Tag: Predictions

Plusquote, nevertheless good to have been ousted

Of course referring to the little guy’s family name. Here, because of his sound advice on how strategic planning should be done:

You engage, and then you wait and see.

First off of(f) course, he wasn’t particularly little it was just that his generals next to him, were long.
Second, he’s right, about the above approach. Reminder: Some later giant took the above and expanded, explained, it more in the style of his countrymen’s need for rambling-on notation. And quoting some latter-day possibly (!) overrated general, “Plans are nothing, planning is everything.” which again is the same thing. In the core, right. Also for business today; how could anyone pretend to be able to predict even the nearest of future better than such an eminent strategist ..? If, then despicable.

Third, did anyone mention that the abovementioned frog, and all others involved except some who couldn’t handle the truth (sic), found William II superior to some other, now much revered, general (Et moi je vous dis que Wellington est un mauvais général, que les Anglais sont de mauvaises troupes et que ce sera l’affaire d’un déjeuner) that just sat there and was almost annihilated by the French if it hadn’t been for the protraction and depletion at Quatre Bras and other places (Hougoumont, much?), by others mainly, so Blücher could arrive in time.

Enough for now, with:
20161025_164149
[Myopia, caused; Amsterdam]

Lament / Where have ‘Expert Systems’ gone ..?

Those were the days, when knowledge elicitation specialists had their hard time extracting the rules needed as feed for systems programming (sic; where the rules were turned into data, onto which data was let loose or the other way around — quite the Turing tape…), based on known and half-known, half-understood use cases avant la lettre.
Now are the days of Watson-class [aren’t Navy ships not named after the first of the class ..?] total(itarian) big data processing and slurping up the rules into neural net abstract systems somewhere out there in clouds of sorts. Yes these won out in the end; maybe not in the neuron simulation way but more like the expert system production rules and especially axioms of old. And take account of everything, from the mundane all the way to the deeply-buried and extremely-outlying exceptions. Everything.
Which wasn’t what experts were able to produce.

But, let’s check the wiki and reassure ourselves we have all that (functionality) covered in “the ‘new’ type of systems”, then mourn over the depth of research that was done in the Golden Years gone by. How much was achieved! How far back do we have to look to see the origins, in post-WWII earliest developments of ‘computers’, to see how much was already achieved with so unimaginable little! (esp. so little computing power and science-so-far)

Yes we do need to ensure many more science museums tell the story of early Lisp and page swapping. Explain the hardships endured by the pioneers, explorers of the unknown, of the Here Be Dragons of science (hard-core), of Mind. Maybe similar to the Dormouse. But certainly, we must lament the glory of past (human) performance.

Also,
20150215_144700
[Is it old, or (still) new ..? Whatever, it’s prime quality. Spui, Amsterdam]

The Risk of Human Existence

Where Risk should be in the ‘first’ line of any defense, and subsequent lines are mere (subsumed …!) support, as in the line of reasoning where Risk or rather Uncertainty [don’t start me on the semantics pure kindergarten discussions per definitional differences] is essential to do business; nay is essential to any organisation’s ‘business’ even when as non-exposed to market conditions as e.g., government departments.
Which, and this is the title reference, of course hinges on: all human endeavour seeks to eliminate uncertainty as uncertainty in the state of bare survival that humankind still is (sic; on average, and in the near future thanks to global warming [no thanks, global warming!]), would mean deterioration i.e. extinction.

Against which we (well, I; uncertain about you dear reader) have developed these whimsy precious things called brains (i.e., including the prefrontal cortex) to enable us to not only cope with the most complex of things including paradoxes, infinity et al., but also with uncertainty. Through induction and Big Data-like pattern extraction, sometimes taken to the levels at which most current Big Data analysis stands (turning spurious correlations however weak, into causation theorillets and/or rites), sometimes actually achieving something — models that ‘work’ to sufficiently accurately predict some aspects of the future (i.e., behaviour of predators) to enhance survival by staying away from the most unsurvivable situations.
Now that a precious few (??) have managed to ward off the evils of existential threats, such death scare of death has turned into a death scare of anything that doesn’t go according to our plan of doing the least possible to do nothing but eat ourselves into obesity.

Meaning, not accepting that now all reasonable threats, uncertainty, has been reduced by extreme CYA everywhere, at the same time we (not I) accept less and less that bad things just happen, and will ever more fanatically look for someone(s) to blame.

Solve the latter by ‘solving’ the former. Fight CYA!

And:
20160805_134239
[What’s our love … but the Art of Glass; Blondie for no apparent reason, Dordrecht]

When it comes to Risk, Appetite is Tolerance

Previously, with many others I believed that Risk Appetite would have to be the starting point of discussion for anything Risk within organisatons. The appetite, following from discussions on Strategy being the choices of directions and subsequent steps that would need to be taken to achieve strategic objectives, i.e., where one sees the organisation ending up in the future. Very clearly elucidated here. Backtracking, one will find the risks associated with these possibly multiple directions and steps — in qualitative terms, as NO valid data exists (logically necessarily, since these concern the future and hence are determined by all information in the universe which, logically, cannot be captured in any model since then, the model would have to be part of itself, incurring circularities ad infinitum and already, the organisational actions will impact the context and vice versa, in as yet (for the same reason) unpredictable ways.
And then … This risk appetite, automatically equated with the risk tolerance by the Board for risks incurred bottom-up by the mundane actions of all the underlings (i.e., including ‘managers’, see yesterday’s post), then suddenly would have to be in quantitative terms… [Yes, bypassing tolerance-as-organisational-resilience-capacity]
As all that goes around in organisations, through the first 99.9% of Operational / Operations Risk, and then some 10% industry-specific risks (e.g., market- and credit- for the finanical industry), not measured but guesstimated by hitherto outstandingly some that have least clue and experience [otherwise, they would have been much better employed in the first line of business themselves… The picture changes favorably (!) where we see some organisations shift to first-line do-it-yourself risk management… finally!] with what the chance and impact figures would be. As if those were the two only quantities to be estimated per ‘event’… As if any data from anywhere would be sufficiently reliable benchmarking material — If you believe that nevertheless, you should be locked up in a treatment facility… Yes sometimes it’s taken to be this moronic… No need to flame bigger here, as that was already done here.

But wait where was I. Oh, yeah, with the bypassing of tolerance defined as what the organisation could bear. The bare fact being, that no-one can establish a reliable figure for that. What the Board can and want to bear … Considering that the Board would have to be all-in, i.e., not only all of their bonuses since ever under clawback threat, but also all of their earned income incl salaries and personal wealth — if any of the Board would not want to risk all they ever had and have, bugger off this is what you signed up to. Considering also that strategic decisions are about wagering the existence of the company on choosing right or else, this wagering the well-being and wealth of all employees however unable to bear loss by mere fact of never had the ability to create some reserves, the previous consideration isn’t exaggerated. You wager others’ very existence, you wager your own ‘first’.

Summa summarum:
Risk Appetite is what the Board lets happen as Risk Tolerated Already.

Plus:
20160529_142237
[And away goes your grand hallway down the drain; [non-related] Haarzuilens, Utrecht]

Reverse-Logic

Not reverse logic (“Bring your umbrella so it will not rain”) being mere (non-existent! you ontological dimwit) causation inversion, but time-inversed thinking. Like this article (shall we stop calling blog posts or long reads anything else than the thing they were before ARPAnet ..?) which has it the wrong way around from this one. Snicker smuck.

Oh, and:
20161025_150026
[The Truth? It’s all cocktail pestles …! Stedelijk Amsterdam]

You're So Smart

In a reference to a song about me:
Most ab-original humans wouldn’t pass a serious Turing test.
Most serious AI trying to pass, would.

You, the select elite of my blog readers … Well, elite by numbers, mostly, or ..? And select, as in ‘clicked by error’..?

Just kidding, of course, off course.
What I meant was: as originally intended, Turing tests have become a hypothetical mind game ‘only’. Now that we’re approaching ‘intelligence’ of machines, like, graduating from ANI to AGI and on to ASI without a blink — not all of society will change at one instant to the next level, and then after some prep all of society will move to the next! Much more creepy stuff is out there without general (public its) knowledge than you can imagine (if anything) — suddenly we return to the thought experiment.
Acknowledging that we have never been able to give a sort-of extentional definition of ‘intelligence’, only an intentional one. Which may indeed suffice. Now that we’re accustomed, and into ethics discussions rather than did/did-not type of things (ex the laggerds who still can’t stand being surpassed by ‘dumb’ machines — calling them that, calls yourself ‘below’ (quod non) that…), we’ve seem to have made the question irrelevant. When a few still say that this sort of thing is impossible, others are already doing it and hardly anyone seems to care.

The latter part being the scary bit. Wait and see just will not be enough here, in particular RE settling the Ethics elements. It’s not only self-driving cars where momentum is out of human hands and into Technology’s… It’s everywhere.

To not be afraid — or to be but be brave and conquer your fears and Act, this:
20160820_150122
[Still recognisable as VR trompe l’oeil; Rijks Amsterdam]

Classic plusquote: Progress

You can watch it, but you can’t stop it. As you’re only a looker-on, unable to halt progress.
Like, this here classic from 1987 already.
[Explains the less than stellar graphics quality but hey, from analog to digital vid…]

And:
dsc_0084
[In the church of inevitable Dutch waterworks; Lijnden]

You sporting against all

When sports are considered to be character-forming for later (mostly assumed to be business-)life, either by having been trained to be competitive or have learned (really?) to cooperate in teams (really?), let’s see which versions there are:
business
In which the You Against Natural science (No counter-actors other than nature, only personal performance counts, possibly measured against others but still, bad luck gets you), You Against One opponent (where one’s in a knock-out tournament or variant; running into the later champion in the first round doesn’t do much for your chances for second place), and Team Against Team (if you’re a champ in a bad team, fuggeddaboudit; the other way around too, like Leicester City…), are all too well known, with the ‘character formation’ mostly being: Either you win or are a loser, and Suck It Up The Other Guy(‘)s Much Better.

But in business … Be careful not to think that it’s a team-to-team competition. Yes, you may assemble, or join, a team, but you’re playing against … the Market. Not another team … Unless the very unusual situation of a duopoly, which should be breakable, legally.
Rather, you’re up against ‘everything out there’; can count only on one’s own errors, not count on the luck of anything out there working your way though they sometimes do. And the character building/application is … well, mostly about you not being Hercules.

Well, if you think you are the big Heracles himself, note that your Impostor Syndrome is no illusion. The Wonder CEO that thinks he’s in the bottom right corner, is deluded to not see that it’s not all the underlings (certainly the sycophants) in a Team against him (seldomly her), in an internal struggle much larger than any competitive fight out there. But that all those one’s up against, are the Team in the top left corner, though possibly having ousted him for displaying anti-team play morals…

Talking of big business: What sport would have massive teams of hundreds, thousands, hundred thousands of players on either side ..!? With all specialised in their own little square foot of the playing field ..? At best, one has such armies with the classical mercenaries — and even they were, are, organised much more effectively. The military discipline of the multinational überbureaucracies will fail in the murk out there, certainly when one’s not against one specific opponent, as above.
‘Normal’ teams in sports are, ballpark, smaller than 20 players, all maybe having designated tasks but always all (of the winning teams) have the flexibility to step out of their role and position, with team mates catching the blind spots. As if that ever happens in business-outside-the-startup-scene. The closest to actual normal business, would be athletics teams, all with their specialties, contributing to the total, the satisfaction of having succeeded as a team winning out over the satisfaction of personal performance over team gains.

So, what was that about through (‘high school’/university age) (team) sports, would one breed character for the real world ..? If one does sports, obviously it should‘nt be for that reason but for the joy of it. ‘Character building’ as an argument shows one has no clue.

Another Thoreau, another on more-than-mere-process

I would not have every man nor every part of a man cultivated, any more than I would have every acre of earth cultivated: part will be tillage, but the greater part will be meadow and forest, not only serving an immediate use, but preparing a mould against a distant future, by the annual decay of the vegetation which it supports.

Which again, points at not every waking hour should be spent on work within the straight jacket of Process(es) and procedures, just clicking the only icons you have. But also having, taking, the time to let one’s mind wander, and do things differently, for the very purpose only of refreshment. Refreshment of the mind, for the purpose of that creating the mould, … on which future creativity is crucially, essentially dependant.

Without ‘idle’ land and time (spent on refreshment and enrichment, e.g., through reading serious (sic) i.e., only tangentially business-related (sic) books), your future will be a depleted land, a life spent being a wringed-out lemon for others’ profits.
With idleness, refreshment and joy (that essential true-life ingredient), you can be(come) all you want to be and live a full life.

‘Nuff said, plus:
dsc_0002
[Even the ground enriches the eyes… Plus, straight lines at a slight angle are more interesting >:-] ; Ancy-le-Franc, Aube]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord