Miscellany

The Truth Engineering blog started first (July 24, 2007) with severalfold motivations but without a specific focus which does allow a more general viewpoint. Then, with the rumblings on the web in regard to the 787 missing its fly date starting to increase, this blog started with that focus but then took on a larger scope (these seeds are being updated).

In that larger scope, the idiocy of the financial world will be analyzed much more deeply than can be the 787 program. Why? It is supposed to be open, much more so than can be some proprietary program. Yet, we've seen privatization of mechanism (it allows Grasso keep his take). Not that the engineering/program topic won't be used in the future, after all engineering touches everything and has some blame for the current messes that we see. Of course, the 'real' engineering viewpoint will say that management forced decisions that ultimately screw things up.

As an aside, one task for each blog will be to have a name for reference to 'self' to inhibit the use of the royal 'we' as may have happened now and then. So, we'll use 7oops7 for now.

Of late, 7oops7 has been getting more deeply into what has happened in financial and economic theory (and practice) the past couple of decades than was thought wise before. You see, many have gone mad thinking about these things. How else can we (oops) account for the growing idiocy and all around growth of hapless victims? These are dismal sciences, indeed.

Engineering comes out with something real, such as an airplane which can be tested against its goals. Finance is for the most part a game, as has been said before. 7oops7 has been incredulously poking at shenanigans that the lemmings (from the top, I might add you) have allowed, pursued, and pondered (as it creates holes in the pockets of the many). Gosh, some of these things don't even make sense to most (understanding requires initiation into the brotherhood) and really border on unethical practices (are we in a global blindness here?).

As said before, quoting the recently-departed William F. Buckley, Jr, 'stop' (the madness). Just because the computer and mathematics allow the gaming of the market does not give it any more truth than what it is. What is it? A very shaking system based upon what several metaphors could describe: sand, cards, ...

There have been sane voices, such as Minsky (the economist, not the perceptronist) which is encouraging. Methinks that the genie is out of the bottle, yet putting the more risky in a sandbox is not impossible. All it would take, to start, would be a good explanation about why we have all the instability. Perhaps, 7oops7 could attempt such, knowing, of course, that the myth of Sisyphus is apropos. Let's see, how much time do we have?

Remarks:

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

12/05/2008 -- It got so bad that even in a Republican time socialization of loss was allowed to bail out the privatization of profit.

Modified: 09/12/2009

Counting oops

David Wessel, of the WSJ, writes in Fannie, Freddie's Risks Exposed about the balance needed between privatization and nationalization. These two are examples of the abstractions that we love so much. If you would, these are 'dreams' that are problematic for realization, not like those things in engineering where actual production is possible.

So, what happened in the past decade is that a very much ideal approach to supporting home ownership was opened (but, not as a level playing field) to those who could not keep themselves from profiteering (which is related to Minsky's ponzi-ness). Along with this, another thing of beauty was besmirched, namely good old Sallie Mae. Several students who took loans found themselves wrapped by the python let loose by the privateers. These things are partly apropos in that Barack's vetting chief was one of those who interloped upon that space.

But, back to Wessel's comments, which are usually resonant with themes of 7oops7. The recent looks at Fannie and Freddie have resulted in recognition of their usefulness and in some appreciation for what might be done to control the Minsky inevitables.

So, how many oops are there to count in this regard? Well, those related to the program of initial interest pale by comparison.

Another example involves the Auction-Rate Security (ARS, see Wikipedia) which has trapped a few people. Again, from the WSJ (Holders of Auction-Rate Debt Have Choices, but Few Solutions), we can see some specific cases. One person asked where to part $375K for a few months in order to sort things out. Well, this investment idiot (UBS? you would think better of them) spouted that the ARS (was there some notion about the ARS being a cash equivalent?) was the place; essentially, the person has lost half the value. Naturally, claims for some type of damages are forthcoming. The article has a few other examples.

A lot of these things are understandable as many made oodles of money with problematic instruments for awhile and got lured in. It is very much true that proper accounting was not done; meaning, of course, accounting that would have shown the losers over this time (near zero-sum, folks - oh, that would be a God-eye's view? you might ask).

Gosh, the rating agencies adding junk on junk and getting something that didn't smell (or so they thought) just shows that mathematics has been mis-applied and reason pirated.

In this case, short-term CDs, even with the diminished rate due to Ben (thank you, guy), would have been preferred. But, various traditions of finance and mottled thinking says not.

Remarks:

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.

01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.

Modified: 11/04/2010

It is not funny

Earlier, we talked about financial decisions that would be funny, such as leveraging, as being a cause of oops as it provokes gaming which can have very much non-funny results. Minsky's notion of the inevitability of the ponzi following speculation seems to fit.

Well, we see financial issues everywhere, from the Fed opening up discounts to junk'ies (a view in the WSJ asks, Why Is the 'Discount' Free?) to workers being screwed out of their pensions that are comparatively small to what the fattest of the cats may get (also, see recent WSJ article on CEOs posthumous pay -- millions and millions).

An example of a problem, that has lurked but is very illustrative, is the dilemma of workers. For instance, we see pension robbing, where one would expect that after all this time we could support the future for workers with more than just gab. We see little respect for workers from management as the latter go about their profiteering ways.

Of course, many of these issues would be hard for an angel to resolve, that we have greed involved to the equation just complicates things more. Perhaps, getting the dismal areas to be less so would be a good step forward starting with currency that has 'real' value.

Remarks:

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

01/26/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.

07/31/2008 -- For a little bit, we'll be looking at money and why there is so much problem handling things. The oops part results from our letting computationally-framed methods run amok, just because we could. Lawmakers and lawmen, essentially, have let this happen either due to wanting the benefits to accrue for their friends (and, boy, has this happened) or just due to the complexity of the situation (which is real, but that does not mean that we ought to let those opportunists who play and win to not see beyond their mountains of dollars [or any other currency]).

That these issues are not simple is due to the very foundational nature of the related problems.

Modified: 08/24/2009

It worked

It worked before!! Who hasn't heard this? It may be that financial engineering takes advantage of this and turns it into a gaming advantage.

Well, many times we learn from observing some effect in nature that is repeatable. At first, we just use the effect if it's convenient. Then, we study the effect to see why it might be so and how to control it better. That's how science and engineering worked, in the beginning. At some point, we let the computer come between ourselves and our science.

As well, when you have some new product you test it before the public gets involved. For instance, we don't put passengers on a new plane before it has been tested and passed muster.

That is, we put the product through the 'oops with loops in order to reduce the odds for oops.

On the other hand, we have not found such in the dismal sciences of economics and finance. There, we experiment in life (real time), and real people get scarred as a consequence. That is, some of the major players get their pockets filled (year-end festivities are reliant upon this); the majority find themselves worse off. Guess what? Again, it's related to the computer. And, we seem to take it for granted that oops are by nature necessary.

Of course, it would be nice if we only experienced oops that result from our own actions, but, in this case, our pain is either someone else's gain or our oops are consequences of the choices of others. Much argument goes into how we get the playing field leveled or just keep the hands of others out of our pockets.

A case in point is the Auction-Rate Security (ARS) which has become problematic of late for many reasons. A Business Week article says that this market has been working for years; ah, yes, it was working. Well, we could take exception to that fact as on the surface this market might have been well-oiled, but a real close analysis could probably find many warts. That the problematics may have shuffled up to visibility shows several things, such as muddied waters bring up the sediments.

There are several things that we could look at with this type of market. However, one lesson might be that we still need to good old model that is behind bonds, such as the Treasuries.

In fact, the ARS has led to the downfall of the student loan industry. Gosh, that one thing alone is atrocious. Too, do the ARS (and tranche-ing) put lipstick on junky pigs?

There needs to be better accounting on who wins and loses. In terms of the ARS, I would bet that many have lost money over the years (during which the market was working in some views) where loss was taken as a lesson learned (for the individual) about the results of improper decisions and unwarranted risks or was taken as an oops. Yet, we see now that the information involved with this market was not as good as many would hope.

Ah, oops just seem to abound where the Street is concerned. How can one build the future on such shenanigans? America, and others, wake up! We cannot stop the world, but we sure do need a better ontology than that of sharks, etc. (Business Week article).

Remarks:

07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.

06/07/2009 -- Say what?

01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.

Modified: 07/23/2009

'Oops and loops lead to oops

Even doing nothing can have consequences which might be interesting to look at.

However, we want to look at efforts of doers that have results which imply then that we'll have some 'oops through which the doers need to leap as well as the loops involved with doing it again (any good learning circuit involves feedback and knowing when to quit).

Of course, that oops can follow is to be expected. How well these are managed is a key factor.

Gosh, just parsing through this post so far offers up many nuances that could be explored in terms of the former focus, but we ought to let that lie for the time being. There are many other useful twists to turn.

An example might be driving given some habits that have come to fore with the gaming generation. How many oops occur from inattentiveness of various sorts?

Here are three, of many, recent possible examples of problematic driving.

• going along a familiar route, at an intersection, turn by rote, that is, attention of the uper cortex elsewhere, driving being done in a reactive mode, not observing, finding that there is a blockage in the lane, thankfully being aware enough to stop, how many times is the reaction time too long for safety?
• driving with divided attention, due to too little thought being given to processing the data related to the driving act (text-messaging, etc.), again, in some situations, this can have serious consequences
• not accounting for possible moves by others, such as speeding pass some cars in a queue in a lane, completely ignoring what has motivated the defensive driving moral

Though a route may have been followed many times, each time through is not a replay of the former times. The data related to the current route needs to be processed and handled. Applying rote responses can be problematic, even though, for a whole class of needed actions, we use what has been learned.

As, we can always ask: how often are the situations so novel as to require creative means? Well, one retort would be that it would be first time through.

This little thought could be applied to planning, especially in terms of earned value. Analytics ought not be weighted too heavily the first time through, success with parametrics notwithstanding. It may be that the thread that runs through time (collapse of the graph on the critical path, so to speak) is such that only routine methods are necessary.

Yet, on the first pass, even the first several, one might think that markers and milestones themselves ought to be scrutinized. Nothing would be entirely routine in this scheme.

Of course, driving like that would be extremely tedious. We want speed (and spin).

After thought: can the computer's role as simulator (of which there are several types and uses) remove (or is it reduce?) the necessity of proof in reality?

Remarks:

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

12/14/2010 -- This post deals with, while not explicitly stating so, issues related to compiled knowledge.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Thanksgiving

One thing that we can be thankful for is that, for the most part, thoughts (or expectations) of easy accomplishment in difficult situations, or of nice solutions to difficult problems, are not rewarded, at least not to the degree we would like.

For those wishes that are rewarded, even if only to some degree and as probably happens more than might be good for us, someone covered for us, about which we ought to be grateful; until our maturity, many played a support role; in maturity, expertise, especially as provided by humans (as resources), abounds in every direction (much of this may be taken without thanks - or is misused - it sure looks that way to the insightful observer); so many examples could apply.

The gilded cage, related to the 'golden touch' (in the modern era, mostly attained through exploiting the substance of many others) is not as wonderful inside as it might look to the onlooker. The better cage gets involved with learning from mistakes so as to push back our known frontiers into useful territory.

Just as flightblogger changed course, so, too, will this blog. The name will be the same as the motivating influence can serve as one, of many, sources for examples to use to describe the issues that are involved in several modern dilemmas, as well as to define alternative attempts at coping with such issues with fair, equitable, truthful, and effective means.

Remarks:

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

12/03/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.

11/26/2008 -- The mess grew and grew, fairy dusting indeed.

07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.

Modified: 01/18/2009

Some seeds

Topics that could be discussed in the blog are many; therefore some attempt at a list might be in order.

List of 2024: 

• - GenAI and my response: AI, not solely machine learning 
• - discuss how KBE influenced and then limped forward 
• - new twist of Boeing buying its Wichita site back 
• ... 

List of 2011:

• - review the seeds to date in the context of how posts flowed around subjects
• - use periodic recaps (what cycle?), such as this, more regularly
• ...

New list (2009):

• - By seed, put in comment and point to subsequent discussion.
• - Get into 'earned value' issues; perhaps, coin new term.
• - Follow up, as testing in flight is within sight.
• - More on people matters and how people matter.
• - Start to deconstruct the strong belief in software (as in, we only need to worry about data and model)
• - Sandbox has been used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
• -

New list (2008):

• - Modeling dilemma, ought results be used as data to other models. The late Michael Crichton mentioned this at a CalTech talk in 2003 as an example of things gone awry. Let's look at modern examples: plane design (original topic of this blog), planning, finance, ...
• - Outsourcing as a panacea. Well, for management, that is. Engineers hate outsourcing, and it's not from a not-invented-here bias either. So, why do managers look for magic which outsourcing can reinforce, until time runs out on a schedule and things go awry. Oh, have we not see that recently? Let's look at this for motivation and potential problems that risk management is not going to handle. Why? They're psychologically based.
• - Back to the 787, can we start a proposed lessons-learned list?
• - Money, money, money and what it entails can learn a lot from engineering.
• - The financial realm, is it not in favor of those running the show (Grasso's big take is only a slim glimmer)? Of course, that they (such as the Bear) can also get burned by their idiocy doesn't make it any less so that the house usually wins.
• - As well, have these modern techniques not created a giant vacuum which pulls money from the pockets of the hapless into those of the ones running the show? Yes, uncertainty and all those other concepts that are used to cover the reality of the situation not withstanding, what we have leads always to 'ponzi-ness' (thanks, Minsky) almost by necessity. Oh, is it hopeless? Nope. Anchor finance into reality. Let 7oops7 tell you how.
• - Value by the market, yes that is exclaimed, unless it causes unwinding that might be problematic to the fat cats. Value by model, yes in theory, except the nature of the quasi-empirical has to be handled. Value by myth, oh yes - say those who are running the show - big-pocket bonuses in store - , ..., hey wait!! Isn't that what by model is anyway?
• - In terms of the financial debacle, why do we not see this: privatization of profit (the smaller number of pockets and the preferred elite), socialization of loss (all the rest of us, excluding the elite who have means to avoid the burden)?
• - Privatization proponents (and this ideology encompasses a whole slew of positions) talk about risk being rewarded. Hah! Yes, it can be spread by various means. But, when those upon whom the risk gets placed do not agree to the role or are snookered (yes, via glib use of mathematics and other cunningness), then there has to be some mechanism (to be defined - sandbox, in short, yet bullying would still be unacceptable even using a playground metaphor) involved.

List (2007):

• - In terms of Tribe as Truth is earned-value analysis more complicated than we allow?
• - In terms of Truth in Time, will the upcoming changes to the schedule be better grounded with regard to first flight and first delivery?
• - Given the number of axes along which changes happened (material, structure, process, system, ...), ought there have been a 787e,f,g to work the process rather than a push toward an accelerated test period and earlier production stacking?
• - In the financial world, we see discussion about various markings (to market, model, myth). Do we need an analog to be applied to engineering analytics and its use in determining earned-value?
• - Is riding herd on outsourced work made difficult by further layering of subcontractors (can an optimal limit to layers be identified)?
• - Can an abstracted plane be understood in its final assembly by any of the disparate parties?
• - In the sense that forward expansion through possibilities can usually be more complicated than backward exploration of what-already-is and given that complex systems have emergent properties that may or may not be beneficial, ought not a plane be first manifested in its physical form (fully assembled and flying) and then optimized (don't we see this with weight, for instance, where there are arguments that things will prune down through experience?) iteratively? If so, why isn't planning done to reflect this?
• - Correspondingly (to the prior point), given that humans interpret and bring the expertise, have we placed too much reliance on systems as integrators (after all, are we to the borg state with tight human/machine coupling?) - restated, what of the new processes, beyond PLM (Enovia/Catia), enhances the human interaction that was the hallmark of the OEM's engineering in the past (disparate activities are not easily controlled many times) where successful teaming a given? What world view (with or without a good foundation) says that a massive and complex system can be fruited in one pass (that ol' seduction)?
• - Is the simulator sufficient to understand functional issues?
• - General question: if one keeps hearing things that are not true (Hogwash!, Truth in Time), does that necessarily build inability to detect the truth when it does appear?
• - Why is it that PR can talk in the present tense as if things have already happened when we know that they did not (anyone for an analysis of these)?

Remarks: 

06/25/2024 -- New day, all around. So, we will continue apace. Added a new list for 2024. The last one was in 2011. Shows that there were other interests for me beyond a divestiture. 

08/24/2016 -- Boeing is 100, this year.

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire. 

Modified: 06/25/2024

Mission and method

Note: see "Some seeds" which was the 2nd post of the blog. Started a list for 2024. When we started, blogspot was still independent (was purchased by Google). Going forward, since everyone's past seems to have caught up with us, there will be reiterations of themes to bring them back to focus in the newer contexts that we now see.

Aside: stale points are there. Will work to remove these. 

---

Under a framework provided by 'truth engineering' as it may apply to 'oops, loops and oops, (and unfortunately, poops) this blog looks at issues related to modern situations (No exhibition planned of hubris, in any of its senses, within the contents of this blog).

An early example was the theme of the flightblogger by Jon Ostrower. There was a whole lot involved with this type of topic.

However, the focus is not chiefly aerospace, or any strict domain for that matter. We stand at a crux of real (quasi-empirical) issues and the virtual (of many sorts) proxies as the major players whose effects will set the stage for the future (warning - platitudes may abound).

The expectations are that events, about which we can have thoughtful analysis and reasoned opinion, will not be hard to find. That a particular airplane program might be undergoing interesting phases at the moment is only circumstantially related, though, some motivations may arise thusly.

Posts can be done in 3 stages: initial draft, then links to on-line supporting material, finally editing to remove any troublesome-ness. All edits, after the initial date, will be marked by a datestamp.

Posts are intentionally non-linear. Later edits will provide bi-directional links that will tie together posts through time to allow expansions on a theme. A list of links will be used to represent successive discussions (linearity, example leveraging) on a subject.

Since posts develop on-line through drafts toward a final (when are the 'oops and the loops finished?), the ellipsis (...) indicates further work is on-going.

Let's take a moment to consider matters of conduct.

Comments will not be moderated, however they may be cleaned up via summary if necessary.

Remarks:

06/25/2024 -- Gosh, eight years. The blog started with a particular focus that was trying to call to attention that a pure marketing approach never attained more glory than hype. The former flies; the latter does not. ... As engineers came back to control the situation, the focus became more oriented to issues related to complex systems. Some of these are old themes, such as hype running with restraint  pulling along any rationality that might come to be. We leaned toward proper computational modes to handle truth until GenAI came along. Now, the game is again changed. Who knows the eventual outcome? 

08/24/2016 -- Boeing is 100, this year.

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

08/24/2011 -- On the method, see the Profile.

01/27/2009 -- On Method: still doing writing without automated checkers. See Remarks dated 10/30/08. Modifications are accompanied with a date stamp at the bottom of the post.

10/30/2008 -- To readers, in general, concerning syntax. These posts are done by hand, with quick reviews and edits of the material for grammar, etc. As we all know, things can get by the eye. They can get by several sets of eyes.

So, the request is that on reading, if you see a typo, do a gestalt fixup in that area. Usually, a few words later, things settle down. Now, having said that, the intent is to switch to using a processor, at some point, that can be used for both spell and grammar checks which is expected to reduce those little troublesome quirks.

As an aside, the method of exposition is via touch typing (yes, all fingered, having taken a class in high school, many years ago, over the years, I've honed the technique - so, there is no thought to the keyboard except as it may be caressed so as to manifest letters corresponding to the particular word or phrase mentally held in focus) which has proven to be very effective in allowing cross-wired word smashing, such as the fingers typing out of an area that is different from where the mental focus thinks it's looking.

Oops is the only way to describe this. So, even grammar checkers cannot always find some of the more subtle problems that can arise with digitized English phrasing. So, why bother? The automated checkers cannot read the mind's intent.

Besides, they indicate some lazy habit. Joyce's continuing modifications to manuscript is one example and almost an ideal.

Modified: 06/25/2024