disruption – Page 38 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

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.]

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]

Golden Oldie Pic Of The Day

Yup it’s time for one of those again.
To remind you to always evade normalcy.

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]

Comparatively innovative (Beetleroot)

There was this quite simple hack; in (very) pseudo-code: If 2-wheels Then { Rollerbank; diss up some fancy figures; }
Which calls to mind the Problem of BIOS hacking / backdoor/malware pre-installing, as explained here.

On the one hand, a solution is available: At a sublimated information level, encode, as here. In the physical, car, scenario this would be readily implementable as: Just test the emissions, not rely on data produced by the system itself. Prepared By Client is used pervasively in accounting (financial auditing part) as well so consider yourselves warned…
On the other hand [there always is another hand it seems, possibly because this is real life], in the VW scenario there will probably also be a call for source code reviews. Or at least, from the software development corners, there will be. But then one ends up in the same situation as spelled out in the Bury post: How to verify the verification and not be double-crossed? A source code review would be one part, but how to compare a clean (pun not intended at time of typing) compile / image to what is actually installed (continued, without change-upon-install-to-dirty-version or change-at-service) throughout in the field?

Another issue from this: How to overrule self-driving (or what was it; fully-autonomous) cars ..? The BIOS-hack and Car examples show some intricacies when (not if) one would have a need to overrule near-future “Sorry Dave, I can’t Do That” situations. Once no physical controls are left to take over manually, … Arrmagerrdon. Yes, that 2001 was a rosy, romantic, not horror scenario. And demonstrating that at a comprehensive abstraction level, Prevention still trumps Detection/Correction. But not by much, and the advantage will slip by careless negligence and deliberate deterioration efforts.

Oh well. We all knew that All Is Lost anyway, And then, this:

[(digi)10mm wasn’t wide enough to capture the immersion in this… Noto again]

Roboccountant

Talking about robotisation of the accountancy industry…

Automation is letting a computer do the same, or about the same, as was previously done by hand and/or mind.
This ‘doing’ is a walk-through of an algorithm. In its simplest form, and for major parts the core of accountancy / bookkeeping processing, this was even parameter-free so no switches needed to be made, no decisions at switchpoints. But sometimes, the switchboard was external e.g., in accountancy rulebooks that were but for (idiot) savants (a.k.a. ‘only some accountants’) near- or completely impossible to stuff in one’s head as part of the programming.
The Turing machines have it. But this line is only a display of wannabe Wisdom re core automation / programming knowledge.
Computers were freely programmable. And still are, mostly. Robots? Maybe not so much. But then, they’re of the industrial kind welding together your Tesla, or of the ridiculously purposeless humanoid kind. So, why talk about robotisation when it’s more about automation (of the classical label), nowadays called ANI, in the cloud or not..?
But then, there’s a lot of interpretation and shot calling and estimations up for discussion, in accountancyland. But that was what AI was supposed to solve! So far, we have only explored the either Expert System pure logic, or the ill understood neural networks deployment, but we haven’t integrated well enough the in-between (or supra) field of Fuzzy Logic. This could bring about a far more absolute truth of e.g., 60% admissibility of some estimation and at the same time a 60% inadmissibility of the same number. Then what — is determined by …? But that’s just how it is today, in the accounting industry, disguised as tough talk on admissibility but in reality styled more like cowardly firing squad pleading.
I already blogged about continuous instant report generation based on approved XBRL templates, that could draw on All data available in some organization, to deliver reports with the latest data to just whomever has access to the template/generation engine.
With assurance on the templates, and on the soundness of the base data pool generated/filled e.g. by automated verification against external sources, and on the integrity of the XBRL templates and the generation engine — nothing more needed. Initially, difficult enough, but learning effects will diminish the burden.
A second intermezzo: Of course all assurance will be delivered to your smart watch (sideline: as if such a thing would ever exist). Just strap a tablet to your wrist and you’d still be out by quite some margin, on screen size required to quickly glance over all relevant data (in one view! as is almost always required to understand the displayed, to have information from the data).
What if we find that all fuzzy logic including zero-to-somewhat fuzzyfied expert system’s translations of the hand- and rulebooks, would be implementable on rather simple neural networks, in the order of magnitude of a snail’s brain. No, not hinting at you, but the slime trail left by that Partner you know, is tell-tale.
When not if, weaving errors turn up in the rulebook algorithmic… When not if, the translation of True And Fair View into materiality criteria (NOT the other way around..!!! as it would be today but also as is complete and utter stupidity of the sackable offense and life without parole magnitude) will turn out to be faulty.
The idea that blockchain based trust will replace the value (if any(more)) of the wet signature — has that concept become sufficiently laughable ..? — of any particular person for reliance, is moot but may have to include indemnity / insurance coverage in one way or another, or is all accountancy (?) fee placed in escrow until a pool fund for expected claims is (over)filled?
But, will blockchain trust not go the same way as reliance on open source software ..? Will it not fail in light of the Bystander Effect ..? Then, exploited by the worst, first. As usual.

Well, just some touch points. The main one being: The rules are algorithmic, almost by definition. Until now, there was no good automated engine to draw on, but the inroads Watson is making in the medical field (oh how comparable!), show how close we (well…) are to being outflanked by … Hey lets have a contest about the name this first Roboccountant will have …!
As long as we don’t fall for the trappings to believe in any kind of child’s hand is easily filled expectation of a humanoid robot but rather one that has no physical existence other than its bits spread out over the global infra.

Oh hey before letting you in the dust, to clear up, herewith:

[Not evil but Ibla]

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]