komt dan een procent of 30, hóógstens) is er wel iets tot stand gebracht, maar dan met geweld en keiharde afstraffing door failliet bij minder-dan-maximale totale opoffering aan de klant.

Ah, de klant. Van de keten, aan het eind van het productieverhaal.

En oh, er zijn wel modellen. Degenen die nog een kans hebben inzicht te hebben (opgedaan), pakken namelijk hun VS 2-1351 erbij. En lezen vooraf nog even hun IK2-25 ;-] en dan hoofdstuk 8 uit voornoemde. Maar dat terzijde, want de essentie is dat het de lessen terugbrengt inzake de kwetsbaarheid voor aanvallen vanuit het Oosten die zich, van die zijde de intelligentie erkennende die zich zal richten op exploitatie van de zwakke plekken aan onze kant, zal richten op de legerkorpsvakgrenzen.
Omdat daar de coördinatie zwakker zal zijn over de vakgrenzen heen, en de ‘eigen’ suboptimalisatie binnen de vakken tot verminderde aandacht voor de grenzen leidt.

En … dat klinkt bekend ja. En inderdaad, daarin ligt het knelpunt bij regie en toezicht over de hele, van achter, te doen hebbende met een tegenstander (sic) over de hele, tegenover. Die zo is naar interpretatie van de eigen doelen, nog niet in staat is tot tactische nucleaire actie (via de politiek) maar wel de eigen belangen onvoldoende tegemoetgekomen ziet.
En dan? Dan dus de oplossingen uit de door de eeuwen heen ontwikkelde praktijk ter hand genomen. Inzake dwang van hogerhand tot maximale coördinatie tussen de keteneenheden en opoffering van de eigen borstklopperij ten faveure van de totale prestatie, op straffe van degradatie. Zou dat niet boeiend zijn; de holste vaten vanuit de leiding verplicht voor de rest van de carrière in het call center tewerkstellen ..?

Ach, als, áls nou eens de Mexican armies van bureaucraatjes aan de FLOT zouden worden gedumpt… Page en Popla zouden de omzet fors zien stijgen. En het bewust worden van de eigenlijke opdracht zou na catharsis en vervanging door Echte leiders tot zo veel betere overheidsprestaties leiden…

Dromen mag, toch ..? En:

[Geschikt voor de ‘leidinggevenden’; Stockholm]

Some quotes, out of context

Indebted to David Graeber’s Debt here, for the following which for a change is just a bunch of quotes completely out of context, even worse on the representativeness point, and to make matters … worse, maybe, … some remarks from Yours Truly…

Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, the hunter insisted that being truly human meant refusing to make such calculations, refusing to measure or remember who had given what to whom, for the precise reason that doing so would inevitably create a world where we began “comparing power with power, measuring, calculating” and reducing each other to slaves or dogs through debt. (p.79) — This may be why so many bureaucrats, and many an auditor behaving within the worst corners of that category, appear to behave as if in debt ..?

If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, “Hand me the wrench,” his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, “And what do I get for it?” — even if they are working for Exxon Mobile, Burger King, or Goldman Sachs. … One might even say that it’s one of the scandals of capitalism that most capitalist firms, internally, operate communistically. True, they don’t tend to operate very democratically. Most often they are organized around military-style top-down chains of command. But here is often an interesting tension here, because top-down chains of command are not particularly efficient: they tend to promote stupidity among those on top and resentful foot-dragging among those on the bottom. (pp.95-96) — The rest of the discussion over the natural tendencies in corporate internal/external behavior echoes society’s many comments, including mine on this blog…

Exchange, then, requires formal equality — or, at least, the potential for it. This is precisely why kings have so much trouble with it. (p.109)

Rabelais places the encomium in the mouth of one Panurge, a wandering scholar and man of extreme classical erudition who, he observes, “knew sixty-three ways of making money — the most honorable of which was stealing”. (p.124) — I may want to rid my LinkedIn profile of some niceties …

[Comparing Chapter Eight, Credit versus Bullion (p.211–) with ‘Piketty’ might make a great grad+ thesis ..?]
[Similarly, p.383– may be read and viewed, analysed, in light of “blockchain currencies’ ” lofty promises of money without recourse to state fiduciants but to anonymous (and masses of) trustees.]

OK then, as a final one, important for those that still consider Adam Smith’ Wealth to have some modicum of value still:
For Smith, the pursuit of wealth beyond a point where one has achieved such a comfortable position was pointless, even pathological. (p.399)

Which indicates the point I’m still aiming for… And:

[Why you’re looking at the ceiling of my garden shed ..? Palazzo Nicolaci, Noto again]

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]

Stealing others’ Innovation flag

On how one (organisation) can be truly innovative, but another gets all the credit — later on when History gets written down.
I mean, have you checked the innovation of Tesla ..? Which consisted, apart from the green(?)fields start of operations, with a simple copy of an iconic car. Indeed, not the S type, but the Lotus Elise. Yes, yes, I know, not many parts are the same but that misses the point..! What Tesla vehemently denies, is that buyers don’t give a single … [censored] about said parts, they buy a design. And well, on that point … is there a better summary than ‘carbon (body) copy’ ..?

And the all-electric part ..? Also, had many predecessors.
Apart from which, the actual innovation which as so many ‘Inventions’ of the past twenty centuries was a rediscovery of a lost art, was in the electric — and the grand prize for putting that on the serious market goes to Toyota for their Prius.

Just realise that it has all the characteristics of a true disruption… demonstrated on the outside by its (initial) design, that was of course ‘corrected’ by the photos of Cameron Diaz’ and others’ endorsement.

So… where’s T’s innovation at? The S type that’s too expensive (by far, if you add appropriate options) for most folk ..? It’s not overly innovative in design, nor in … everything else. Looks good, yes, but …
And why would I still not be able to drive to my holiday destination with refills in under 10mins only every 1000km ..?
And, if it were true and distinctive innovation, competitors would have followed big time. But hey haven’t; apparently easily keeping up with smaller-step improvements.

Though, I’m not negative, at least T’s CEO has the gusto to go after moon shots. Praise for that, would one not want many more of the 1% to follow suit so they’d spend their money wisely… And:

[Bam! in Syracuse the Original]

C’est arrivé près de chez vous; LoRaWAN

Yet another major building block of the Future … in place. [And, not a ref to some City of Light atrocities]
Where’s the Privacy and (OR) Security experts …? For certainly, though almost out of public view, the undercurrents develop fast, into a maelstrom — I’d like it even more in this form — of possibilities; to be abused before being controlled, as has always been the case throughout history.

Oh well, can’t stop Progress, certainly not of the Technology kind… But one can hope we (sic or huh?) the Concerned will be in sufficient numbers to be able to and to be allowed to insert the appropriate controls into the whole shazam.
Like, you know,

[Or is this an Tocqueville’ian opposite ..?]

Your enhancement needed, again

Yes, enhancement needed and you are in the same sentence. Because in the back of your head, you know you need it.
And, in particular, you know you need it for the below post, which is a plain repost of an earlier one here. But that’s because I am serious about the elaboration of the ideas depicted (huh, not much more than that, yet!) into a sort of mapping thing by which one can categorise new developments but also point at pitfalls, roadblocks (not yet in the pics), et al., by which one can track developments in areas, sectors etc., to see where they’re heading.

The post on which I ask for your serious comments, then:
”
I have a number of pics for you… As it stands, I haven’t been able to find sufficient time to write out all that I wanted to have depicted… Meaning you’ll have to do the interpretation yourself. Like, e.g., after reading Chris Anderson’s Makers. Or, see where blockchain’s DACs will strike.
Or, I will return to describe the bits and pieces in detail.

But for those worth their salt, the interpretation of the grand overall pic will be a trifle, and the same to comment. The keyboard is yours …

[Being the full overview mentioned]

[Starting (!) with the big corp world that domimates the business press]

[And some things about the battle in the middle, with all the pressures from all sides]

[Plus of course the small-scale stuff from Makers — not all hosanna]

[The kicker, on the joblessness]

Growth / disruption

I have a number of pics for you… As it stands, I haven’t been able to find sufficient time to write out all that I wanted to have depicted… Meaning you’ll have to do the interpretation yourself. Like, e.g., after reading Chris Anderson’s Makers. Or, see where blockchain’s DACs will strike.
Or, I will return to describe the bits and pieces in detail.

But for those worth their salt, the interpretation of the grand overall pic will be a trifle, and the same to comment. The keyboard is yours …

[Being the full overview mentioned]

[Starting (!) with the big corp world that domimates the business press]

[And some things about the battle in the middle, with all the pressures from all sides]

[Plus of course the small-scale stuff from Makers — not all hosanna]

[The kicker, on the joblessness]

Double shhh

[On a rooftop ..! ‘t Spant, Bussum]

Yeah, it’s a post on double secrets again. Not just because I haven’t seen any conclusive research on what to do with it; how to handle oversight (what is warranted, , etc.), what limits to justifications there would be, how to close the recursive secrecy gap, etc.
Not even because of stuff like this.

But because another issue was pointed out yesterday/today in a post at Bruce Schneier’s blog: Where double secrets may exist, trust is lost, and (theoretically and practically) impossible to regain.

Which is a problem not only for ‘current’ (big) companies relying on the trust of ‘consumers’ (who are in fact drone suppliers of almost completely free raw materials) and other business partners on the receiving end, as their business model will crumble to nothing when (not if) those cheapoo supplier leave in massive numbers.
It also spells trouble for the not-yet-big, almost-not-yet-companies. As defined in this slide deck, those new companies rely on distributed power, which is based on trust. The said (not sad) companies can grow only to the point where the base of trusting counterparts in exchanges (~facilitated) still grows. If at one end, trustors still flow into the system, but trustors on the other end flow out at a faster pace, the base will be ever narrower; the house of cards becomes more fragile and will collapse as some business wind (if only draft) comes along.

So, in order to really ‘disrupt’ as if that would be a lofty goal of any business [I am very much opposed to such thinking! ‘Disruption’ invariably leads to massive job losses and ever so many more family members’ life dreams ruined. No, the new industry will be of (relatively) jobless growth and yes, at some scale one has to take the macro effects into account], one would need to have a pre-emptive way to deal with double secrets, so the trustor trust base may grow in breath and depth.

My feeling is now that this sort of issue may also be the foundation of the inevitable-collapse-of-any-democracy issue. As predicted toungue in cheek, and shown practically throughout history. Are we at the verge of such a (Schumpeterian?) collapse, dinosaur extinction phase, in the way societies manage themselves? Utopian or distopian visions of what’s next for the coming era (remember the ‘Mayan calendar’ prediction of such a ‘new era’ ..?) may both be overblown, or … does reality always play out a bleak version of what could have been?

All in all, it seems rather important than someone [preferably someone more intelligent than me – regarding these issues, that is] would have a look at this all…
Is there really nothing out there in the intersection of sociology-, trust-, legal-, and economics- research that has pointers on how to resolve this issue ..? If the NSA or other TLA(s) are listening in and would have some Confi stuff, that’s good, too …!