As mentioned before, people like forward progress. As any pedestrian will tell you, the zombie-driven car will proceed despite the walker's presence, many times not even making any acknowledgement of awareness. What did the guy say the other day after he stopped, red-faced, and apologized? 'I didn't see you.' As in, his attention was elsewhere.
Well, the opposite of forward is what? Well, it's jam on the brake for any event that might be problematic in order to 1) react normally, 2) allow time to get data that was being ignored, and 3) perhaps, prevent some nasty event. Yes, we see the rear end collisions all the time that are, in part, related to this need to 'stop the world now' (of course, nod to Bill Buckley).
Now, in the past, people locked up their brakes by doing this jamming. In many situations, there were undesired side-effects. So, people, the car companies gave you the anti-lock brake. It is a computer system that tries to prevent wheel lock, and skid, while effectively stopping the vehicle. So, your brake pedal becomes a switch, essentially. And, these systems have gotten better.
At the same time, systems started to support other functions. Now, we see that the accelerator was one of these (see Toyota's issues).
Yet, there was no re-training of the brain to account for system limitations. You see, there is no brake system that will respond like the old hydraulic type. Why? For it to do so, it would have to be in control and continually assessing the situation via sensors.
And, that means processing this data in a reasonable, and quick, manner. Not easily done, folks.
But, there is a lesson that we could learn. Leave space to allow reaction. Isn't that already on the list? Meaning, do not tailgate? Too, anticipate and give the computer some lead time. Oh wait! The whole idiocy of texting while driving, and the like, counter such a state as these activities negate any chance for being aware.
Accidents, and similar side effects, have not been sufficient for people to learn the necessary habits. Perhaps, knowing about system limitations would help. Why? It elevates the thing from choice matter (ah, those who love the freedom to trash other peoples' lives) to that more intellectual (the lesson ought to be within the grasp on any who gets behind the wheel).
Now, we have seen issues with acceleration and braking with modern vehicles that were supposedly perfect. Well, perfection cannot be attained. It's an operational issue and needs to be handled as such. Too, the possible problems are a growing set.
We need to make visible the system-related issues so that we can identify and teach the necessary attitudes and postures for safe, and effective, driving. That, of course, assumes that the manufactures, and their engineers, really keep themselves up on all the potential issues. Can we show that?
Ah, yes, value versus quality. Dumb! These are not reciprocal, folks.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Drive by wire
The car is a complex system now and becoming increasingly more so. Yet, we only teach people how to drive as if conditions are perfect. Then, problematic circumstances are only written about; actually, the whole notion is to allow errors (why else the huge amount of accidents?) and to use the adage of learning from the mistakes of others.
We need something better, folks.
Essentially, the Toyota problem that is behind the massive recall, and stoppage of sales, may boil down to 'drive by wire' (dbw) which is analogous to the 'fly by wire' (fbw) that we're seeing increasingly.
Now, there is nothing implicit in this post that is anti-progress, however certain burdens come with the forward steps. One of these is a mental adjustment. Nor is there any attempt at resolving the problem which Toyota is very capable of handling.
Aside: Some comments to the Business Week article mention problems and cover ups by other auto makers. Somehow, one does not expect that with Toyota.
So, we're talking a general notion here, folks.
You see, even with mechanical (and hydraulic) systems, there can be failures (that is why there is safety engineering and risk management). At the time of the failure, consequences can be terrible. But, we can easily study these and make adjustments. It's called learning. Too, the feedback to the driver, of the older systems, was more natural.
The fbw, and dbw, systems have contrived feedback. So, training, and the resulting mental re-adjustment, is in order.
In the case of fbw, the training is taken care of by reading, lecture, discussions, sophisticated simulators, and actual flying. But, even with all this, failures occur. And, we have not seen all of the consequences that can lurk with fbw.
In the case of dbw, there is no support for the driver. Of course, we have to ask, would drivers even pay attention to the message? You see, the idiocy of texting while driving is obvious, yet we have people doing that as if their weapon of destruction's potential to harm others, and themselves, is some type of right. Or worse, that it is indicative of being progressive, cool, intelligent, and some other delusions, when, in actuality, this mindset is of swampish creatures trying to fly.
So, what is the point? In the case of fbw, there is a lot put into studying, designing, and testing these systems. Fault handling is placed wherever it can be; yet, there are failure modes that cannot be handled and that are NOT known. Hopefully, the determination that these are only remotely possible will hold up.
But, the bdw systems are not so scrutinized. Is the public included in the design considerations? In fact, that the systems rely on a large set of sensors is problematic, as these need attention, too. In the case of fbw, there is regular inspection. In fact, some of these are under continual observation, or, at least, as close to continual as we can get. Remember, observers are systems, too, therefore subject to various failure modes.
In terms of the accelerator problem, it seemed a knee-jerk reaction, at the time, to name the floor mat as the chief culprit. Then, we heard that some type of material issue with the pedal itself was the likely cause.
Given that a full review is underway, we can hope that good lessons come from this. That is, Toyota has had a good name for years; in fact, western business has sort of genuflected to those wizards of the east (sometimes to nauseating extremes).
To be positive, rules ought to be described and defined. For example, if the engine thinks that it's going to runaway, the basic rule would be to shift to neutral and maneuver out of traffic. Except, if you're in the left lane and need to cross multiple lanes, other actions will be necessary.
Another? What if you're on ice and need engine power when you have this problem?
Now, it may also come from this that the auto industry will spend time making sure that their controls have overrides, redundancies, and what not to ensure against failure. Too, perhaps, they'll be a little more insightful about sensors and the consequences of their failure.
The model here is the afferent nervous system, and its sensors, which is quite complex. Yet, it has a number of failure modes. What we learn is to anticipate.
Now, why not teach driving in the same mode? Gosh, what did the DOT use yesterday? Responsible driving.
If we had taught the correct driving lessons, the mania of texting while driving would never have taken on the magnitude that we saw happen with the bad results which are upsetting.
Folks, dbw will be reality henceforth. Let's train for this.
Aside: As found throughout this blog, there is a reminder that we do not totally control nature through our models (abstract) and computation. And, one problem inherent with dbw is the computational requirement that is at the basis. And, listen folks, we're using systems, with their software in a black box, for the most part, everyday to put our lives at stake. Is that smart? Well, we ought to know more. So, again, no luddite argument need be casted. These questions are from one who has been in the industry for decades and who is definitely not cognitively limited with the biases that can be observed within the gaming generation (texting and driving, brilliant!).
Remarks:
02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain. Where is there an auto user group?
02/08/2010 -- More expert opinion.
02/05/2010 -- Nader's opinion. Also, software and cars. And, what's the quality control? Note this from an expert's look,
02/01/2010 -- Experts on these types of things.
01/29/2010 -- Defense of Toyota.
01/29/2010 -- As said before, there is no reason to knock only Toyota in these regards (look at the long recall lists). The dbw discussion could just broaden to cover the fact that systems are more complicated and electrically boosted. Note today's Honda recall. There is no need to go through the long list of recalls except, perhaps, to categorize and count. The basis for continuing problem will be embedded logic as its prevalence can only increase due to technology. Who knows what we'll see with the hybrids and electric cares? That's the way it goes, folks, when we deal with our artificial servants.
And, using these little quirks of designed projects as an analogy for the large scope of economics is not far off base. All the gaming that we see financially has been computationally derived from mindsets that are both morally and ethically disadvantaged. Oh, these folks are brilliant and our best and brightest? Give us a break!
Modified: 02/09/2010
We need something better, folks.
Essentially, the Toyota problem that is behind the massive recall, and stoppage of sales, may boil down to 'drive by wire' (dbw) which is analogous to the 'fly by wire' (fbw) that we're seeing increasingly.
Now, there is nothing implicit in this post that is anti-progress, however certain burdens come with the forward steps. One of these is a mental adjustment. Nor is there any attempt at resolving the problem which Toyota is very capable of handling.
Aside: Some comments to the Business Week article mention problems and cover ups by other auto makers. Somehow, one does not expect that with Toyota.
So, we're talking a general notion here, folks.
You see, even with mechanical (and hydraulic) systems, there can be failures (that is why there is safety engineering and risk management). At the time of the failure, consequences can be terrible. But, we can easily study these and make adjustments. It's called learning. Too, the feedback to the driver, of the older systems, was more natural.
The fbw, and dbw, systems have contrived feedback. So, training, and the resulting mental re-adjustment, is in order.
In the case of fbw, the training is taken care of by reading, lecture, discussions, sophisticated simulators, and actual flying. But, even with all this, failures occur. And, we have not seen all of the consequences that can lurk with fbw.
In the case of dbw, there is no support for the driver. Of course, we have to ask, would drivers even pay attention to the message? You see, the idiocy of texting while driving is obvious, yet we have people doing that as if their weapon of destruction's potential to harm others, and themselves, is some type of right. Or worse, that it is indicative of being progressive, cool, intelligent, and some other delusions, when, in actuality, this mindset is of swampish creatures trying to fly.
So, what is the point? In the case of fbw, there is a lot put into studying, designing, and testing these systems. Fault handling is placed wherever it can be; yet, there are failure modes that cannot be handled and that are NOT known. Hopefully, the determination that these are only remotely possible will hold up.
But, the bdw systems are not so scrutinized. Is the public included in the design considerations? In fact, that the systems rely on a large set of sensors is problematic, as these need attention, too. In the case of fbw, there is regular inspection. In fact, some of these are under continual observation, or, at least, as close to continual as we can get. Remember, observers are systems, too, therefore subject to various failure modes.
In terms of the accelerator problem, it seemed a knee-jerk reaction, at the time, to name the floor mat as the chief culprit. Then, we heard that some type of material issue with the pedal itself was the likely cause.
Given that a full review is underway, we can hope that good lessons come from this. That is, Toyota has had a good name for years; in fact, western business has sort of genuflected to those wizards of the east (sometimes to nauseating extremes).
To be positive, rules ought to be described and defined. For example, if the engine thinks that it's going to runaway, the basic rule would be to shift to neutral and maneuver out of traffic. Except, if you're in the left lane and need to cross multiple lanes, other actions will be necessary.
Another? What if you're on ice and need engine power when you have this problem?
Now, it may also come from this that the auto industry will spend time making sure that their controls have overrides, redundancies, and what not to ensure against failure. Too, perhaps, they'll be a little more insightful about sensors and the consequences of their failure.
The model here is the afferent nervous system, and its sensors, which is quite complex. Yet, it has a number of failure modes. What we learn is to anticipate.
Now, why not teach driving in the same mode? Gosh, what did the DOT use yesterday? Responsible driving.
If we had taught the correct driving lessons, the mania of texting while driving would never have taken on the magnitude that we saw happen with the bad results which are upsetting.
Folks, dbw will be reality henceforth. Let's train for this.
Aside: As found throughout this blog, there is a reminder that we do not totally control nature through our models (abstract) and computation. And, one problem inherent with dbw is the computational requirement that is at the basis. And, listen folks, we're using systems, with their software in a black box, for the most part, everyday to put our lives at stake. Is that smart? Well, we ought to know more. So, again, no luddite argument need be casted. These questions are from one who has been in the industry for decades and who is definitely not cognitively limited with the biases that can be observed within the gaming generation (texting and driving, brilliant!).
Remarks:
02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain. Where is there an auto user group?
02/08/2010 -- More expert opinion.
02/05/2010 -- Nader's opinion. Also, software and cars. And, what's the quality control? Note this from an expert's look,
02/01/2010 -- Experts on these types of things.
01/29/2010 -- Defense of Toyota.
01/29/2010 -- As said before, there is no reason to knock only Toyota in these regards (look at the long recall lists). The dbw discussion could just broaden to cover the fact that systems are more complicated and electrically boosted. Note today's Honda recall. There is no need to go through the long list of recalls except, perhaps, to categorize and count. The basis for continuing problem will be embedded logic as its prevalence can only increase due to technology. Who knows what we'll see with the hybrids and electric cares? That's the way it goes, folks, when we deal with our artificial servants.
And, using these little quirks of designed projects as an analogy for the large scope of economics is not far off base. All the gaming that we see financially has been computationally derived from mindsets that are both morally and ethically disadvantaged. Oh, these folks are brilliant and our best and brightest? Give us a break!
Modified: 02/09/2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Traps and oops
A recent book review prompts the post.
We all marvel at the American ingenuity, and intelligence, that culminated in the moon landings and all of the side-effects that changed our lives, technically and socially.
We also know that 'perfect storms' happen (there are just too many to list). The moon program was so successful is almost the opposite of a perfect storm. Though there were mishaps (and lives lost), the program went well. The trouble with success like this is that it can breed hubris. How to control that human reaction is paramount to our future success.
So, somewhere between the gigantic success and the frustrating failure is the balance that we seek. This book covers that topic. Title: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon ... Getting Big Things done in Government.
Here are the pitfalls covered that are cleverly described as traps. We'll be discussing each of these in turn, in the contexts covered by this blog.
Let's see, Lordly Prince trap? There will be others added later.
We all marvel at the American ingenuity, and intelligence, that culminated in the moon landings and all of the side-effects that changed our lives, technically and socially.
We also know that 'perfect storms' happen (there are just too many to list). The moon program was so successful is almost the opposite of a perfect storm. Though there were mishaps (and lives lost), the program went well. The trouble with success like this is that it can breed hubris. How to control that human reaction is paramount to our future success.
So, somewhere between the gigantic success and the frustrating failure is the balance that we seek. This book covers that topic. Title: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon ... Getting Big Things done in Government.
Here are the pitfalls covered that are cleverly described as traps. We'll be discussing each of these in turn, in the contexts covered by this blog.
- The Partial Map Trap: Importance of good project management
- The Tolstoy Syndrome: Letting facts/data and models blind you
- Design-Free Design: Getting the cart before the horse and believing in top-down hubris when grounded engineering needs to be in the balance
- The Overconfidence Trap: Ah, forgetting that the past does not foretell the future
- The Complacency Trap: Letting group-think, and fear of the truth, keep the right information suppressed
Let's see, Lordly Prince trap? There will be others added later.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Life as simulation
Or is it simulation as life?
Philip Greenspun talks about his recent experience with flight training. From reading the post, one gets a sense of his having spent several days in a simulator and then having an actual flight in a plane.
Now, are those two equivalent (simulation and flight)? Well, the short answer is that it depends. Yet, that question is at the core of several issues (see Remarks 07/05/09, Turing remix) that we need to resolve.
Also, we know that projects are becoming more reliant upon simulation, and advanced visualization, to an extreme point. Is that, by necessity, how things ought to unfold technically?
...
As a side note, Phil also mentions that his stress level built up in anticipation of the test flight. Sound almost like having too little actual feedback might be a factor. One might ask whether the practice of too little actual contact with reality, which is what we see with simulation, and other abstracted views of thing, just might be more problematic that we have considered.
We'll have to discuss that further at some point as there are several aspects to the problem. After all, folks, all this stuff is relatively new to us; that is, it was only a mere generation ago that such reliance only on simulation would have been impossible, and unconscionable. Of course, at that time, personal jets were not yet a reality.
Philip Greenspun talks about his recent experience with flight training. From reading the post, one gets a sense of his having spent several days in a simulator and then having an actual flight in a plane.
Now, are those two equivalent (simulation and flight)? Well, the short answer is that it depends. Yet, that question is at the core of several issues (see Remarks 07/05/09, Turing remix) that we need to resolve.
Also, we know that projects are becoming more reliant upon simulation, and advanced visualization, to an extreme point. Is that, by necessity, how things ought to unfold technically?
...
As a side note, Phil also mentions that his stress level built up in anticipation of the test flight. Sound almost like having too little actual feedback might be a factor. One might ask whether the practice of too little actual contact with reality, which is what we see with simulation, and other abstracted views of thing, just might be more problematic that we have considered.
We'll have to discuss that further at some point as there are several aspects to the problem. After all, folks, all this stuff is relatively new to us; that is, it was only a mere generation ago that such reliance only on simulation would have been impossible, and unconscionable. Of course, at that time, personal jets were not yet a reality.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Forward progress
What does 'forward progress' mean? Well, there are several things to look at.
For instance, the 787 program exhibited this with the recent first flight (congratulations are in order). As we've said before, complex projects are never easy. Assuming forward motion, at all times, may be problematic since it is really a measurement issue along many dimensions.
Too, some games use the notion, like American football. Here things are little easier to discern, as usually any motion goal is one-dimensional.
Actually, the point of this post is to relate some observation about pedestrians in an automotive society. But, first, let's look at drivers.
Has the world gone crazy? That is, does getting behind the wheel cause some type of idiocy to manifest itself? Well, given that the texting craze has influenced some drivers may indicate so.
That is, who, in their right mind, would not pay close attention when hurling through space, albeit more limited than flying, to the current situation and what is there? Would you drive while blinded? Of course not would say the rational person.
Somehow, using a cell phone, especially with texting, causes some cognitive state change that is analogous to being blind. Even if the state is not as extreme as one might think, the distraction does interfere with assessing situational issues.
Of course, many states have been working to place limits on this type of idiocy. So, we can talk another aspect.
Ever notice how some type of 'forward progress' trance, for drivers, seems to inhibit an act that is so minor that one has to wonder what gives? That is, moving the foot from the accelerator, not necessarily to the brake, seems to be an impossible task.
And, it is so easy to lift the foot from the gas pedal. Yet, failure to do so can make the pedestrians life so uncertain. Now, the driver, in some cases, may be in some type of mindset that does not allow for the walker and that keeps the driver from seeing some on foot. We know that bikers have this problem since their presence may not even register in some car drivers' awareness or that there may be some negative attitude on the part of some car drivers.
And, that type of blindness can happen without the cell phone (tweets) or other distractions. We could use concepts like cognitive inertia, perhaps, where the dissonance come from not allowing for the walker (or any moving object other than the same type, that is, 4-wheeled) within the worldview.
Some states give the pedestrian the right of way. Others may have the rule that the walker needs to be extremely cautious which does make sense in that those on foot are much more vulnerable.
Which brings up an issue. Is it just that being surrounded by this casing which is the car causes a feeling of invincibility, by necessity? Then, the dynamic becomes a type of hypothetical bumper car game where the driver just hopes that noone takes up their challenge?
This little bit has no goal except to try to phrase some issue that is problematic. There have been people run down who are highly protected by law, namely highway workers, which is really hard to understand. Too, troopers have been hit, however one could account for this, in part, due to the circumstance of high-speed sections where the cognitive look ahead is already impaired. It's like having to make real-time judgments ex post facto (can't work, folks, hence we have a growing need for simulation which can only go so far).
So, initiatives, like Lean, focus on removing causes; that is, eliminate the error possibility. Or, in my time, the best driving rule was to be defensive (for the younger folks, one key point is to pay attention).
But, for the walker, in an urban, or suburban, environment, where the auto does not have the right to claim either presence priority (oh yes, perhaps by being bigger - that's bullying) or speed rights (nope, everywhere that is in a developed country limits vehicular speed where people are expected to be), things can get pretty dire.
There are many questions to pose. One of these would look at that forward progress, or momentum, cognitive state and try to understand why the foot/leg cannot surmount the forces that keep the foot on the accelerator.
First of all, we need some clever phrase to depict the condition. Then, we can look at the physiological and psychological (note the order) issues involve.
Needless to say, that little inertial force, whatever it is called, has been the culprit in countless, and costly, accidents (er, oops).
Remarks:
02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain. Where is there an auto user group?
01/02/2010 -- More states now have laws prohibiting (or limiting) driving while texting (dwt). Why did it require legal action? Common sense ought to have been enough, yet the appeal of the abstract and computation (sirens abound in the domains) are very strong.
12/21/2009 -- Some recent events point to the problem.
For instance, the 787 program exhibited this with the recent first flight (congratulations are in order). As we've said before, complex projects are never easy. Assuming forward motion, at all times, may be problematic since it is really a measurement issue along many dimensions.
Too, some games use the notion, like American football. Here things are little easier to discern, as usually any motion goal is one-dimensional.
Actually, the point of this post is to relate some observation about pedestrians in an automotive society. But, first, let's look at drivers.
Has the world gone crazy? That is, does getting behind the wheel cause some type of idiocy to manifest itself? Well, given that the texting craze has influenced some drivers may indicate so.
That is, who, in their right mind, would not pay close attention when hurling through space, albeit more limited than flying, to the current situation and what is there? Would you drive while blinded? Of course not would say the rational person.
Somehow, using a cell phone, especially with texting, causes some cognitive state change that is analogous to being blind. Even if the state is not as extreme as one might think, the distraction does interfere with assessing situational issues.
Of course, many states have been working to place limits on this type of idiocy. So, we can talk another aspect.
Ever notice how some type of 'forward progress' trance, for drivers, seems to inhibit an act that is so minor that one has to wonder what gives? That is, moving the foot from the accelerator, not necessarily to the brake, seems to be an impossible task.
And, it is so easy to lift the foot from the gas pedal. Yet, failure to do so can make the pedestrians life so uncertain. Now, the driver, in some cases, may be in some type of mindset that does not allow for the walker and that keeps the driver from seeing some on foot. We know that bikers have this problem since their presence may not even register in some car drivers' awareness or that there may be some negative attitude on the part of some car drivers.
And, that type of blindness can happen without the cell phone (tweets) or other distractions. We could use concepts like cognitive inertia, perhaps, where the dissonance come from not allowing for the walker (or any moving object other than the same type, that is, 4-wheeled) within the worldview.
Some states give the pedestrian the right of way. Others may have the rule that the walker needs to be extremely cautious which does make sense in that those on foot are much more vulnerable.
Which brings up an issue. Is it just that being surrounded by this casing which is the car causes a feeling of invincibility, by necessity? Then, the dynamic becomes a type of hypothetical bumper car game where the driver just hopes that noone takes up their challenge?
This little bit has no goal except to try to phrase some issue that is problematic. There have been people run down who are highly protected by law, namely highway workers, which is really hard to understand. Too, troopers have been hit, however one could account for this, in part, due to the circumstance of high-speed sections where the cognitive look ahead is already impaired. It's like having to make real-time judgments ex post facto (can't work, folks, hence we have a growing need for simulation which can only go so far).
So, initiatives, like Lean, focus on removing causes; that is, eliminate the error possibility. Or, in my time, the best driving rule was to be defensive (for the younger folks, one key point is to pay attention).
But, for the walker, in an urban, or suburban, environment, where the auto does not have the right to claim either presence priority (oh yes, perhaps by being bigger - that's bullying) or speed rights (nope, everywhere that is in a developed country limits vehicular speed where people are expected to be), things can get pretty dire.
There are many questions to pose. One of these would look at that forward progress, or momentum, cognitive state and try to understand why the foot/leg cannot surmount the forces that keep the foot on the accelerator.
First of all, we need some clever phrase to depict the condition. Then, we can look at the physiological and psychological (note the order) issues involve.
Needless to say, that little inertial force, whatever it is called, has been the culprit in countless, and costly, accidents (er, oops).
Remarks:
02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain. Where is there an auto user group?
01/02/2010 -- More states now have laws prohibiting (or limiting) driving while texting (dwt). Why did it require legal action? Common sense ought to have been enough, yet the appeal of the abstract and computation (sirens abound in the domains) are very strong.
12/21/2009 -- Some recent events point to the problem.
- 1) Picture a busy intersection; 4-way stop; woman sits in car texting; at least, 5 cycles of cars stopping and going pass by and she sits texting; and given the season, the cars behind her didn't honk, probably wondering what was the hold-up.
- 2) Picture an area that is multi-purpose and suburban with a winding road; posted speed is about 30 mph; pedestrian waiting to cross as a string of cars go by; count 'em -- a-one, a-two, ...; all pass by with none even noticing the walker; and, needless to say, none stopped to let the walker go across the road.
- 3) Same situation as 2), except lo and behold, the other day some one did stop, causing cars behind to stop, too -- as well, restarting the counter. So, that's several 1000s crossings of that road, with about 1/4 having traffic. Out of those 1/4 of 100s, the stoppers could be counted on a couple of hands.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Our basis
Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).
As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.
As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.
- Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).
- 7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.
- FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Our trust
Well, 'our' in this sense is the collection of those dependent upon an economy that works which is, essentially, we, the taxpayers, and, in particular, US taxpayers.
What is 'trust' in this sense? We'll have to go into that further, but, whatever it is, its value is worth much less now than before.
In fact, we've been cast to the proverbial winds by those upon whom we placed the trust (it seems that either of the major political parties is as bad as the other). The mania of the train notwithstanding, things are not looking better except for those whose giant pockets are filled by the mechanisms of finance.
The big oops of the past year, actually two years, are now behind us enough to bear some scrutiny and opinion.
For instance, consider what Krugman (thanks to CalculatedRisk for the notice) wrote yesterday in the NY Times about the AIG fiascos. Squander? Yes, indeed. Comments found at the sites are worth the read.
Along the same note, TechTicker mentions Brad DeLong's blog remarks about the issues (will need to look further at this), such as saying that there is more than zero chance of a Depression (out of bullets).
By the way, and speaking of the political parties, we ought to have some serious constraint on term limits (let's say 8 years, however that would be subject to some debate). We need to refresh the blood, continually. Too, remove the influence of those paid meddlers (lobby-ers), and we would all be better off.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
Modified: 11/30/2009
What is 'trust' in this sense? We'll have to go into that further, but, whatever it is, its value is worth much less now than before.
In fact, we've been cast to the proverbial winds by those upon whom we placed the trust (it seems that either of the major political parties is as bad as the other). The mania of the train notwithstanding, things are not looking better except for those whose giant pockets are filled by the mechanisms of finance.
The big oops of the past year, actually two years, are now behind us enough to bear some scrutiny and opinion.
For instance, consider what Krugman (thanks to CalculatedRisk for the notice) wrote yesterday in the NY Times about the AIG fiascos. Squander? Yes, indeed. Comments found at the sites are worth the read.
Along the same note, TechTicker mentions Brad DeLong's blog remarks about the issues (will need to look further at this), such as saying that there is more than zero chance of a Depression (out of bullets).
By the way, and speaking of the political parties, we ought to have some serious constraint on term limits (let's say 8 years, however that would be subject to some debate). We need to refresh the blood, continually. Too, remove the influence of those paid meddlers (lobby-ers), and we would all be better off.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
The train
There are all sorts of uses for 'train' as a metaphor, the little train that could being one example.
One use denotes the current choice for an individual investor. That is, do we get into, or stay out of, equities, given that the markets are up (as evidenced with a DOW over 10,000)?
Well, in this case, one has to ask, is there such a train? Or, are we where the suckers finally bite just before another crash?
Well, it's hard to say. Some argue that the fundamentals point to the current rally as being a bearish type. That is, not much behind it of a substantial nature. One fact that pops up now and then is that those in the know are selling now whereas back in March they were buying.
This is a typical choice point for Main Street folk as the Wall Street folk show off their gains (some of which are ill-begotten) and make claims for the future.
The story needs to be told is that no one has to board this play train, assuming that it exists. What we have is basically a chimera built upon the sand of casino capitalism. Oh sure, some will continue to benefit; those are the ones who control the game and who are guaranteed their take. Many more will lose.
If we go back to the original principle for using the equity form of capital, we can see that the gaming has been allowed that is unnecessary. There are methods of investing that do not partake of the type of mania that is being sold.
Where this dilemma relates to oops is this, those who come in late, like now, will lose their shirts, most likely. There is no reason to buy in; not doing so will not be anything to rue later.
So, how to describe the issues so that the choices are clear? That is one task.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. The particular train being touted now, the play train, is only for those in the game, and we see how they are rolling in the dough (and, bonus time is approaching).
Modified: 01/27/2010
One use denotes the current choice for an individual investor. That is, do we get into, or stay out of, equities, given that the markets are up (as evidenced with a DOW over 10,000)?
Well, in this case, one has to ask, is there such a train? Or, are we where the suckers finally bite just before another crash?
Well, it's hard to say. Some argue that the fundamentals point to the current rally as being a bearish type. That is, not much behind it of a substantial nature. One fact that pops up now and then is that those in the know are selling now whereas back in March they were buying.
This is a typical choice point for Main Street folk as the Wall Street folk show off their gains (some of which are ill-begotten) and make claims for the future.
The story needs to be told is that no one has to board this play train, assuming that it exists. What we have is basically a chimera built upon the sand of casino capitalism. Oh sure, some will continue to benefit; those are the ones who control the game and who are guaranteed their take. Many more will lose.
If we go back to the original principle for using the equity form of capital, we can see that the gaming has been allowed that is unnecessary. There are methods of investing that do not partake of the type of mania that is being sold.
Where this dilemma relates to oops is this, those who come in late, like now, will lose their shirts, most likely. There is no reason to buy in; not doing so will not be anything to rue later.
So, how to describe the issues so that the choices are clear? That is one task.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. The particular train being touted now, the play train, is only for those in the game, and we see how they are rolling in the dough (and, bonus time is approaching).
Modified: 01/27/2010
Monday, October 19, 2009
Gray areas
The Prizes continue to be given. The Economics winners have an interesting bit of work behind them.
One of these, Mr. Williamson, has expanded upon a couple of ideas in his work: "The first is that a contractual agreement can never be complete; there are always contingencies that haven't been accounted for. The other is that people act opportunistically within the gray area of contracts to make sure they benefit the most, and that can lead to problems".
Oh, really, now? Somehow, common sense has taken leave of us, it seems. Ah, those sirens of abstraction, mathematics (flim-flam), computation, and pseudo-nerdism just seem to have gotten a very good grip on our senses. Tsk, Tsk.
What we could say is, just like with ethics, some rule needs to kick in when the area is gray. Well, as said before, that old 'golden' one was fine; note, 'golden' in this sense is entirely different than in the following usage: golden sacks.
Of course, we could also go into t-issues whose hold on the common sense seems to have wavered through various dynamics.
We'll say it again. The lesson applies to finance where we ought to run the thing with a non-profit focus, that is, anti-opportunism. By the way, I'll even volunteer.
Oh, by the way, what helps with the gray area in a company, besides ethics? Ah, culture. They ought to know that.
One of these, Mr. Williamson, has expanded upon a couple of ideas in his work: "The first is that a contractual agreement can never be complete; there are always contingencies that haven't been accounted for. The other is that people act opportunistically within the gray area of contracts to make sure they benefit the most, and that can lead to problems".
Oh, really, now? Somehow, common sense has taken leave of us, it seems. Ah, those sirens of abstraction, mathematics (flim-flam), computation, and pseudo-nerdism just seem to have gotten a very good grip on our senses. Tsk, Tsk.
What we could say is, just like with ethics, some rule needs to kick in when the area is gray. Well, as said before, that old 'golden' one was fine; note, 'golden' in this sense is entirely different than in the following usage: golden sacks.
Of course, we could also go into t-issues whose hold on the common sense seems to have wavered through various dynamics.
We'll say it again. The lesson applies to finance where we ought to run the thing with a non-profit focus, that is, anti-opportunism. By the way, I'll even volunteer.
Oh, by the way, what helps with the gray area in a company, besides ethics? Ah, culture. They ought to know that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
