people – Page 27 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

AnchoringThink

This might be a signal.
When reading up on mr. S. Godin’s blog (hah, does anyone call him that, these days?), I realised when reading this post that not only can anchoring sink you, it may also be a major contribution to groupthink and subservience to bureaucracy, which seems to be two facets of the same thing. Being, that the anchoring that the group process produces either by clinging to the most-anxiety-reducing interpretation of the opinion of the perceived Leader [with all the side notes of the duce only presenting him(sic)self as such, empty barrel and all] or by averaging out all peculiars and hence reaching an anchor point of political position — reminiscent of Ortega y Gasset style Masses.

On the flip side, this points to what it takes to be a great consultant indeed, as Godin pointed out: addressing the groupthink narrow-mindedness by revisiting the vastly wider potential scope of possibilities and options than can be seen by looking back too little. This might have been the edge that e.g., a McKinsey had — haven’t heard too much from them, the last decade; are they still around, shrunk or not?
So, to be a better advisor, by all means search back for the greenfields from which current ‘opinions’ evolved and take a fresh restart of evolution from there. Also, be a maverick. As I am, qua risk consultancy/management/audit. Hence the signal to hire.

And:

[Obvious shape, for a library ..? La Défense again]

New series: Plusquotes

The ballast of your past that you schlepp along, may be what keeps you upright through the turmoil that the future is.

So, inspired by this here Expert, this here post is the first of a somewhat hopefully new series — with my own personal ramblings which I would dare to call motivational soundbites but you would consider to be as typically as this sentence to be my interpretation of brief, not necessarily positively motivational but that’s (yes I do use abbreviations to shorten the sentence even further) because that remains your interpretation but that’s not necessarily the right one being the one I intended.

Capice? And:

[For even plainer sailing: Use ballast not just keel(s), and ships are safe in (Catherine’s Docks) harbor but that not what ships are for.]

New category: Miss Quotes

Quite literally, literally. The quotes, of motivational nature or other, that you meet every time again — but aren’t, since they are garbled versions of the original. And the original had much more profound wisdom, or was even true where the misquote isn’t.

OK. The first one, then. A favorite of mine, since it is so often True and demonstrates the futility of the busybodies’ eager beaver detailed roadmap approaches:
“Even the best strategy does not survive first contact with the enemy.”
As said, this is true.

But as also said, this does not capture the fullness of the original, which is:
“No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.” [Von Moltke the Elder]
Which is a bit more elaborate (though still an extreme shortest of sound bites, for the period and original language), and for one focuses on the plan of Operations, for a second mentions (no) certainty, and for thirds talks about the enemy’s main strength, not just any lost recce squad.
This, to be interpreted as to say that strategy has no place when it comes to operations, execution in the hostile terrain out there (a.k.a. marketplace, blue ocean, or whatever), really, just completely fugeddaboudit — not quite the elucidation you expected, right ..?
And, instead of the original rather absolute (and slightly pessimistic), here we have a true risk-based approach: Scr.w It Let’s Do It (© Richard B.) has quite a probability to work, to result in positives.
Third, indeed, it’s the main strength that should concern you. What comes before, one can ‘control’ quite precise, in a Sun Tsu sense, right? And (in mirror) may or may not have any bearing on the main force.

So, we all agree that the original Quote was the better? Better enough to diss the latter-day shorthand? Or keep both ..?
I welcome your suggestions, by the way, for the next round of Miss Quotes.

Oh, and of course this:

[Here Be silly mistakes. And Pickett’s Line.]

Some quotes, out of context

Indebted to David Graeber’s Debt here, for the following which for a change is just a bunch of quotes completely out of context, even worse on the representativeness point, and to make matters … worse, maybe, … some remarks from Yours Truly…

Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, the hunter insisted that being truly human meant refusing to make such calculations, refusing to measure or remember who had given what to whom, for the precise reason that doing so would inevitably create a world where we began “comparing power with power, measuring, calculating” and reducing each other to slaves or dogs through debt. (p.79) — This may be why so many bureaucrats, and many an auditor behaving within the worst corners of that category, appear to behave as if in debt ..?

If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, “Hand me the wrench,” his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, “And what do I get for it?” — even if they are working for Exxon Mobile, Burger King, or Goldman Sachs. … One might even say that it’s one of the scandals of capitalism that most capitalist firms, internally, operate communistically. True, they don’t tend to operate very democratically. Most often they are organized around military-style top-down chains of command. But here is often an interesting tension here, because top-down chains of command are not particularly efficient: they tend to promote stupidity among those on top and resentful foot-dragging among those on the bottom. (pp.95-96) — The rest of the discussion over the natural tendencies in corporate internal/external behavior echoes society’s many comments, including mine on this blog…

Exchange, then, requires formal equality — or, at least, the potential for it. This is precisely why kings have so much trouble with it. (p.109)

Rabelais places the encomium in the mouth of one Panurge, a wandering scholar and man of extreme classical erudition who, he observes, “knew sixty-three ways of making money — the most honorable of which was stealing”. (p.124) — I may want to rid my LinkedIn profile of some niceties …

[Comparing Chapter Eight, Credit versus Bullion (p.211–) with ‘Piketty’ might make a great grad+ thesis ..?]
[Similarly, p.383– may be read and viewed, analysed, in light of “blockchain currencies’ ” lofty promises of money without recourse to state fiduciants but to anonymous (and masses of) trustees.]

OK then, as a final one, important for those that still consider Adam Smith’ Wealth to have some modicum of value still:
For Smith, the pursuit of wealth beyond a point where one has achieved such a comfortable position was pointless, even pathological. (p.399)

Which indicates the point I’m still aiming for… And:

[Why you’re looking at the ceiling of my garden shed ..? Palazzo Nicolaci, Noto again]

Your valued info at risk

Ah, just noted: A great many of you may have switched (or, c’mon don’t be a laggard or too late, will soon switch) to self-assessments of risks, even to the level of detail of data security (as part of information security, part of IRM, part of ORM, part of ERM, part of just-freakin’-perfectly-normal-or-are-you-kiddin’-me mundane run-of-the-mill average daily management of which ‘governance’ is the most preposterous windbag label).
Which is all very well, to determine at the shop floor levels, that apparently are the last hold-outs of actual business knowledge beyond the mumbo-jumbo of meddle management (sour joke intended), what the risks, and particularly also, Value of information (data…) processed might be.

But … You’d miss half or more of the picture, then. The value you attach to the info, may very well be what you’d be prepared to fork out to protect it (balancing estimated frequencies of intermittent losses versus continuous costs flying out the window), but you then forget that the attacker isn’t after the value you attach, but the value to the cracker. Which may be completely different. Think, e.g., Sony (and the many others alike): comparatively, there was hardly a nickel value in the ‘stolen’ (exfiltrated, or egressed since it was lying around so obviously) data from the Sony perspective. But the value was enormous from the hacker perspective — whatever the innocuous data was, the mere exposure was of such import that APT’ ing around apparently was worth it.

Now, how’zat (women have deliveries, men have Balls) for all the other info throughout your glocal enterprise/empire ..? Similar to same, I presume.
So, … what about the budgets to be made available to counter data theft/robbery/whatever comparison to physical-world expropriation you’d like to use? And still not trying to overshoot in comparison to the value you yourselves establish for yourselves by yourselves, or you’d run the risk (chance close to 1) of splattering any flexibility and usability under tons of ‘controls’ (quod non, BTW). But then, not protecting ‘regular’ data enough, might expose it too easily — which might be rational but will cost you, e.g., through EU data protection fines … ;-|

So, you’ll not only have to do the multiplication of this and this, but extend in other dimensions as well…
Oh well, the world gets more complicated every day… and:

[Your data protection; Noto]

Who needs slaves ..?

When you can have serfdom? The first, merely meaning physical-legal possession, burdensome. The second one, utter dependence by the subservient of the Master. So, ‘we’ (ahum speak for yourselves) aren’t slaves of SocMed, we’re ‘merely’ not merrily their serfs. Which correlates with the Hobson’s anti-choice to walk away and suffer the withdrawal consequences… Freedom to starve, in the sense of the withdrawal and the great may intertwined and softer linked spheres of being.
Let’s not get depressed. Let’s get detached. And this.
Or what?

Oh, this:

[Once, ruling large portions of the ‘known’ world from here. Now, not so much. Aachen]

The year of No More Oops

… Hoping this year, reps will wise up and don’t treat (insult) their valued customers like they should’ve known they themselves are, i.e., like little children. Why, oh why, would anyone still respond to socmed complaints with “Oops, something’s not right” and all that follows is empty chatter offering no solution at all but first, foremost and exclusively disclaiming any own accountability for poor (or worse) service delivery that the reps are accountable for — just like anyone operating outside the organization’s perimeter yes including outsourced functions however deep subcontracted.
Hey org: I don’t give a batsh.t about how you organise things, and that you employ so many m.rons on the contact surface that matters most… and often, found out, in layers behind that too. Expecting internal selection being proficient in finding the worst cases and setting them as examples through promotions into management all the way to the top. Just ensure that next time around, you have grown-up reps giving definitive, non-conflicting answers that for once don’t turn out to be literally untrue (i.e., lies).

Oh well, lawyers in the wings… and:

[Reprazent house; you kno where …]

A footnote to theses

Not to Theseus, however close.
But on the superfluence of latter-day (PhD- in particular) theses in printed form. Wouldn’t they be much better on-line, in a format with clickable hyperlinks ..? Wasn’t that what hyperlinking was ‘invented’ for ..!?
Why then still rely on the old ‘footnote’ reference system… If only b/c some geriatric referees still want to see their own name printed and care less or not at all about hits. With the democratization of even science, wouldn’t hit scores (Errm, weighted by the authority of the visitors …! How? We’ll figure something out) be a better validity measure?

Yes, of course this would require a backlog of old printed articles to be put on-line, including linking their reference lists. But this effort should (sic) be minute, compared to today’s paper production — I mean, the production of papers. And, in the end, needed anyway.
Oh, another inhibitor for the oldies: their references can now be checked automatically (I guess (appropriately)) and their assumed notoriety will be ~~disclosed~~ exposed for what it is — which may not be liked by all.

But then, on-line theses would be much better readable since the Definitions and Research Description parts might be separate html docs, split away from the core science content.

Many more advantages, and this:

[No longer dungeoned but in Church, still stalactitic; Edinburg]

The new, once again

… Just to drop the note that Over 50 is the new Under 30.

Because somehow I need that to be so, since recently.
And, for this:
90dbc931-885c-4063-b469-656cb45c9b72-medium
[Plucked from some LI post.

And, because it’s true. All the brave new world-changing ideas that were dreamt up over the past decade, will now have to integrate in sane society’s organisation and ethics. Which will need that straddle of understanding of freshness (need) and classic history / societal ethics. Which, I will speak for myself here most certainly hopefully not exclusively (huh), the (only just) Over 50’s can deliver.

I rest my case for now. But will return. And:

[Once innovative, but could’ve known; B(er)lin(g)]

KVZP’ers

Euhm, er is nog steeds de grote waterscheiding tussen enerzijds ‘vaste’ dienstverbanden en anderzijds per-uur inhuurbare/dumpbare ZP’ers, lijkt het wel. Ja, er zijn wat moeizame tussenvormen gevonden; het tijdelijk contract (vast tot het niet vast meer is), de urenopdracht (ingeschatte inzet — waar de opdrachtgever met een …smoes wel onderuitkruipt), etc., maar echt zoden aan de dijk zet het niet. Problemen te over; pensioen’verplicht’ingen, sociale zekerheid(sopbouw, -rechten en –solidariteit), inkomenszekerheid (waar een ‘vast’ dienstverband, hoewel absoluut even snel op de tocht staand als een vaste opdracht, wél een hypotheekzekerheid is en een grotere financiële reserve niet), enzovoorts enzoverder.
Vraag is nu of er al eens is bestudeerd hoe het idee van kort-verbandvrijwilliger uit defensiekringen zou kunnen worden vertaald buiten de sector. Want het lijkt alsof ondanks het trage imago juist defensiekringen organisatiekundig alwéér mijlenver voorlopen op de rest, de oh zo veel flitsender verklaarde kwijlebabbelzelfverdedigingshulpelozen.

Arme KMKTDOs (KanslozenMetKuddesTeDrijvenOndergeschikten) … en:

[Uitkijkend over, zonder grip; Noto]