Innovation – Page 10 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Repeat mode: The definitive Top 2000 of 2015

Just to be sure you’re not led off the Right(eous) path by all those DJs out there playing songs from or candidate for some “Top 2000”, herewith a repost of the real deal.

Which of course isn’t; it’s the Top 2266 for one thing and Definitive is slightly understating it.
And yes, it is downloadable in plain Excel, for your own tinker and play, in this file; checked and clean (no subversive content).
Next, a few little notes (repeated from last year):

“That’s odd! The usual numbers 1 to 50 aren’t where they’re ‘supposed’ to be by common standards!” Correct. Because I‘m ‘Rekt. The list is mine; why put the Mehhh songs high up there? They’re in there somewhere, but its my list, my preferences..! yes I do like some almost-forgotten songs better, sometimes much, much better, than the expired old hands.
Especially.. see the notes, when the clip (much) enhances the song(s). Wouldn’t that mean the song in itself isn’t fully complete ..? No, it means in (since) the age of video, songs with clips (‘integrated’) can much surpass mere songs by themselves, for a cubed sensory experience.
There’s more than 2000 yes. Because, already after the first 500 or so, determining the relative rankings becomes awkward. Hence, the cut-off would be random …! (why not 2048, that would make more sense in this digital (i.e., binary) age).
If you would still have some (preferably wacky) songs you miss, please do comment them to me. I’ll see whether I’d want to include them still, or not. Hey, it’s my list so I decide, geddid?
The actual end result order is far from definitive (sic). It depends heavily on one’s momentary temper and the memories that spring to mind like Proustian madeleines. And on one’s ability to hear quality. Such is life.
When dabbling with the Excel file yourself, feel free to play around with the ranking mechanism. What worked for me, was to first split the songs into bins of about 250 size (designate some song to be in the first bin that will end up being ranks 1-250, another song to bin 5, which is around the 1000-1250 mark, etc.), then sizing down bin 1 etc. to 8 smaller bins. Then, numbers 1-50 get a personal treatment one by one to their end rank, the rest gets (got) a random allocation within their bracket. After this, sort and re-apply number 1-whatever. Through this, actual intermediate bin sizes aren’t too important.

Then, as a long, very long list. With a Moar tag otherwise it would be ridiculous… [i.e., for the complete list in the post, follow the link:]

Continue reading “Repeat mode: The definitive Top 2000 of 2015”

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]

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.]

Golden Oldie Pic Of The Day

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

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]

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]

The End (of the week) Is Nigh

A couple of weeks ago, there was this little discussion on history writing re the birth of the Third Industrial Revolution. Walking by my own bookshelves — desperately trying to keep the Unread under 50, the Read explode anyway — when I realized that there were some that were and are desperately underrated as for their Told You So farsighted predictive value and hence need much more attention and re-reading, again keeping this sentence at suitable length period
To be more precise, just three biggies (in terms of their Value, not page number ;-):
Eric von Hippel (luckily, also available for free here!), Bruce Sterling and Adam Greenfield:

Just sayin’: Get your copies, and study the sage’ ness of them three.

The definitive Top 2000 of 2015, already

“That’s odd! The usual numbers 1 to 50 aren’t where they’re ‘supposed’ to be by common standards!” Correct. Because I‘m ‘Rekt. The list is mine; why put the Mehhh songs high up there? They’re in there somewhere, but its my list, my preferences..! yes I do like some almost-forgotten songs better, sometimes much, much better, than the expired old hands.
Especially.. see the notes, when the clip (much) enhances the song(s). Wouldn’t that mean the song in itself isn’t fully complete ..? No, it means in (since) the age of video, songs with clips (‘integrated’) can much surpass mere songs by themselves, for a cubed sensory experience.
There’s more than 2000 yes. Because, already after the first 500 or so, determining the relative rankings becomes awkward. Hence, the cut-off would be random …! (why not 2048, that would make more sense in this digital (i.e., binary) age).
If you would still have some (preferably wacky) songs you miss, please do comment them to me. I’ll see whether I’d want to include them still, or not. Hey, it’s my list so I decide, geddid?
The actual end result order is far from definitive (sic). It depends heavily on one’s momentary temper and the memories that spring to mind like Proustian madeleines. And on one’s ability to hear quality. Such is life.
When dabbling with the Excel file yourself, feel free to play around with the ranking mechanism. What worked for me, was to first split the songs into bins of about 250 size (designate some song to be in the first bin that will end up being ranks 1-250, another song to bin 5, which is around the 1000-1250 mark, etc.), then sizing down bin 1 etc. to 8 smaller bins. Then, numbers 1-50 get a personal treatment one by one to their end rank, the rest gets (got) a random allocation within their bracket. After this, sort and re-apply number 1-whatever. Through this, actual intermediate bin sizes aren’t too important.

Then, as a long, very long list. With a Moar tag otherwise it would be ridiculous… [i.e., for the complete list in the post, follow the link:]

Continue reading “The definitive Top 2000 of 2015, already”

1	Hustle	Vann McCoy	Yes, the original
2	Easy Livin’	Uriah Heep	To power it up
3	Heart Of Gold	Neil Young	Hits the heart
4	Hide and Seek	Howard Jones	Same, if you listen well
5	Peter Gunn	Emerson Lake & Palmer	Just for the intro alone
6	She	Elvis Costello	Personal nostaliga
7	White Room	Cream	Nicely powerful, doesn’t wear out too easily
8	74-’75 (+Video)	Connells	The video sublimates the message
9	Windowlicker (+Video)	Aphex Twins	Incomplete, as a work of art, without the video
10	Nice ‘n Slow	Jesse Green	Calm down again
11	One Of These Days	Pink Floyd	Hidden pearl
12	Smoke On The Water	Deep Purple	Of course
13	The Man With One Red Shoe (+Video)	Laurent Garnier	Incomplete, as a work of art, without the video
14	You’re So Vain	Carly Simon	I think this song is about me!
15	Dancing Barefoot	Patti Smith	Hidden treasure
16	Right Here Right Now	Fatboy Slim	Oft forgotten, defined an era
17	The Great Gig In The Sky	Pink Floyd	Appealing complexity
18	All I Need	Air	Mindfulness in musical form
19	Dream On	Aerosmith	Heartburn
20	You Got To Fight For Your Right to Party	Beastie Boys	Appealing. Simply that.
21	California Dreamin’	Mamas & The Papas
22	Whole Lotta Rosie	AC/DC