Here we go again, III

The lessons that can be learned from 2010 are many and wide. As one would expect, the list from 2008 seemed to mostly be about finance (and fiction). Now, we can broaden the view.

Just now, I was looking at some Wikipedia pages on biochemistry, in particular on chirality (note the uses). We would see this as handedness. Well, it seemed that it might be fun to use an analog of optical resolution as an overlay while looking at project (program) management problems. After all, has not this blog berated mis-use of mathematics (Effectiveness, Abstraction, and Computational)? As well, has not the concept of underdetermined come to fore, now and again? But, a new wrinkle, brought on by computation is visualization and the whole notion that some ephemeral digital state is similar enough to the natural (God made?) state to which (or for which) it's being proposed as equivalent (only in certain types of world views) for us to make decisions that are sound.

A white paper asked: Do Sensors "Outresolve" Lenses? Just how does (can) this be applied?

Well, some comments to blogs, such as to the flightblogger, suggest that the 787 program assumed too much of something and allowed things to get out of control by not watching closely. Say what? We'll get to that. Too, from our long experiences with those in power we know this, hubris colors their thinking more than does reality. Except, where that reality has to do with the size of their pockets. How did this come to be? And, does not a good general (military) know that he/she has to get out with the troops to know the truth?

Sensors are an analog for getting information. In any decision, and control, context, one needs feedback. That is, take the driving scandals that were running amok last year, at this time. As mentioned in regard to that, the key discipline would involve cyber-physical studies; as well, sensors become of real epistemological concern.

When a program doesn't have sufficient information, things can go awry. And, bodies may be required. Boeing found that it had to send armies of people out to help determine what was what. Was there some errant notion that computational frameworks could replace expert eye sight and observation?

What about lenses? Well, some of these would be related to sensors. Take eyes and their owner: would not rose-colored glasses influence attempts at accurate reporting? As well, consider that which is between the ears. Are those of the supposed highest order any more than those who have risen far beyond their level of capability (as the adage says)? Of course, we may add another, at some point, to the sensor and lens category, namely the filter.

But, let's stay with those two, for now. Notice in the white paper that mathematics comes into play for both sensors and the lenses. And, it is done in a non-trivial manner. In fact, a lot of the computation requires high-powered artifacts; that is, the class of computation that has been enabled by modern techniques is growing daily and is far out pacing any human parallel.

Except, we do know that people rise for more than their power-holding abilities; insight, to be discussed further, is important. But, that type of knowledge cannot be taught; one problem with science/engineering, it'll be shown, is that the educated intuition was thwarted long ago by certain types of preening intellectualism. That topic is big-T truth, of course,

Remarks:

06/28/2011 -- Have succeeded in getting this far with coming back. Engineering has KBE to keep it honest.

01/01/2011 -- This theme? We're done. Engineering is a shining example of human effort. Finance? Ah, cannot be said by a civilized tongue!

Modified: 06/28/2011

Here we go again, II

So, now we're hearing some tales, out of school, by Jon at flightblogger. Out of school? Yes, he is quoting anonymous sources at Boeing. Those who know that they ought not talk, yet do. Not real whistle blowers, as that would require them to come out into the light.

Well, before continuing here, the content of Here we go again still apply. What is necessary is an update. That will take some time, but we can look at a couple of issues, for now.

Firstly, from the beginning, I wondered about the leaks (the recent clamor in relation to WikiLeaks is very much apropos to the discussion) that Jon used. Were they ringers? How did he get such good pictures that would obviously belong to Boeing smuggled out? So many questions relate to that theme.

Along the same vein, there is the whole issue of how a company can manipulate information in order to influence investors. Of course, the legal positions on the subject continue to flux, yet that we're dealing with a near-zero game (which could be seen as patently illegal in other contexts) seems to never take any appreciable awareness in our collective minds. Many comments to Jon's blog posts have wondered about this.

Secondly, a grand and world-wide system is hugely appealing. But, it is so for different reasons for different folks. We can enumerate but will defer that to a later date. Let's look at three of those folks, for now. 1) We have the engineers and others who can do. Yes, the WWW (thanks to DOD for letting this little genie out of the bottle - I'm still amazed that we let loose that US taxpayer funded technology for the idiots to exploit) portends a whole lot of things that even scifi hasn't fully described. However, the old issue of map-territory (plus, being seduced by the allure of the abstract; the so intriguing notions related to computational ubiquity (to the limit of the universal computing device - why else the wizardry related to mathematics?); and a whole lot more). More power (pun, for the IEEE folks) to these pioneers, from whom has arisen all the marvels around us.

2) We have poor people who would like to better their situation. Unfortunately, for more than is necessary, many get trapped into unconscionable exploitation by the next group. Imagine: being tied into something so atrociously bad that is related to Apple (sheesh, Steve) and its new products, that one kills oneself (the solution was to wire, and make inaccessible, the jump points?). We'll be going into discussing the people, and not from a classist view either, at large.

3) Now, for the real as***es of the world. Yes, the best and brightest. Now, these types (can't live without them) are in 787 program, to boot; we'll not name names. They want to out-house (no apologies needed for the use) in order to exploit group number 2 while putting it to group number 1 who have been a pain in their rears. Yes. Just look at Wichita. Harry (yes, guy, I have your number) wanted it gone since the workers dared to boo him at a meeting where he and lil Jefe offered pop (as in soda - oh yes, it was iced) and the opportunity for them to tell the workers why they didn't need the union. This is another story to tell. Basically, when the opportunity arose, black-booted thuggery was let loose for several months that terrorized a whole bunch of workers. One has to wonder what would be the state of the program if Wichita was till within the folds of the company.

But, that's minor. Who the heck cares about a little city in the middle of the US? What is more of a concern is that there were many good talkers, using all sorts of lures, who pulled sane people into an untenable position that was more risky than not. But, hey, did we not just see the financial folks do the same thing? Despite recent mania (read Dow, et al -- on the backs of the savers, thanks Ben, big guy), there is more hurt than not (big bonuses for the fat cats does not cover up the crap).

What went wrong here? The plane did fly and for a long while. Now, ought there have been those pre-production crafts sitting there as if wishes were reality? Would one not think that the better method may have been to test the thing first and then work production? Cart before horse?

---

So much to look at. We'll continue to plod along. But, the basics need some attention: how do we know?, who the h*l tells the truth? (see Remarks, 'truth wears off' indeed), why CEOs? (as in, my ancestors did not come here, away from those arses, for me to have to continue the kissing mode), and much more.

Remarks:

07/15/2013 -- A fire late last week bring an opportunity to see what goes into determining whether to do composite repair or to undergo a section replacement.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides

.01/01/2011 -- This theme? We're done. Engineering is a shining example of human effort. Finance? Ah, cannot be said by a civilized tongue!

Modified: 07/15/2013

How do we know?

The question pertains to both the before and after of any situation. Several things are of concern here, such as believability, trust, and more.

Let's take the 'after' part first, as we have said before that we do not have 20-20 hindsight, in many cases, though our 'ex post facto' state may be wiser (not necessarily, to which any thoughtful human will attest). This New Yorker article ought to help understand some of the issues. The Atlantic had a similar one (Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science), recently.

Now, on the before side, it's not easy either. The qualification, frame, ramification triad and undecidability apply, for the most part.

---

Now, we have another thing to ponder, especially when putting our seats on an airplane. But, as with all things technical, worrying about some of these things is just too difficult. Full speed ahead (paraphrase, as the context also demanded to ignore the torpedoes).

But, is this not true: any successful, democratic society requires a knowledgeable populace? Of course, there is the issue that we cannot let paralysis come from analysis.

---

So, in this case, we'll look at the issues from several sides even though one player says that it's of no concern. Expect the discussion here to continue, in a supportive role, while the video is analyzed.

Remarks:

12/20/2010 -- Not only do we need to ask who tells the truth, we need consider what 'truth' might be. A recent New Yorker article is of essence: The truth wears off. The few sentences of the article says this: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean that it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". I might add, whom to believe. A similar article appeared earlier in The Atlantic.

Then, that same issue of the New Yorker has an article about the hypocritical mantras of 'free markets' that we're subjected to (Enter the dragon).

12/18/2010 -- On the finance side, Martin Weiss reminds us that Big Ben has grown the money supply by 1.2T the past couple of years. Then, he lowered the cost (interest) while giving bunches of money to the banks. These guys then loaned the money to us at a high rate of interest. And, pulled in the bucks. Of course, Ben had taken 1T of toxic assets off of their hand and put it on our backs. Finally, those jerks are getting paid big bonuses this year. We should have nationalized, yes, indeed.

Modified: 12/20/2010

Knowledge and compilation

As mentioned last time, we need to continue to discuss what motivates this blog in a constructive manner. Three years ago, a post looked at 'oops, loops, and oops. To belabor the obvious (nod to the Devil's DP Dictionary description of computer science), let's look at these three and then point to literature.

Why the use of "Consideration of 'oops, loops, and oops (at times, poops)" in the label?

• 'oops - ah yes, as in hoops, referring, of course, to the operationalistic nature of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for us and of things in general. That is, action is the orientation. How do you like your daily 'oops jumping?
• loops - again, tomorrow is the future extension of today as was today for yesterday and so forth. Is it not that texting drivers take advantage of the fact that all of their faculties are not demanded to cope with driving tasks, in most situations, and then consciously direct part of their remaining facilities to a distracting element all the while assuming that they can swap back to full attention if such is needed? That whole idiocy is such a good example of the latent risks that can develop into problems that it'll continue to appear here. Now, is it not true, too, that they know this about driving because of the familiarity? Did I hear you say, loop?
• oops - to err is human; to be stupid about risk is what? Yet, error is for us to manage (to wit, what we see with information theory). Actually, if we took an error-based view as the underlying framework, it would be very interesting indeed. Of course, that would be an operational ('oops and loops) stance, as you know.

---

We don't need to mention poops, except in passing. How many instances can you pull out of your memory of some adult behaving like the diapered set (not talking Depends)? The real irksomeness? That we are then expected to clean the crap for these people.

---

So, raising our sights, we need to look at what 'compiled' might mean to the subject. Those who are computer literate might see the metaphor's appeal. It actually goes deeper. Just consider this ACM biblio list of citations on one paper.

The mere fact that we can compile suggests a lot. Basically, learning is the key. And, do we not learn via loops (iteration, etc.)? Is it ever over (hubris says yes)?

Notice that the inverse of compiled is deep. That is, consider how the concept of 'analysis paralysis' came to be. As a species, without compilation, we would have all frozen into some type of catatonic-like state long ago. Fortunately, there are embedded circuits to rely on, plus we have techniques, such as filtering, that are both part of our apparatus collection and of our acquired knowledge.

What all of this means will require a parallel development on the truth engineering side. However, the problems are deeper than those suggested in The Black Swan. Yes, we mis-use Gauss' work as we do a myriad of other mathematical ideas. That is one thing to continue discussing since it allowed the best and brightest to lead many on perdition-laden paths.

Remarks:

01/01/2011 -- 'compilation' was, earlier, in the mind (called learning) and in our artifacts, such as written material. With the advent of the computer, the ways to compile knowledge increased dramatically. What did not increase, though, was an appreciation of the underlying faults of those types of artifacts. So, there will be an ongoing effort, in that regard, to bring this to the fore.

Modified: 08/24/2011

Oops types

So, we need to address this issue so that we can motivate solutions. That is, yes, the tone here will turn from taking potshots at oops and the oops'ers toward a more constructive bent.

We can talk three basic oops types, for now. There will be more which then will be categorized, analyzed, and smoothed (nod to the fact that underdetermination is the main thing, folks) out (we cannot remove wrinkles of many sorts).

So, for the first type, it would be a purely human affair, like the hubris we see with the CEO crowd (not all, just those with the biggest egos and pockets). But, there are other types. Is not the saying, to err is to be human? Does that not imply that none of us are without some fault and mangling ways?

In regard to that, the CEOs ask for their comeuppance several ways which we can discuss at length (but will not, given the new spirit). Trash talking gamers might be another category, but that brings in a whole set of other issues.

So, we have human error.

Then, for the second type, we have artifact oops, such as computer, or system, error. Mind you, system would imply products of all types. So, engineering has been working for eons on improvements. And, we see processes in place to help ensure better lives from use of the results. Some of this is just plain common sense, yet a lot of it had to be mandated by government actions (thanks, CEOs - oops, there I go again -- the new spirit will eventually win out here, it is guaranteed - oops, again).

Many product makers think about safety and minimizing harm from failure. Those who think forwardly in computing are looking at what would be involved with error-correcting systems. Mind you, communications has worked on this for years, with various types of checks and fix ups. But, as we ascend the conceptual tree (and complicate contexts), it becomes more of a problem, especially since undecidability is at the core. There have been means proposed, discussed, and implemented throughout the years. In fact, default logic, for one, was motivated by these concerns.

So, those are two types of oops: the wetware type and the hardware type.

What then is the third type? Well, sci-fi aficionados will get a metaphor of the borg. What we have, folks, is that ubiquitous computing has permeated human affairs to the deepest level and across the board. And, the growth proceeds both in depth and in breadth. There is no sense in being alarmed, as this progress was an inevitable consequence of the enlightenment switch that was thrown a few centuries ago.

It is that third type of oops that we'll focus on in 7oops7. Plenty harp on what others do wrongly, that seems to be a human trait. There is a saying about this that involves glass houses (find it, if you must). Many suffer from hardware (all types) failures. What is problematic there is that many providers of these things like to blame oops type 1; it's called user error.

Now, to be complete, we need to mention software. You see, with computation, even hardware can be parameterized. So, we will place software oops into the type 2, as then oops type 2 would actually be any type of system error.

So, we will look at oops of this third type, yet that we can differentiate between oops type 2 and oops type 3 is not always easy (here we need to link to discussion of cyber-physical issues). Come to think of it, what we might think of as oops type 1 could very well have some oops type 3 in it (that is, someone (CEO) takes a stance based upon they're told by a techie who is off the mark).

The main thing to remember is that oops type 3 deals with humans dealing with systems. This can range from comic (Chaplin's guy) to tragic (too many, and too depressing, to itemize). These types are going to become more of a concern (already were, but now cannot be ignored) as we proceed with the 21st century.

Aside 1: That examples of oops type 3 will be heavily computationally flavored is only the result of the growing ubiquity. In many cases, we might discuss things that are mechanical or other.

Aside 2: it might be fun to look at what the human-machine interface people have defined over the years in terms of oops, such as usability.

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Two oops are of interest here. One deal with a product, namely one of these types handled by Sealy. Now, another was related to computing, namely mad-house rush, on the web, to be first in line to receive something (Dr Oz). We saw mayhem this past fall in situations where people had to fight to get one of a limited number of goods (black friday). So, is that the point, the settos? If so, tsk?

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

12/14/2010 -- One necessary topic will be compiled knowledge.

Modified: 01/15/2012

As if by ...

... magic. Yes, technical people laugh about this. What management does is put things together (resources), mix them, and then expect some output of note. As if by magic, essentially.

Why? They do not appreciate that it's good people (who are not just a resource, you fat cats) who make things happen. And, leaning on them to do the impossible can only go so far, you top-down thinkers who believe that you're John Galt [], or something similar.

This type of fat-cat creep-ness screwed up the financial world. We would expect those dealing with matter to be above this crappy game.

Does Jim M. (who?, figure it out) seem to be like that? Now he's saying that that the production projection line will be shallower and longer than he said before. Say what, guy? Any reasonable person knew that years ago; you're just now admitting the reality.

Oh, I know. You guys went off to South Carolina in a union busting mode. That was going to work? Like magic?

That last successful program, identified with the triple numbers, was the culmination of a long string of work. It was within the same milieu (product, design, and process spaces), you see. That is, as one works issues within some domain, one gets better. Yet, any relaxing of basic ASSumptions can perturb such as to cause divergences that are not pleasant. Good people scramble to put things back in order. And, do so (that's why they get good pay - not to your level, though, Jim M (and your ilk)).

By the way, some do appear to work magic. That is, from the outside it seems so. Yet, on analysis, there is a basis of solid knowledge, good methods, constrained expectations, practical sense, etc. I'm not talking the sleight of hand, Jim M. That cannot fly.

The new thing (project rolled out as an empty potemkin liner back in 2007) threw caution to the wind, relaxed along all axes of decision, brought in the unknowable by out-housing, listened too much to the modelers who said that the computational framework was (would be) wonderfully effective, allowed the risk guys to run rampant with their little fantasy (yes, you all know who you are - your numeracy led us to (and led us along) perdition laden paths), and so forth. It is a litany too long to even consider here, right now.

You see, Jim M, you would do more service to the world to learn about undecidability and how it applies even to how we handle matter than to keep your coif out of the wind, preen for the cameras, bask in your tub of money, calmly talk to the Street (Wall more than Main - yes?) as if you know what's up (did you not say things in that forum before and then have an announcement within days that would have some wondering how can this be? talk but not walk the talk?) or whatever it is that you top-level guys do (as you think of yourselves as kings of the rest of us).

We can use linear logic, and its extensions, to help the world learn the proper lesson. It has to come from the engineering camp. Jim M, you are running what was once a top-notch engineering firm that produced highly-engineered products. You came in the clean up the ethics. How did you actually help the problem-ridden program?

Remarks:

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

Modified: 01/17/2013

Finance and pay

Well, it's bonus time, again, on the Street. Yes, as in Wall, not Main.

Oh, the argument goes. If we don't pay the best and brightest, they'll go elsewhere.

Let me categorically say, as I've said before, what these types have wrought is not necessary. We can stop the whole futures market, for instance, and start over with something better.

Why? We need to shore up the utility aspect of banks, that is the plumbing. All else is speculative and necessary only to those who want to suck money from the pockets of the hapless into their own. It's called near-zero, folks.

But, Congress had a chance with the last downturn. Politics, and the power of big bucks - as in banks arguing for their bonuses, got in the way.

Will there be another chance, ever? Perhaps after a few more bubbles, but I'm too old to see that. Right now, I'll continue to argue the concept of 'simple living' as needed by those who touch money and control the flow.

Guess what? Big Ben almost makes it; but, his current digs are palatial. I'm sure that it'll grow on him like it did King Alan.

It is still the fact that the basis used by the best and brightest to demand their bucks is a house of cards. That computers are at the core will become problematic probably sooner than later.

Who will suffer this next time?

Remarks:

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

12/05/2010 -- Raj Patel has the proper grasp on the 'financial madness' that is threatening us.

12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).

11/30/2010 -- Best and brightest, yeah!

Modified: 04/01/2011

Product safety

A new connotation can be made about this concept given the event of last week (trial explosives found in cargo shipments).

The cost of safely moving products? Was this even considered in full or did the model assume an ideal, and unrealistic, situation?

Is this not an oops or what?

Does not making it at home (not out-housing) become more feasible when the true costs are considered? As with any abstracted model, the 'pure' theory of international trade does not take into account any human quality. No, people are modeled as rational agents. Now, that's fine, except whose rationality is taken to be the model?

Sheesh, everyone papered over with some type of mediocre view. Is this not how business runs? Is it not why employees are considered just a resource pool only there for exploitation?

Oh, yes, the one star? The CEO, of course.

'market' ideology is like any other that makes a bunch of assumptions that match up with the belief system. Again, whose belief system?

What we need is a mindset that considers all aspects, albeit with rankings and risk analysis. Actually, the basis would be science and engineering. But, a heavy emphasis on people would be part of the system, to boot.

Now, how to attain such is the problem that will continue to be the focus.

Remarks:

11/08/2010 -- A technical look is necessary.

Modified: 11/08/2010

The market

In the area where I live, the Republican candidate for one position persists in using the phrase 'the market' which grates on my sensibility.

Why? What the hell is 'the market' to which he, and many others, refer? The ca-pital-sino that we see everyday?

Actually, if I step back a bit, I can see that many who argue for capitalism are also believers. Or, that is their claim. One has to wonder what they believe given that their actions are many times counter to the 'spirit' of Christ (assuming Christian leanings, we're talking US of A, okay?).

Now, if they would say that we have Capitalism by Revelation, then we could talk about how this came about. That, of course, would lift Adam Smith to the level of a Prophet. Gosh, he's rolling in his grave about now.

If we don't have capitalism from a prophet, from whence do we have that which Adam used 'invisible hand' to describe as he tried to explain some phenomenon via metaphor? Do these modern folks really think that Adam, whose work was about 400 years ago, can be used now given all that we've learned?

That is, Adam as an example of his time is okay. Adam as chief revealer of economic truth is not.

Some gloat that 'the market' is more efficient than other means. Yet, from whence will they show proof for their position (beyond offering those who exploited the system to the state of fat cast at the detriment of the many?)? Some use suspicious means to model what might be called a market, we think that we can show. The approach has to be constructive. The first 'revelation' is that there is no 'the market' despite all the mania that we see daily.

Yet, there is a systematic way that we could provide a just economy. But, it would take more work (not labor, that's a role) that many may want to offer.

Of course, all this economic flimflam accompanies oodles of oops.

Remarks:

10/26/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

Modified: 10/26/2010