What's in a name

Note: This post is a mere recap. Related blogs will be linked to, later. Part of the motivation was a post by Jon Ostrower with respect to relations of Spirit and the unions from a year ago. Of late, the new is that the bad work seen might be handled by Boeing buying back the old organization. Where do I stand? Merely as having been there, did not take an offer from NewCo (lots of reasons), watched from afar (only talked to a couple of people there in a very indirect manner - feeling out the situation), went onto the modes that Boeing inspired (truth engineering, KBE - knowledge-based engineering, and a patent dealing with the filtering and smoothing of data - core issue of AI and ML). So, here goes. 

---

It is no secret that I worked for Boeing. The sister blog (Truth Engineering) to this started about the same time. It deals with truth engineering which, for me, was motivated by working in engineering support for the 777 program, in the role of applying knowledge based engineering. The prior post in this blog mentioned a recent paper with regard to AI being more than ML. 

Wait, what does that have to do with the current problem that is associated with an earlier program? After the 777 program demonstrated remarkable results which have stood up in time, KBE was applied to subsequent work which eventually led to the 787 project. It was about then that Boeing farmed out work via a NewCo. For several months, I worked on setting up that split and have written some general posts on the deal. 

The same thing was done at Beech. There's a post titled Hawker spooked, or similar. Yes, I gave some of the details. We can recap that. Essentially, private equity ruined Beech just like it ruined that NewCo of Boeing that became Spirit. I watched this through the news and a bit of talking to local people. 

So, on the technical issues, we will address those a couple of ways. One is that these are interspersed in this blog over the 17 years. Too, they deal with the future. Say, the idiocy of the OpenAI premature release in 2002? Bears with the same mentality. 

Engineers are the mainstay of the economy. Without them, we'd be dragging our knuckles. Wait, do we see some of that even now? 

The name, 7'oops 7? Well, 2005, July was my first day of retirment. Yes, coming on 19 years. One of my friends stayed with NewCo. The last time I saw him, we talked the reality of his situation. Yeap. Screwed by private equity. But, that'll be addressed in another platform. Though, I have to note that union busting was not unknown in attitude (I was in the rat hole that they said later was a bat cave - will depict some of that). So, from day one, there was stress. Not just of late. 

Note: Boeing gave each employee an estimate of retirement benefits. Depending upon age, some went to NewCo with their full benefits. Many did not. Myself, I opted out and retired. My friend and I would go through his and ponder the future. That changed, drastically. Employees and the unions could give a better summary. I was in the Technical Excellence program and not of the union. 

What has changed? Lots of things. We'll review those. 

Okay, two years later, July 8, 2007 (7/8/7) was approaching. By then, I had heard that things were not progressing as expected. Okay. We'll punt that down the road a little to let me assess the situation. Remember, we're talking what was before the 737 problem. Process knowledge applies. And, there seemed to be a huge gap between the expectation and the status of the section to be delivered by Boeing at the time. But, it was going to be shipped anyway. What? Boeing had a huge media deal scheduled. 

I was talking to my wife as we discussed what was going on. She said, seven 'oops seven. It stuck. 

Note: Thi isn't hashing old stuff. With the 787, Boeing relaxed along almost all decision axes. That's not the way of engineering nor mathematics. It's too easy to lose sight of control. I've been in systems enginering from the getgo, in an engineering context. Anyway, this has to be discussed, sometime. 

Now, later in July of 2007, I started the truth engineering blog. After the event mentioned above. Why? I was browsing and saw some use of "truth engineering" in Europe and thought that it was time to make a presence on the web. There are many avenues taken (or to take) with the concept. In fact, it's seminal to AI's future. Academia just doesn't know it yet. Too, it deals with analyzing history as well as the mathematics that everyone is relying on, especially with the computing modes being everywhere densely. 

I started this blog in August, one month later. So, 1st posts of Truth Engineering and 7'oops7, respectively (Truth, can it be engineered?; Mission and method). 

Note, please, that neither of these initial posts mention the "potemkin affair" that happened. But, for both, it had already happened. I was not sure how to address the issues seen and heard. In this blog, I mention Flightblogger who was the first that I saw who was talking about the empty shell (more or less). That was Jon's blog. 

Also, notice that with this 7'oops7 blog's post, after Carson was out of the way (imagine, marketing running engineering?) and engineers took over, we see the 787 making progress. So, guess what? Financial cats out of MIT had misled the people using techniques that have no basis (tsk) except to pick pockets had created a serious situation. So, 2008 happened. That became the focus, for a while, until I pulled that to FEDaerated. 

Then, 7'oops7 blog became oriented toward complex systems which is our reality going forward. 

So, jumping back to now, there 307 posts here of different categories. Truth engineering has 315. FEDaerated has 331. All about the same count. Why? These are differing views of the same thing. We need more of that. I'm the author of all of these. Plus there are others. 

But, mainly, in 2015, I switched to Quora. Same themes, for the most part. The dynamics differ. 

So, I'm getting back to blogging. See this page for status: https://tgsoc.org/papers/. I am working with Larry Walker of the Sperry Knowledge Systems Center (KSC) to establish an overarching view of advanced computing in all of its aspects that is not reduced generally by academic influence. That's my take on the matters. Larry has other concerns. The KSC was thwarted from doing great work by business decisions that were suspect. At Boeing, KBE diminished after Wichita was sold. I will use the patent to start the discussion. 

So, can industry and academia work well? Different hats, folks. As Larry says, no technical brain that he saw in the C-Suite kept his/her mojo. Now, the computer? Another factor? You bet. That's my focus from a view of generalizing western civilization's role in the development. AI needs this overview. 

Remarks: Modified: 03/03/2024

03/03/2024 -- Adding more links. 

AI, not solely ML

Within the context of truth engineering which we have pursued for a few decades now, we want to carry on the discussion with entirely new contexts. Think of it this way, what we were doing before was classical. Now, we are brining in the relativity.  

Why? The xNN/LLM emerg/surge of last year is the motivation. As such, there is a lot to discuss. "Truth engineering" was coined back in the early 2000s (after Y2K's emergence (and lack of surge) allowed resources to flow to other than maintenance). Let's call it this: "Tru'Eng". The late David Jakstis (metals expert) coined the term in response to a white paper that I had done under the auspices of The Boeing Company's Chairman Innovation Initiative. 

Turns out, though, that the concept is core and at the fundamental level and was not emenable to exploition by the ca-pital-sino. I'll explain. But, that's a saving grace. So, my intent, now, is to cover the past three decades and then launch necessary discussions along with experiuments. 

Yes, experiments? You bet. I will demonstrate what is latent with the newer modes supported by computing, in particular that dealing with the science of people which will round out physics and its views. 

So, today, here is a list of the papers done so far. See "Assessment, in General" for more information. 

• 1st - AI, not solely machine learning (Blog post, Linkedin**)
• 2nd - Knowledge and truth (Blog post, Linkedin**) 
• 3rd - Physicalness and mathematics (Blog post, LinkedIn**)
• 4th - ML’s emerge/surge and data/decisions ()
• 5th - Where do we go from here?

Notes: 

* "truth engineering" coined by David E. Jakstis in discussion of a white paper by John M. Switlik on their joint work with computational modeling for fabrication of forgings and castings. 

** This is open to public read. Some Linkedin pages may require account.       

The 4th of the series is in the works. ChatGPT and Bard will feature. The others will be looked at later. Then, the 5th will review across the first four and provide "epi" connections. That is, generalization is one of our abilities related to knowledge and the intelligence that is related. But, infinite regress is always around the corner. Too, "chaos" lurks. 

Both of these can be tamed. How do we know? Ma Nature. Get used to respecting the old gal who got you here. 

Incidentally, Boeing was mentioned. Their 777 project is seminal to the discussion. As well, as we probe the waters, see"Shattered dreams" for a reference with respect to culture. 

Remarks: Modified: 02/06/2024

02/04/2024 -- Fixed typo. 

New Year, 2024

Notice the start of decline in our activity here when we moved to Quora (2015). 

Here is a list of posts. 

We will be active in 2024.  

Remarks: Modified: 01/01/2024

01/01/2024 -- 

2007 until now

This blog started in order in 2007 to continue work related to truth engineering, almost as if it were to be a model thrust. The topic (oops) tells it all; we actually ccover about all aspects of operational knowledge which is a vast, endless domain. Human creativity knows little bounds. 

Except, the mathematicians think that they have tamed infinity. Nope. Not even close. And, in taking that stance, engineering has been led astray. The result? Messes. Yes, we will show how mathematics has failed due to several reasons. 

So, given that? You see why this has taken so long. We will be back to this blog next year to carry on the torch. 

In the meantime, follow discussion at Quora where most of our attention has been given and most of our energies spent since 2015. 

Remarks: Modified: 09/18/2023

09/18/2023 -- Changed "over" to "cover" in the second sentence, second clause. Lately the passing of David E. Jakstis has taken our attention. 

Grand challenge

This is cursory as we have just become aware of a video that provides an important viewpoint. See the "Grand Challenge" post at the Truth Engineering blog for details and for further work on the subject. 

FutureLaw presentation
Stanford Law School 

Remarks: Modified: 12/31/2021

12/31/2021 --

MIT Sloan

 They gave us a gift: 737MAX: A Failure of Management, not just Technology. You know, I've waited 15 years for this. 7'oops7 results from watching Boeing. So, it's tied in with technical management at its core. 

We will be going into how the computer is the main source for the confusion that we see. Another? SciFi and its addling of the human brain.  

Remarks: Modified: 01/02/2021

01/02/2021 --

Lessons to learn

Lots of themes are pending. In the financial world, the U.S. FED just pulled out all stops and placed us in unknown territory that's even more remote than where Ben/Janet left us. Lots to learn there; but, will we?

With respect to the computer's impact, as we see partly with the hype of DL masquerading as the new AI? We have a better handle on that which we'll get back to next year. 

So, with the proverbial punt down the road, we'll let the year end. 

Remarks: Modified: 12/29/2020

12/29/2020 --

7 oops 7?

This blog (August 2007) and its sister (truth engineering - July 2007) started thirteen years ago. Why? Well, we'll get into more detail, but Boeing had a potemkin rollout in July of 2007. It was on the 8th day of July. With hoopla. National news.

And? Talking that they would fly soon. And, they could snap together sections. And, a lot more. But, the fuselage shown was mostly empty. Yes, indeed. We can go into the details as this was a major stumble. Mostly, we pointed to the fact that the marketing mind (say, Scott Carson) was not grounded in reality. Well, Boeing got this thing done. They went back to having an engineering focus.

The same thing needs to be done with the 737 Max and all of Boeing's work.

Why the name? Well, I knew early on that this was sham. Spirit, in Wichita, shipped an incomplete (severely so) section. There was not snap on. In fact, if you look at the reports, there were huge mismatches between sections.

What is a section? These are mostly used in a standard manner. From the nose back, you have the cabin, mid-way there is the wing section, and at the end is the tail. There are others depending upon the size of the plane. The idea was to have a section stuffed by a contractor. These would then be joined. Within three days was the goal.

There is a lot more, but why the name? Well I was walking and talking with my spouse about this idiocy. Even in Wichita, there was a huge deal with the shipment. She is the one who said this: "7 oops 7." I ran with that. Now, if you look at the blog's flow, you'll see that I followed the ins and outs. At some point, though, the engineers came through. I said, I'm out of here.

Now, I'm back. Due to the state of the computing reality. It's a shambles.

Not long after I started, guess what? The finance people were running amok, per usual. And, rumbles were surfing. Ah, that's down my alley. Except this. I felt like Rip van Wrinkle. How did I miss this stupidity?

I was focusing on engineering and the truth aspects. It's interesting that the main player in the mess was financial engineering (thanks, MIT - engineering school).

But, I got into the thing fast. And, Ben? Ah. Eventually, I started FEDaerated to have more of the proper focus. Yes, that started two years later (August 2009). With these three, 7'oop7, truth engineering, and FEDaerated, I could cover the basis that apply technically.

You see, these issues are mostly technical in a real broad sense. At times, they even overlap medicine's problems with their drug pushing ways. But, hey, who's perfect?

In any case, the computer has made things topsy-turvy, everywhere. So, oops will be the norm. Why? There are limits that need discussion.

BTW, we're in a financial mess, again, too. This I discussed over the past decade. So, again, I'm back.

Remarks: Modified: 01/14/2020

01/14/2020 --

Summary, 2019

This year, we had the 737 Max in the spotlight. So many themes relate to that. We'll be back.

List of 2019 posts.

Remarks: Modified: 01/03/2020

01/03/2020 --