Tag: people

Meldt uzelve, out of control

Met al die seminars en cursussen over de Wet meldplicht datalekken lijkt het wel of het meldplichtprocedurenaarbinnenrammen dé oplossing is voor al uw privacy-problemen.
Terwijl het natuurlijk niet meer is dan het perfect regelen van het naar buiten toe rondroepen van de totaal transparante schuld zodra (niet als) er iets misgaat.

Over het voorkomen dat beter is dan genezen (en dat is implementatie van de meldplicht-procedures nog verre van), horen we een stuk minder. Hooguit bij degenen die nu én zometeen de kous op de kop krijgen; dat alles anders moet terwijl het a. nu vaak al best prima geregeld is, b. zometeen niet beter zal zijn (feit bij voorbaat), c. a en b gelden binnen de kaders van de nu en dan geldende organisatorische belemmeringen van budget, tijd en wil van boven, om de zaken beter te regelen.
Het kan ook anders anders: preventief. Leest en ziet.

En ook:
DSCN8603b
[Zonder privacy, een saaie wereld …; Zuid-As maar da’s duidelijk]

Bow the Stork Tie

When analyzing the Stork methodology for EU-wide federated eID- and authentication methods and technology, again one stumbles (rather, ‘ they’ do) over the bow tie of CIA, mostly C, controls. Too bad. Usually, ENISA(-involved) stuff is Great quality. Now, quite too much less so.
Which is too bad. To note, we already commented on the classical CIA rating (incl the bow tie fallacy) before. Now, the CIA seems to have something to bring to bear on CIA as well. Better study hard …!

Oh well …:
DSCN9668
[Weaving transparency and stability, Cala at Hoofddorp again]

Deinduction

OK. To be, think, human, two things seem to be required:
No, not the dichotomy of deduction versus induction. Not so literally (literally, I mean like owemygawd). But the top-to-ground-then-back-up-again ‘logical’ goal-directed problem-solving reasoning, versus the speculative wandering of the mind. Perspiration, and Inspiration. Taking correlation for causation, versus fuzzy-logic supported hypothesizing. OK, I admit I threw in the fuzzy logic part to confuse, and to discombobulate your comprehension.
But still, therein lies the foundation of Theories, the brickwork of thinking: Is there a priori knowledge, or is everything we know only valid within its own framework of reference..? Is the definition of definition circular or not, or in some circle..? Should, must be, to be basis for theory-building.
Expanded upward by Kuhn and Lakatos, drilled down by a great many, philosophers mostly — that haven’t delivered workable answers yet. Not workable at least, to span the gap in between neurobiology and psychology. Which is where AI-as-we-know-it will have its place, after which it will be vastly expanded to cover it all. Maybe not individually embodied, but will.
And, there’s no either/or. There’s the spectrum ..!!

And all this, relevant for the grounding (both ways, please) of ‘Big Data’. Think that one through!

Also,
DSCN0395
[Close, but no torte in the Sacher Stube…]

3D printing hinting at breakthroughs

As 3D printing will see more of ‘breakthrough’ developments in 2016 … hold it, I mean, hope and want.
Since, there’s still no clarity whether and when.
Because reasons. One of them being: There’s no iPod of 3D printing yet. And people see, and fear, the cartridge costs; more so when you consider your need for many more than just ink in colours but also all sorts of hard-to-keep(?)-plastic plastics et al. And there’s space issues, 3D printers playing out in 3D space even more than the 2Ds did, especially when you’d want to print larger stuff.
And, not to forget, the major, almost overriding difficulty still on the design side of things; versatility biting and choking ease of use.

Oh you may say that the larger stuff will be printed elsewhere, like the A0s you have now (but you don’t unless you’re a design agency). Which would also take care of the cartridge part. Indeed, as it will also take care of the closeness-, tailoring, and versatility parts. Middle grounds… may be off the balance sought.

So, a moron-usable cheap but effective and high-quality contraption could help. But isn’t near the horizon yet. A fool-proof design interface could help. But fools are so ingenious…

Hope certainly helps, for the time being. And:
000007 (16)
[Pray the way you please, Oak Park again but oft missed]

Mobile vision

Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves / Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe
The brilly side has deteriorated, unfortunately, due to the great many that don’t avail themselves of the proper tools for the proper usage. [A CEO with you, is still a CEO]

No, really: when the ultrahyperventilating crowd decided to warp-speed run after the ‘any platform’ and subsequently ‘mobile first’ crazes (duly so identified), they forgot that when something’s meant to be visually interpreted, all the visual clues need to be clearly enough visible in the first place. Which goes better on a large screen than on a little one, unescapably. In the same way that the humongously dumbed-down ‘models’ that bankers and like w…kers use, are over by a stretch in their simplification of reality (and, stupidly, then taken as normative, prescriptive rather than descriptive in intent), visual interfacing for the mob-ile users are oversimplified to the uselessness side. Why??

Because [ I say so ] and [ hypes go that way ]. Lazy evaluation.
Which leads to: Not one size is too small to fit any, but all sizes are made fit for the content purpose. Maybe not even display when the deep message can’t be captured in too small a message display ..?

A bit deep, or dense, maybe. Hence:
000005 (2)
[Circus, b/c you need bread; Oak Park old analog pic]

Swinging and chattering

Sorry, couldn’t resist to share with you this other nugget of insight and metaphor (well, rather; comparison, of apples with apples) in Mirror Worlds that, opposite of my previous optimistic post about ‘managers’, might not be taken to be cheerful to all: (p.53) ” … Its significance is denigrated by the run-off-the-mill hacks, bureaucrats and cadres who swing chattering from detail to detail like monkeys in branches, never sensing or caring about the forest at large. Such people more or less run the world.”

Alas. And with the new year approaching of course there’s hope. Some of it, hopefully. And:
DSCN8327
[All houseboats are alike; but some are more modern that others; Amstel]

Gelernter on Management

Turns out that the seminal Mintzberg’s Managing (as here), has an updated version in the almost off-hand remark by David Gelernter (in this) that we should have been dealing with an “‘organization engineer’ (otherwise known as a ‘manager’)” (p.75) all along, with a focus on the ‘uncoupling’ of the manifold different (sic) tasks to be completed to be doled out to the (relative) specialists in the department. Freeing the latter of switching (time) costs and effectiveness losses, along with freeing them of concurrency resolution.

Which indeed deserves a HT for putting it so clearly: The manager uncouples, doles out, and then awaits the results to be consolidated whilst catering to the external-defense and facilitation needs of the department staff.

Which is also key to understanding that yes managers need to have the best of insights into what the total-tasks and subtasks entail. Hence no more generic-managers over specialist knowledge workers, but task-dedicated super-insight managers. Remunerated for their superior results, not for their babble and chair-stickiness.

Let’s keep it cheerful, for once, for the coming two days and beyond. And:
DSCN8391
[Once, a world trade center: Edam]

Predictions Wish List 2016

Now that you have drowned in predictions about … < fill in your favourite subject and colour the pictures > for 2016, it’s time to not only read through them and see whether you can agree — which you don’t need to as the truth is already here — it’s time to turn your Yes I Can See That / No I Don’t Think So into something of the more outspoken kind, not being outspoken but outwritten. As follows (mine, hence, yours if you’re smart…):

  • Blockchain (-like) methodologies and technologies delivering an app that shakes up the accountancy industry so thouroughly that the Big$/4 halve in size and influence (even further).
  • A breakthrough in the translation of Information to Value and vice versa, by means of being able to have the value of information one processes, on the books. Not necessarily in monetary terms, but somehow, comparable.
  • Some form of APT management/containment methodology.
  • A unified implementation/interoperability / API / management framework for IoT. Open, all-encompassing, like the OSI stack.
  • A breakthrough in the sobering up over the quod non of normative value of SOx/TLD/Basel-OpsRisk and all standards (ISO and others).
  • Similar, a sobering up (but deepening and intensifying for the solutions part) over cyberhere, cyberthere, cybereverywhere.

OK, going out into 2016 (not just yet!) with:
DSCN8004
[On a winter’s day … how many wished for unification of this city, mere decades back?]

Prediction16

Yawn. Or not. The following will get real serious in 2016. Like,

Well, for the list with everything and their dog:

  • Some Exits: Green Egg, ‘Cyber’everything, disruption/uberization, privacy, and, certainly and very much hopefully, “Like us on Facebook” … and very, very certainly hipsters let alone their ‘beards’ (quod non).
  • Entrat to replace the latter, hopefully, some actual non- or anti-bureaucratic frameworks of mind.
  • Also out, to be replaced by … [as yet unknown]: Vlogging or what have we, in socmed space, with 100k-1M+/++ followers as being he thing to aim for. As it becomes clearer and clearer in 2016 that only the 10M+/++ leaders (??) can make a dime from it, or barely a living. Who are the big winners, in all of this? User data / experience farmers?
  • Risk Management 3.0 will grow to be the Next Thing in managementspeak. If you’d need any proof, go read back the ton of posts on your perennial Truth site.
  • Also, we might get a last blip from SMAC(T) as a trend summary.
  • All of the points made by The (some) Man. Obviously. And some of this as well though this may all show to be overblown.
  • Still a wave of interest in Rise of the Robots. Combined with AI through and through, like in this. With support at an angle, from this.
  • A further blend of cloudsourcing and deperimetrisation putting your infra and all of your data naked and out there in the cold.
  • Oh almost forgot: A lot more on APTs, 3D printing (when will we finally get 4D printing …!?), MehhDrone stuff, blockchain, IoT, et al.
  • But we may hope, the latter two get much more innovative applications; one the one hand with simpler explications, on the other, truly innovating e.g., into the DAO realm.
  • Ah, DAOs; let’s first see more of this in 2016.
  • Offering a simple list copy from HBR:
    • Algorithmic personality detection: Yes
    • Bots: Yes
    • Glitches: Mwah; we indeed will see scores of them, ever bigger and more impactful (also b/c complexity explosions of the mixed e and physical worlds), but they’re somewhat of the mehhh category for the purpose of Here.
    • Backdoors: See APTs et al; much more of them yes but again, mehhh
    • Blockchain: As mentioned
    • Drone lanes: Hmmm, interesting…
    • Quantum Computing: Probably hung in there from previous (many) years’ lists; mine, too. May, might, but for the same token may not
    • Augmented knowledge: Definitely. Hopefully, in a good way. But maybe even hopefully, steered towards safe use, after a hopefully indicative but small-enough dystopian-style mishap ..?
  • CloudIAMming. IAM, renewed, for federated use in ‘the’ cloud. Yes, this will have a whole new lease of life, as a management field, and a consultancy field as well.
  • This just in: Forgot to mention VR as a thing in 2016. Definitely.
  • I may want to do an update halfway through the year…
  • Oh, and of course our motto for 2016: A CEO with you, is still a CEO.
    #gosubstitute[ _X, _Y | fool, a tool ]

After which there’s only:
DSCN7943
[Purposefully unsharp. Berlin, some years ago.]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord