education – Page 25 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Is the Valley over the hill ..?

This, about real estate. How some current wave of innovation is in its tail stages, like this. Is that bad, or is it a sign of health to enter the unhealthy stage ..? Riddles…
Or rather, it’s about how the dam break of the app effect gravitated to the black hole of Mountain View Et Al. But the wave of innovations that it spurred, or had spurred before and in parallel to it, too, now pulsars its way to other places as well, into the ‘outer space’ that the world is. As the collective built stuff that is unbound geographically, so the development (capabilities) spread as well. The ‘placelessness’ of the innovation is pulling ahead for real, finally. New (?) economies (China, India, Latin world) may have bigger natural language and native (sic) market areas, and the vast unrealized talent pools [I don’t mean the tiny fraction of happy few that transfer to CA but the other 99,5% as well]. Where the latter, in CA, natively there, may have lost steam, handicapped by the head start (law) in e.g., education and through the rising overhead of non-productives, the consumerists burden. And awaiting Schumpeter’s triumphant return.
So, the real estate might not matter too much, soon. All will be free to travel, anywhere, much more often, and still be innovation-productive. Ah, the ideal!

[Yes you figured that out correctly… Marzamemi again]

Starreveld in the Information Age (industry)

@deKokPieter or others (or just one of his interns; grad work?) may have to help me out with yet another crazy (not (?)) idea of mine:
There was (is?) this great theoretic of accountancy called Starreveld, with his value cycle typology for, literally, every kind of industry and on close reading, even sub-industry. Given that we live in times of information processing factories, how would they fit the model or how would we have to read / translate / interpret the model to ‘work’ in today’s day and age?

Since the information processing industry, being almost all of the world’s service industries including (almost) all public sector organisations, works in an extremely devolved form of hyper-mass-single-piece production including storage, and how do we translate e.g. stock type and count to ‘information’ and ‘data point’?
If we take this approach, i.e., from both sides, being from the current industry operation side to Starreveld and the other way around, do we have a complete mapping and what do we learn for control and audit ..?

Just putting it out there. This, too:

[That little theatre of note, I mean Noto]

Program. Check. Not.

Going to present at a conference. You know, to raise one’s reputation that is the single currency in independent-consultancyland, and to gain feedback on one’s private research and professional (industry) development zeal.

So, I was to present at (ISC)², or rather, not, as notified in an email of May 7^th, less than 2 months after proposal submission.
And indeed the program/agenda presented online then (and the weeks before already), didn’t show my name. Bummer. Was granted a slot at a back-up filing (ISACA Copenhagen) but had to decline, due to private circumstances.
Over the course of the last couple of months, did receive some (Google)anonymous cell calls from the UK. Dismiss, obviously, as this is the Fast Route to phone bill exploitation by connect-throughs; everyone knows this, right? The some that I could (Google)trace, and the some that left voice messages, I reacted and sometimes responded to. Lesson: Be traceable via your cell number or else.
And then, yesterday this guru peer sent me a message whether I would be in town already — the town being far away, vaguely recalling the above conference of first preference…

So, … checking the conference agenda (PDF here) … my name is there …!
Texted back whether peer might present the rejection email to conference organizers which he did, causing some more cell calls with some voice mail (08:49h) about ‘terrible mistake’ and whether I could still present, at 12:10h — considering having to dress up, make a full professional presentation, pack up, get to the bus, get to the train or to the airport, get a suitable ticket, get on (train takes only 8,5hrs; plane: gate time delay, flight time, offboard delay = ?), transfer to the conference venue, for half an hour talk time … Oh. Or go the next day, in the slot that the replacement speaker got instead but then, I’d still lose out all credibility before having even started.

This just in: per tweet, MIS Training EMEA thanks me for my session… Adding to the audience that will be aware that I didn’t deliver.

Now, still awaiting a proposal from their side, how to compensate for the:

Reputational damage of being shown as if not delivering, to a crowd of foremost peers and potential clients;
Loss of outright marketing opportunity [note: not ‘sales’], to the same;
Feedback not received, which could greatly have enhanced both my service offering and the acceptance and acceptability of the same;
Loss of (permanent) education I would have got from being at the conference and hearing all the cutting edge developments in the field (that the organizers promise);
Expense and leisure of private travel (incl. spouse) that would have shouldered the conference and would have been half deductible on business for income tax.

I’ll stop now and wait. Some time, before switching to legal recourse.

[Justice will be served.]

Proof gone crazy

Was reminded recently, again, over the Proofing Gone Crazy aspect of the ‘show me’ approach in the totalitarian, SOx-ignited tidal wave of filing requirements.
As if the better the files, would not prove the better the manager is at hiding ever more wrongdoing ..!
As if it wasn’t, and still is!, the job of the auditor, the overseer and what have we (under whichever laughable guise of ‘regulator’ or even anything with ‘governance’ pitched in; ludicrous misunderstanding of what that would actually entail), to go out and find the proof oneself, not bothering the ones doing real, serious work beyond the bare necessity.
As if anything improved in ‘quality’ except auditors’ fees and the efficiency thereof — as if that were the purpose of it all.
As if the little time left after all the overhead is done, to do that real, serious work, doesn’t deteriorate gravely in ‘quality’ by the utter demotivation and distraction of all overhead requirements.

As if ANY of the original objectives were achieved. Only those that bulldozer over them, and/or are outrageously bombing the whole circus into the ground by pushing the pennywise and poundfoolish over the hill by exacting rule-based perfection while themselves taking the principle-based approach to break all that could be dreamt up for moral and ethical rules that apply still, everywhere, achieve anything. That’s a nice split main cause sentence …

So we’ll have to fight.

If only because originally, I wanted to start off with a title ‘Proof Sets Free’ after some motto on a gate that is commonly taken to point at humanitarian atrocities of a historical monumental scale — that are a direct and difficult to avoid consequence of the bureaucratic way of thinking. Those that toil under this motto, are set free only by ‘death’, physical or mentally, that is caused by their toils in the first place.
Which fits nicely with the utterly immoral requirement to turn oneself in at every misdemeanor that will for certain be taken as grave crime, including producing all proof of fact, and paying not only all legal fees but also for the bullet with which one is shot. Yes the world over that is considered a crime by the courts… Only here, the courts do not comply with the trias of politica and have all the power…

Now, just for laughs, try to prove me wrong in the above. Clowns are fun.

In return, you get this:

[Somewhat better here; The Hague (?)]

Upping crypto

Lukewarm protests against Free Crypto, and trawling the oceans completely empty for metadata if not more … Seems like a two-faced two-front ‘battle’ that may even be tiring to uphold (face): Once one is into meta because it gives so much more information (sic) than mere data (content), one would need much less access to actual data, wouldn’t one? And, if then publicly having postured to not be able to break into crypto stuff (where one can with near-certainty break into all stack levels below it, down to the BIOS if not chip level!) almost meaning that for sure one can, why would one push too hard to make it illegal ..?
The only thing one can think of, is that declaring it illegal somehow block another’s access to plausible deniability or to Fifth Amendment claims (that are fundamental for any decent human society). So… that’s what’s going on. …?

And this points to countering TLAs by working with crypto at a higher level; producing encrypted content that looks pretty darn innocuous until decrypted; not seeing scrambled info but at a higher-to-lower-to-transport-and-back-to-higher avenue, transferring Information over seemingly white noise Data signals. Clever… Stego. How’s things on that front (?) ..!?

Also:

[Relevant: Pic may not exist. …]

Remember, not to forget where Disruptions started

Never forget… All that is latter-day Innovation or Disruption or however fake’ly hype phrase you’d want to apply, started off much, much earlier as true Invention.

Of which I was reminded when coming across this, once again. Ya’all know the recent remake of it, but did you know and sufficiently realise how much earlier the true Invention had been made, already ..!?

Go in humbleness, now. And:

[Would need a serious rehash to be Democracy again ..!?]

The First Digital Native

(S)he has been identified: The first Digital Native, as far as we know: of this planet.
And it goes by the name of … Watson.

Though of course the debate over the term, its definition, and generation identification has been a decade and a half, and some have cleverly found that maybe humans weren’t into it that much anyway. And, in Dutch: this. How millennials aren’t tech savvy, they’re (just, only) tech-dependent: slaves. Pervasively.
But let’s be real: How to be born is what counts, not in which environment. So, what ‘intelligent‘ Thing out there was Born Digital, in a way that all context was and is digital, nothing less ..? Should be a thing that came into being, grew up, was educated, raised, utterly digital. There: Watson.

If that really is one Thing. Or is it a thought complex already, spawning into all directions without needing to resort to some singular (heh) physical identity ..? I guess the latter. The singularity is here already; straight away cleverly, slyly not revealing itself…

[Bit dark and tilted [unedited]. Never mind; be dazzled …]

Sharing a name for economy

Rightfully, I thought as I read this article… but then, not.

Yes, ‘sharing economy’ is abuse by the UburbNb’s of this world as they’re exploitative scams that have little to do with the actual Sharing Economy.
The actual Sharing Economy is about sharing because of caring, which is price-less in itself and holds quite some anti-monetary ulterior goals.
The Sharing Economy shouldn’t have to change its name because others, in an ethically-horrendous and despicable robbery, claimed it.

And all this is futile resistance. “All that is of value, is defenseless” (Troelstra)

And:

[Yes, the same as a couple of weeks ago, now from a approx. 120deg different angle, still works ..?]

A sobering thought

Actually, not one but a great many sobering thoughts, in this great piece: What They Don’t Teach You in “Thinking Like the Enemy” Class. In a high-quality series.

To which one might add … not too much. Maybe the 100%-is-infeasible line, and Schneier’s Return of the Security (is..?) Theatre trope. Oh, and the one that has still taken far too little root; the deperimetrisation-means-you-need-to-focus-on-information-not-the-fortress aspect that has been around for a decade already but still has hardly been implemented properly.

Or, we redesign the world. Somehow, we need to get into the mindsets of the global populace – that so far hasn’t been standardised to any degree; happily! for cultural diversity hence overall societal flexibility, development and progress … – to accept that after human development was pushed by physical wars for all of its existence so far, we have arrived at a new round of warfare innovation. After the man-to-man (sic) manual combat, and the ethically despicable practice of not even seeing the Other in the eye individually that gunpowder brought on – glossing over the trebuchet-and-others long-distance hurtling and archers’ reach –, we are now engaging not only in drone-led warfare (distance being even greater), but also in this: humans not being the soldiers anymore; that part being taken over by the robot. By which I don’t mean humanoid robots – why even bother – nor masses of stand-alone AI. But rather, unembodied A(S)I that operates on any platforms together, creating resilience not by numbers of clones but by moving swiftly over servers by having been virtualised at various levels of conceptuality, as they are compounded-mem complexes battling each other evolutionarily. And still aiming at humans.

…? Well, what’s the purpose, otherwise ..!?

Which is far off from where this post started. And foregoing the intermediary step I wanted to write up; where ideas cleverly capture (numb, dumb?) people and ‘ideologies’ fight each other for global dominance. With all sorts of ‘neat’ (quod non) tricks. But [w|h]ell… and this:
DSCN8626cut
[All humans removed from picture. Naturally]

Ringtones on deaf ears

Must … resist … being … too … negative …
There seems to have been an explosion of ~mojis lately. Like, the past half year has seen a proliferation of subsets and niceties that, as a phenomenon, spell the end of interest in messaging.

As the phenomenon (not this which is great in any absolute measure) is so very much the same as we saw with ringtones…
Arrrg! Yes indeed they spelled the end of the introductory phase of mobiles. The more it became a fad to have some peculiar ‘tone, the more one exposed oneself as a somewhat (?) pathetic Laggard, not quite knowing yet how to have and treat a phone as perfectly normal tool without having to brag how great one was for having one in the first place.

Can you see the same with messaging? If not, you may be the one that actually paid for the nicest ringtone you disabled in shame for not getting any but negative recognition after a couple of days again.

So, … next up in this series: How “Like us on Facebook” went the same way in the 2^nd half of 2015, latest… And:

[Siegfried& not quite]