Tag: Innovation

Seamless complacency, rise of the crackers

Yes, seamless integration as, e.g., pursued by the likes of Appl, may polish some edges of the roughness of the world. OMG! I have to turn this plug over to make it fit! The horror! Why didn’t someone fix this!?
Such, to be shipped to the battlefields of the Middle East and Africa, traumatised at the bus ride already.

And, the consumerism, the ultimate ideal of marketeers and Silicon Valley alike, will bring both down crashing. Because the ideal of consumerism everywhere, will also, does already also, pervade education, leaving (achieving its goal at) numb drone consumers – that have no means of income as they’re too mediocre at far too low a level to have any differentiating value (of potential (work)); a vicious circle – that will not be able to see value in services offered but moreover are incapable of building the Next Thing of even maintaining the old.

That will be left to
a. The ever shrinking (!) money(sic)-mostupper class. Not true class!
b. Crackers.
a. This of course, till the exponentially spiraling competition of the money hierarchy will result in < 1 slot, in the end.
b. This of course, since there will be renegades, outcasts, that go their own way. And will be legion. As they drop out, are brute- nuclear-force pushed out of the consumerist lowest classes. Suddenly, have to be resourceful – and (t)hence go after the resources… Only outcasts will see the porous base of the systems stack and hack their way into it. Cultural abandonment leading to … this, you know.

Ah, lessons …? Don’t Be Evil, and Be Prepared. To abandon. ..?
Whatever, there’s still:
DSCN1118
[Metropolis… La Défense, many years back]

Total priv’stalking

Errrm, would anyone have pointers to literature (of the serious kind, not the NSFW kind you only understand) regarding comparison of real physical-world stalking versus on-line total data collection ..?
No, not as some rant against TLAs but rather against commercial enterprise than not only collects, but actively circles around you, wherever you go. Giving you the creeps.

Because the psychological first response is so similar, can it be that the secondary behavioural response / adaptation is similar, in self-censorship and distortion of actual free movement around … the web and free choice of information ..?

And also, whether current anti-stalking laws of the physical world, would actually work, or need strengthening anyway, and/or would/could work or need translation/extension, to cover liberty of movement and privacy-as-being-the-right-to-be-left-alone i.e., privacy as the right to not be tracked, privacy as the right to anonymity everywhere but the very very select very place- and time(!!)-restricted cases one’s personal info is actually required. Privacy as in: companies might have the right to have their own information but not the right to collect information of or on me (on Being or Behavioural) as that is in the end always information produced by me, through being or behaving. The (European) principle still is that copyright can be granted, transferred, shared out in common parlance by payment for use (or getting paid for transferring the right to collect such payments) i.e., economically, but not legally; the actual ownership of the copyright remains with the author!

See why I excluded the TLAs ..? They may collect all they would want but not use unless on suspicion after normal-legal specific a priori proof; that’s their job. No officially (…) they may not step outside their confined remit box, but they do have a box to work within.
Now, back to the question: Please reply with other than the purely legal mumbo-jumbo that not even peers could truly understand but just babble along with.

In return, in advance:
DSCN0535
[Foggy (eyes), since in the olden days, probably never to be seen again; Bélem]

The beauty of variance

Oh why did we think that mere straightforward compliance with one definitive set of rules (however principled, or detailed) would achieve anything worthwhile ..?

Why didn’t we consider the inherent, innate beauty of variance and variation, beyond mere secondary usefulness in resilience/robustness ..?

Because reasons. The perennial one being Fear, probably. Fear of uncertainty. As there’s downside risk in that. Where all the risk management still focuses on. Yes, no, no denying that; all models still have any ‘impact’ of any ‘event’ as a single negative number. If (in the every-part-but-when sense) we would inculde positive, good possibilities and outcomes to count as well, wouldn’t we end up with zero average impacts in many places ..? Like the great many places where non-compliance is conscious just because the enterpreneur wants to achieve something worthwhile hence other than compliance ..?

But what if we turn risk management into the brushing off of the rough edges of beautiful sculpturing that enterpreneurs and true managers do ..? Chiseling away grey/gray unusable material to keep the beuatiful statue that was in the stone already to be released ..?

Those that want nothing to bloom may await nothing but their ignomous and insignificant death. In the mean time, don’t bother the one sthat want to achieve something, please.

After which I remind you: That’s all secondary talk. Primarily, seek the beauty of variation for its own richness. Hence:
000021 (9)
[The view from my field office, once. Y2K was a party on St. Lucia…]

Modelling innovation

Just a note: Why do we see so many sites, posts, models, templates how to organise innovation ..?
Wasn’t Innovation about not being squeezed into models or templates ..?
Or are the ones actually innovating, not interested and the ones that are, not innovating ..?
I’ll come back to this later, if needed. For now:

DSC_0015
[Ideals, at Cologne]

Middle secretaries

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:
DSCN8592
[Some colour, but it’s down there… Zuid-As]

Sing-Singularity, and/or Shannon

Though we know Shannon for his contributions to ‘computer science’ (Don’t we!? If not, go study. And wash your mouth with green soap or so) – the field would hardly exist without his groundbraking concepts, on par or lower (sic) than Turing maybe – and we all do remember log2 measurements as minimum to reconstruct a signal don’t we? – I rediscovered this piece and wondered … how well you’d know it, and how fundamental to even the IoT now springing up, and … most importantly, what would the ramifications be for all of the discussions regarding the Singularity, pre-, midst of and post- ..? I mean, the discussions will tilt once the profundity of the Work is taken to heart.
I think. Now will go and study. Hard. And:
009_17a
[Old analog (log2!) Zuid-As indeed]

Power failure after the Singularity

What would happen if, after the Singularity which is Near anyway, there is a massive power failure ..?
Actually, many thing can happen. Unordered list:

  • Depends on the scale of the power outage. Let’s assume a minor one (affecting just one continent) will give Mad Max like breakdowns but in the end only a scar will remain. A medium one (affecting several but not all continents) will, after the same, prolonged, downturn, recover to an amputee or severely set back world. A major one, a power outage everywhere, well …
  • If we’re just past the Big S, we could recover; the Mad max scenario would be to the later movies only not the earlier ones.
  • If we’re already some way into the Nirvana scenario(s) of ASI (see via this post) helping us out in everything, we (the affected) have a Problem as we may not know anymore what and how to do to survive and/or to restore. Old people may remember some things, but maybe (already) incompletely and wrongly (with error). The Old as your BCM plan B. Younger people, will not know a thing. So what the oldies may do (at all) may seem like magic.
  • If we’re already some way into the dystopian scenario(s) of ASI, our demise will be sped up…
  • If we’re already a long way into either scenario, we may collapse as a species (‘locally’ or globally, as we’re a long way in already we’ll be complexily and not-unravellably connected, linked, and intertwined and degenerated through and with / in technology).
  • If we aren’t anymore and the world has just the ASI, no humanoid animals anymore: Either resilience will restore things (possible in the minor scale scenario), or suddenly, the lights will go out globally. No humans, no intelligence, no Hegelian Ratio. Maybe pet animals. You know, cats watching cat pics and videos and not caring about anything else. The horror? Not to them.
  • Just one on likelihood: When ASI takes over, it will assume grandeur and hence not care about BCM / redundant or back-up power supplies as it will presume to be able to predict everything. But a meteorite strike… heh, that‘ll teach it … ;-| Or, of course, the all-too human (sic) hybris will make the Big S not see a systemic flaw.

OK, enough for now:
Tate_Modern
[Relevant! Analog pic, on ‘film’, you know. And, of a former (!) power station…]

Progress.

This is it. Progress of the most clear sort. For those that look in the right direction(s), with the right glasses (no, no, not …) – and lenses.
Just enjoy. This. As will some from these kind of corners.

Which leaves:
robiekop
[Was already available in full-on kit. Fittingly, analog to digital pic from 20 yrs back …]

Better IoT privacy

Oh, I’ve been outdone again, in some ways. Which isn’t a big deal; ’twill happen to you, often, too. This time, it’s about the IAM in IoT that I signalled here and here, here, and here as a generic problem. Correct: Challenge.
Which all was readable. Hopefully. For all dealing with the stuff on a monthly basis (ahum, ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’ wouldn’t make sense; you’d be ahead of me probably…) that is. For a more general explanation, one can now turn to this here piece; much better at generalpublicspeak than I’d produce when diving onto it again.
Oh well. This:
DSCN6007
[Somehow, typically Madridean ;-| / Southern European / Latin style]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord