Mostly on wine. Also: IRM/InfoSec/I-Advisory and -Audit services. Positive contrarian, inspirator, loosen-upper.
Remember it’s a two weeks flashback already
Monday morning’s watercooler discussion: Did you hear about this WannaCry attacks all around the world? The sky is falling! And what a hypecycle the ‘solutions’ vendors piled onto it immediately and oh hey look cat pics how cute oh now it’s Friday again how time flies CU on Monday for more cat pics.
So true it’s sobering; appropriately. And:
[Will never learn. NY]
Suddenly I realised, as one who profited handsomely (not in money but in perks’ way), that the whole GDPR compliance thingy is becoming quite similar, all too similar, to the hype that was called The Millennium Problem … too bad we now know how that ended, otherwise an illustrative movie could be made of the latter – now only (?) a documentary review is worthwhile, as history writing. Too bad it isn’t out in the open that despite all efforts then made, actually quite a lot of companies ended up having to hire temps to do all sorts of manual corrections in their administrations due to e.g., spreadsheets [the very things the toughest, most important business decisions hinged, and still hinge on!] going heywire over date fields.
To come back to the Issue … Are you not hit by that, almost sudden, avalanche of GDPR compliance warnings lately, like, the past couple of weeks ..? Is it not a warning that you need to do loads of things now, starting with hiring consultants (call to action; they’re Sales messages of course) this time not of the tech kind – engineers that see a problem, craft a solution and we’re done –, but of the legal kind – profiting only from prolongation of your insecurity.
And ah, there’s the snag! Multifaceted it is;
Following on this Lotus list, indeed there’s a lot of work to be done to become compliant … on the Legal side. On the IT side maybe also, but what needs to be done there, is (re)implementation of sound practices that should have been common daily practice anyway, and when implemented as such, ready; done.
The legal side on the other hand, sees all sorts of enduring challenges, like many cultural changes; no leaning back and await questions for advice to be answered out of hand with “It depends…” / “Come with a proposed solution and I’ll tell you whether it may or may not be permissible”, but for once being actively engaged and delivering definitive answers, and designing, implementing, and carrying out your (Legal) selves reams of procedural stuff. Acting on assessments, acting in communications, acting in control(s), etc.
You get it — the GDPR brings many problems for many organisations, the biggest of the problems being how to manage back the (Legal) consultancy fees… Remember, when data leakage isn’t preventable (as some dunces might still believe, many on the Legal side of GDPR compliance among them – hey they even think pseudonymisation amounts to anything), bad things are bound to happen. When (not if) not already via the avalanche of information requests …
I rest my case now, for you to have time to process the above, get it, and leave you with:
Your GDPR compliance looks much, much worse (this is actually quite good!); Toronto]
Yes, celebrations … The one-thousandestest post on this blog… [Excluding the two cross-posts by others…]
Do I regret any of them ..? Nope. [Rounded down]
Do I regret having been early with signalling many developments ..? Nope. At worst, sometimes I may have been too early, with the post(s) having slid from memory (ah, shallows you are) when finally the world came ’round to see the point as pointed out by some random stranger top-notch journalist or guru.
Non, je ne regrette rien.
OK, yes, I’ll keep on truckin’ for a while.
On everything from metaphilosophical discussions down to bitwise details on phenomena of Information, Society, IoT, Privacy, Information Security (#ditchcyber) Oxford, and gadgetry. Plus:
[The allusion to ‘reflection’ (of the old in the new etc.) is purely accidental, of course; London a decade ago]
Will AI eventually appreciate music ..?
Not just appreciate in a sense of experiencing the quality of it — the latter having ‘technical’ perfection as its kindergarten basement’s starting level only; where the imperfections are cherishable as huge improvements, yes indeed [Perfection Is Boring!] … but moreover, music appreciation having a major element of recognition, subconsciously mostly, of memories of times almost-im-memorial.
Of course, the kindergarten perfection gauging, AI will be able to do easily. Will, or does; simple near-algorithmic A”I” can do that today.
Appreciating imperfections, the same, with a slight randomiser (-recogniser) thrown in the algo mix.
But the recollection part, even at a conscious level requires memories to be there, and as far as AI goes (today) even ASI will have different memory structures since the whole facts learning processes are different. And don’t mention the subconscious side.
Yes, ASI can have a subconscious, of which we aren’t aware of even able to be aware [Note to self: to cover in audit philosophy development]. But when we don’t hear of this, was there a tree that fell in the forest?
I’m off some tangent direction.
What I started out to discuss is: At what point does music appreciation through the old(est) memories recall, become an element of ‘intelligence’ ..?
With the accompanying question, on my priority list when discussing AxI: Is it, for humans ..?
And a bonus question: Do you really think that AI would prefer, or learn earlier about the excellence, of Kraftwerk or Springsteen? Alas, your first response was wrong; Kraftwerk’s the kind of subtle intelligent hint-laden apparently-simple stuff that is very complex and also deeply human — which you perceive only when listening carefully over and over again till you get the richness and all the emotions (there they are!) and yearning for the days gone by when the world was a better place. Springsteen, raw and Original-Forceful on the surface — but quickly showing a (rational-level) algorithmics play with not as much depth; even the variations and off-prefection bits are well thought-out, leaving you with much less relatable memories if at all.
Your thoughts are appreciated. And:
[Appropriately seemingly transparent but completely opaque; some EU parliament (?), Strassbourg]
All the mavericks of the world rejoice (and Maverisk among them, of course, already); finally there’s new [howzat for a typifying contradictio..?] evidence-of-sorts that the below that had popped into my mind a couple of days ago, is still, more, valid than ever. Being, related but in an angled/vector-transposed way, not about rebels but about other mischievings in general business management culture(s).
[Should I note that the ‘evidence’ already is worth much study and implementation? Yes I should.]
[Edited to add: Be ware of the other side, too; too many mediocre men just drift upwards by lack of weight: here.]
[Yup that’s a re-post from yesteryears, like, 12 March 2015 …]
Two points to make:
* Middle management will be.
* Secretaries should be.
The discussion regarding middle managers being superfluous or not had a slight uptick the past couple of months. With the latter voice having been a bit too quiet. Yes, middle management is under threat. It has always been; only the (history-)ignorant will have missed that. And Yes, all the Disruption things and similar empty barrel half-baked air by a lot of folks who have hands-on experience in the slim to none bin with (real) management altogether let alone this kind, have predicted over and over again that the disruption by Server-with-algorithm-app-that-schedules-day-laborers will make middle management redundant, as the believed task was only that.
Quod non. And as if just an algorithm will capture the full complexity (and incoherence, inconsistency, internally and externally contradictory ..!) of the requirements and work of the middle manager.
OK, we’re not discussing the drone administrative clerk that has Manager on his card (huh?) and sits in an office passing top-down orders and bottom-up reports back and forth. We’re talking the real, 24/7 problem firefighter here. The coordinator of chaos. The translator of lofty (other would say, ‘airhead’) ‘governance’ (quod non) mumbo jumbo into actual work structure and tasks, and translatereporting back. That survives and in doing so, shows great performance. The other ones, will be weeded out anyway, every time there’s an economic cycle downturn. [If the right ones would be kept, and the wrong ones ‘given growth opportunities elsewhere’. Seldomly the case; offing is by the fte numbers, and the wrong ones have being glued to their seats as their core competence, through sucking up or otherwise.]
So, the middle manager stays for a long time to come as (s)he does the kind of non-predictable work that will remain longest. If start-ups don’t have them, see them grow: They will.
Secretaries deserve a come-back. In similar vein as above, the vast majority of managers office clerks (from the shop floor (even if of knowledge workers…) all the way to near the top) these days have to do their own typing, scheduling, and setting up socializing things. Whereas before, economies of scale were many, and there were additional benefits because the good (sic, again) secretaries would e.g., know the best, unrenown restaurants all around and could get you a table even when they would be fully booked, and they would manage (massage away) some internal friction as well, often very discreetly and efficiently. Now, vastly more expensive (by hourly rate, productivity (think switching costs in the managers minds …, and utilisation), cost of ineffectiveness (sic again) and opportunity costs re their actual objectives (if these would be achieved; good/bad manager discussion again)) managers must manage their way around. An impoverished world it is indeed.
To bring back some joy:
[Some colour, but it’s down there… Zuid-As]
Recalling all those ‘motivational’ quotes about seriously too late, ridiculously over-aged to ever still start a unicorn eleven-somethings, you having to fail for the rest of your life or you’re a failure (right? If you don’t fail, you don’t learn or whatev’), or in conclusion, you’re not failing grossly enough if you don’t succeed – or was it the other way around ..?
Suddenly I realised: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it. (W.C. Fields)
And: The above keep-on-trying train / ship of fools, is a perfect application of The Secret to innovation.
Yes, indeed, ‘perfect’ with the pejorative tone you carry throughout the day. And The Secret being that oh so rightfully discredited piece of paper (!) waste that even today some still believe in; would you believe it?
Yes, have a fresh look at the first line above: It’s the same as the book’s content.
On a less black-and-white note: Aren’t ‘Innovators’ typified as those that naïvely believe that one just have to deny very hard that anything might not work, just put in endless effort and hey presto you’ll succeed? If you fail, you didn’t deny hard enough.
[ Or you’re outright criminally breaking the law, then complain that the law needs to be changed to allow you to reap unethically large profits for just-above cold air, like the … U know who … Why am I not allowed to be a gun for hire!? I make good money out of it and the current system doesn’t get my opponents killed fast enough! Totally ineffective! but that’s beside the main line of this post…]
Where actual Innovators that win in the end, are (what you read in Originals plus) the ones seeking the highest-risk roadblocks and undo them when possible or evade them, believing that fortune will come your way when caring against ill fortune.
So no putting your life’s all into something and hope you’ll win life’s lottery of purely accidental unicorn success, but spread your bets, cut losses, etc. Less exiting a gamble maybe but less of your life at stake.
Plus:
[Down (to) the Tube(s); for no apparent reason and no reference to ‘Samsu’ in the background either, Vienna]
Remember from your econ class that concept of The Commons, and how problematic it was? Is?
There was this intriguing post recently, on how Free Speech might be considered and deliberated in terms of the commons being exhausted by undue over-use (abuse) — for its use alone ( → ). Leading to aversity of the concept not of the abuser or his (sic) apparent locally recognised but globally not, ‘valid’ reason(s) for over-use.
Which, as is my wont of the moment, driven by personal business interests, I took to be applicable to Privacy as well. Maybe not in the same way, but … This will need quite some discussion between me on the one hand, and peers and others on the other who would actually know what they’re talking about. Throwing in a bit of anglo-american data-isn’t-yours versus European (‘continental’ — will brexit – which starts to sound like a lame Benny Hill kind of joke ever more – change that ..??) data-is-datasubject’s-always divides, and some more factors here and there. Complicating matters, but hey life’s not perfect.
Waddayathink? In for a discussion ..? Let’s start!
And:
[Not so very common-s; Toronto]
Recalling the recent spat about passwords again (and elsewhere), and some intriguing, recent but also not so recent news (you get it when you study it), it seems only fair to the uninitiated to clarify some bits:
Authentication goes by something you know, something you have or something you are. Password(s), tokens or biometrics, in short. All three have their drawbacks.
But that’s not the point. The point is that authentication is about making the authentication unspoofable by anyone but the designated driver owner.
That is why you shouldn’t dole out your passwords (see the above first link) e.g., by writing them on a post-it™ whereas writing a full long passphrase on just one slip of paper that you keep to yourself more zealously than your money, will work.
That is why tokens shouldn’t be stolen. Which you might not discover until it’s too late; and tokens have a tendency to be physical stuff that can be replayed, copied, etc. just like a too-short password. Maybe not as simply, but nevertheless.
Same with biometrics. When made simple enough for the generic user (fingerprints, ever so smudgy!) also easily copyable, off a lot of surfaces. Other biometrics, maybe more secure i.e. harder to copy but not impossible. And opening possibilities for hijacks et al., focus on breaking into the systems in the login/authentication chain, et al.
Which brings attention to yet more vulnerabilities of Have and Are: Both need quite a lot of additional equipment, comms, subsystems, to operate and work from the physical to the logical (back) to the IS/IT levels. Weakest-link chains they are ..!
So, the strength of authentication covaries with the non-leakability of the key, since both correlate to the source determinant in-one-hand-ity close to the actual person whose identification-as-provided (by that person, or by anyone else posturing) needs to be authenticated. By which I mean that ensuring one item of authentication, closely glued to the person and with the simplest, least-link connection chain to the goal system(s), is best. The latter, clearly, is the written-down-verylongpassword method.
Just think about it. And:
[They’re called locks. Discuss (10pts); Ottawa]
There is no end to the need to repeat the, somewhat but simply never sufficiently, quote by the Ben you know best:
Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
How valid today. How utterly moronic in comparison all that would allow crypto-backdoors (for other reasons, too), and covert catch-all dragnet surveillance. Etc. Etc…
Oh and for the few that are still interested in the United States Constitution, they shall refer to article 1, section 7, clause 2 , that has not ayes and nays but yeas and Nays. Just wanted that off my plate.
Leaving you with:
[You’ll be naked and that will not be pretty; Barça]
Voor sigaren bepalen we het profiel aan de hand van de criteria Smaak, Balans, Body, Sterkte, Aroma en Finish.
Voor Smaak pakken we het aromawiel erbij. Let wel I; wat u proeft of verwacht, kan gedurende de diverse fasen van het roken nog variëren... En let wel II; er zijn ook aspecten die nog niet zozeer als aroma staan aangegeven in het wiel, we denken aan termen als (ja de sigarenwereld is langzamerhand, helaashelaas US-, Engels geworden) zesty, tangy, floral, en earthy, of soms zelfs metallic. Lijkende termen die een combi zouden kunnen zijn van diverse aromas en papillaire en olfactorische/nasale sensaties en -tactiele invloeden. Hierbij komen termen als 'complex' uiteraard ook bijgepakt, om in dit geval te beschrijven dat er vele aromas herkenbaar zijn. Rustig roken, dat is niet alleen beschaafder en allerlei sigarenrokeneffecten-versterkend maar biedt ook meer kans om aromas te onderscheiden.
Balans is voor de hand liggend; of de zoete, zure, zoute en bittere tonen (OK, en 'umami'...) in balans zijn. Ja, ook bij een sigaar – al zal het meestal gaan over de balans tussen 'creamy' en 'spicy' en gaat het meestal mis door te veel bitter of te veel spiciness.
Body gaat over de volheid, in dit geval vooral te bepalen aan de volheid, dikte, dichtheid van de rook. Die ook een gevoel geeft; 'light' is als een licht bier, 'full-bodied' is als een rechttoe-rechtaan whisky of cognac.
Overigens hoort bij Body ook textuur, 'leathery', 'meaty', 'silky', 'creamy', 'soft', 'succulent', 'woody', 'chalky', 'dry', 'oily' en 'spicy'. Die dus net niet hetzelfde zijn als de aroma-indicatoren uit het wiel; soms overlappend. Niet handig maar zo is het nu eenmaal.
Sterkte is een wat eenvoudiger maat voor het nicotinegehalte van de sigaar. De topbladeren van een tabaksplant heeft meer nicotine dan de lagere bladeren – me(n) dunkt dat de topbladeren zijn waar de plant verder wil groeien en dus betere bescherming nodig heeft van de nico; lager is het wat ouder en 'expendible' dus ga je daar als plant niet je nico op concentreren ..? Waar de sigaar van gemaakt is, heeft dus invloed. Kan je meestal niet kiezen, maar wel proeven. Rustig roken is ook hier handig; om een nico-klap/duizel te voorkomen bij het opstaan.
Aroma dan, vervolgens. Ook hier kan het aromawiel worden ingezet. Vreemd genoeg is het moeilijk de aromas te bepalen als we zelf roken; iemand anders' rook kunnen we beter analyseren. Of we blazen de rook door de neus uit ('retrohaleren'), dan hebben we wel de volle verfijning (ga ik vanuit, lezer!) van onze neus ter beschikking. Bedenk bij het 'benoemen' overigens dat we veel meer uit ons geheugen putten, qua eten en drinken!, dan we wellicht zelf(s) denken. Dus rare smaken herkennen is niet raar.
De Finish ten slotte is kort of lang, naargelang de aromas lang op de tong (sic) blijven hangen. Milde sigaren zijn nogal eens kort – hetgeen niks zegt over de complexiteit, overigens. Hierin zit ook de reden om een zwaar (sterkte)kanon na een milde te nemen, niet andersom.
Als het gaat over de champagnes en hun profielen, pakken we er de (echte en semi-)klassieke wijn-analyses bij die we allemaal wel kennen; onderscheidend in [Hier verder. In ieder geval https://www.wijnwinewein.nl/hoe-proef-je-wijn/ en aromawiel + zuurgraad/tannines/body(viscositeit/alcohol/tannines/smaakintensiteit/mondgevoel)/afdronk + Aanzet/Zuren/Zachtheid/Tannine/Body en alcohol/Afdronk/Smaken dus de aromas bijna-los van structurele criteria. Dan de smaken matchen met die van sigaren, of niet; Klosse's overlap/contrasten erbij halen en dan verder. En toespitsen op champagnes... pak het smaak-plaatje van het CIVC erbij!]
Dear reader; bij deze dus de waarschuwing dat u vanaf hier (?, inderdaad, echt niet alleen hier) serieus te lange zinnen tegenkomt.
Ach, daar ben ik me prima van bewust, mijn hele blog is immers ook een poging tot schrijfoefening in alle facetten. Sommige posts daar blinken uit door korte zinnen en ellipsis; ook deze pagina is opgesteld als tegenwicht. En ik vertrouw erop dat u dat gewoon doorlezend aankunt.
Als voorbeeld: Oplettende lezers zullen opmerken dat onderstaande waar het uitweidingen achter links naar andere pagina's betreft wellicht beter met behulp van OnMouseOver's, alt-tekstblokken of andere tags per pop-uppable item zou kunnen zijn geïmplementeerd maar ik heb het zo gekozen en ik kan best komma's toevoegen in deze zin maar ook dat heb ik achterwege gelaten zonder de leesbaarheid of de begrijpbaarheid in het gedrang te brengen.
Inderdaad, het ontwikkelde, ik schreef, een en ander vanuit een voortdurende, voortgaande research. Na zoeken in het wilde weg algemeen, navraag bij het Comité (iv) Champagne, een aanvullend zelfzoeken met Google Satellite én Street View zowel rond de officiële als in het algemeen, kwam ik tot de Lijst Van (uiteindelijk) 78. De en passant gevonden kaarten leidden tot enige aanvulling. Toen kwam ik Weinlagen.de tegen en tsja dan ben ik niet meer te houden qua sys-te-matisch alle streken én plaatsjes af! Hoewel, ... in onderstaande tabel heb ik maar niet meer voor ieder stuks de Street View erop losgelaten of onderstaand ingevuld. Terwijl ik er vanuit ga dat dit alles nog aanvulling kan krijgen ... Les Clos Inconnus zijn uiteraard zichzelf.
De gangen kwamen al zeer onregelmatig door, en met andere tafels die uitliepen en/of (weer) bijtrokken, tot zeer ver inhalen zelfs, tot gang 6 van de 7 tachtig (schrijve: 80) minuten op zich liet wachten, ondanks diverse malen navraag. Waarna het nauwelijks-opgewarmde pompoen met koude polenta bleek te zijn; "dat hoort zo" ammehoela. Nee, het niet-koude nagerecht erna hebben we niet gehaald; we zijn opgestaan en weggegaan. Die zien ons nooit meer, zeker omdat de bediening ook Zwak was (gangen aan verkeerde tafeltjes serveren want die waren al twee gangen verder), etc. En balsimaco-saus dus, 'et al.'...
Huh, da's écht voor de Insiders..? Inmiddels wel toegestaan als aanplant, maar nog zo'n drie tot tien jaar onderweg voor er de eerste re-de-lijke wijnen van kunnen worden gemaakt en dan is het nog maar afwachten. En dan had je Floreal, Artaban en Vidoc nog niet gezien. Die mogen (in de toekomst) ook... En dan is het Comité Champagne ook nog bezig met kruisingen van de Top 3, Arbane, Meslier, en Gouais. #feest
