Our new masters

The title refers to the fact that the best-and-brightest, of the financial and business worlds, have led us down a path to perdition. How can we, and our leaders, extricate ourselves?

Or, how can be avoid that we're to be perpetual servants?

We need to thank the USA Today for the look at what has been put on us as a yoke by the best and brightest.

Pure idiocy. Gigantic oops.

And, in the name of computation and mathematics, both of which have been interlope'd (meaning, of course, they'll spawn a seemingly unending set of oops), wake up!

This comment on flightblogger is apropos, to boot.

Remarks:

09/14/2010 -- Must and may. Two important concepts.

07/25/2010 -- Yes, we have complex situations in the modern milieu. However, that we have undecidability as a strong factor needs to be better understood. That some would exploit, via pirating, these uncertain times for their own game needs to be addressed. That the game has been set up, thanks to all the best and brightest and their thoughts on economics, to allow such intense, and daily, energy to be put upon what is mostly a chimera suggests one things, folks: we need to get a handle on near-zero, its reality, and what that means for how we ought to manage economic affairs.

Modified 09/14/2010

Apps and oops

The rage nowadays is 'apps' which is nice to see as it points to more being aware of computational ubiquity.

Unfortunately, apps, the concept, applies to commercial products, as well. Like cars, where we seem to be the on-going lab subjects. That is, until more is learned about how apps are firmed up (see apps and truth). There are many examples.

...

The US DOD has weakened itself by using Internet apps. First of all, the IP did not have to be let loose (there were plenty of other protocols). Then, the whole idiocy of loose control boggles the mind.

...

Would it not be nice to see more management 'apps' that remove the wetware which can be so problematic? Or, do we need to see these stars with their strutting demeanor?

...

Having been in computation, software and mathematics, since the 1960s, it's very interesting to see the evolution of new platforms. Sometimes, it does seem as if it's a new world (every generation would like to - and does - think so). Yet, it is not, folks.

Every platform may have differences in framework(s) and particulars, yet, the underlying issues are the same, have been from way before computing was possible (or, back when hand work was the norm - 10 years to do what now is done in a blink of an eye), and will continue. That we have to grapple with the basics is the lesson before us.

The emergence of 'apps' and the related mania provides the opportunity.

...

'oops' ought to be sandbox'd and limit'd. The economy is in a shambles because we allowed the best-and-brightest (encourage by the older fat cats) to push out apps that stunk from the beginning as if they were derived (pun) via deus ex machina. More likely, these were extractions from the nether regions (aerated, to boot).

Remarks:

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

07/02/2010 -- Stunned? Hubris or stupidity (or, are they the same?). Meaning what? Well, this is a simple little thing, of no real consequence. How many problems lurk amongst all of those computational elements that have been spread around the economic world? Who cares?

Modified: 09/28/2010

Innovation

Of course, we have to live with change. Things wear and need replacement (life cycle). Things become ineffective and need improvement.

As James Surowiecki reminds us, some innovative efforts have reaped many benefits (The New Yorker, 'Too clever by half?'). This technology, that is, the blog, is an example of an accumulation of a whole lot of progress. Were there missteps along the way (ACM is over 50 years old compared to the IEEE's 100)? Yes. Are MS Window crashes even countable?

Everything that is modern came from years of effort. Yet, is it always progress? That is, do we learn without failure (hopefully, with experimentation done under controlled conditions)?

And, if things are heavily model, and mathematical, in nature, then one expects that some type of verification step is involved. We don't expect to see drugs released without the appropriate scrutiny.

Yet, the marvels (in this sense, people) of finance have been allowed to experiment on the fly with our selves and our money.

Somehow, we have let those, who push their numeracy skills on the rest, to roam free of constraint, without requiring their due regard for reality (Quants, for example). Oh yes, the test (and measurement) was whether the efforts filled certain pockets.

Well, we have to get financial 'innovation' under control, somehow. Looking at a sandbox would a good start.

Cat and mouse

People like to play games. Some would like us to believe that such is the reality behind all things, as the most basic motivation. Cat and mouse, indeed!

So, given the game context, then things of which GS is accused are between the 'big boys' who ought to be able to handle themselves. Oh, yes, the GS guy says; doesn't he know that 'trust' is not something that he, and his kind, raises in this blogger's view? The old Goldman guy is rolling around in his grave, as is Adam Smith.

Yet, in the role that we've allowed these people, many of the big boys step all over the little peoples' lives, since their decisions affect more than their little selves (used advisedly, as the 'big' is mainly a chimera).

So, what are we to do? Turns out that science itself doesn't help; even there, malfeasance can be documented. Usually, though, it's driven by the ego of some maniac (oh, CEOs aren't in that class?) and is not directly related to the grand approach itself.

But, ever heard of underdetermination?

This blog got started looking at a particular program and then branched into that realm of the idiots, called finance. In things belonging to the original focus, you see, the engineers were eventually allowed to take over from the marketing view. For the most part, engineers do know how to solve problems. Why 'for the most part' here? Ah, our engineering brains breed hubris, many more times than not.

But, to err is human. And, we could re-focus the 'risk' game to be more mature.

So, luxury goods as a goal? What if there were a law, as follows: those with the diamond-studded watches must eat their diamonds for nourishment. Silly? Yet, in effect, that a whole generation and one-half ran off after those financial schemes tells us a lot. Have you not looked at Forbes Luxury and wondered who needs some of these items that have a $100 function but a $1M price tag?

And there were young guys/gals directly involved with creating these instruments of destruction. You don't see that? What old guy fat cat could do the computer modeling and operations that were required for these tranche'ing, and other derivative's (yes, folks, what these so-called higher forms do is stink to their essence and make a sane/healthy person want to puke)? Even Made-off had his technical help.

That the essentials have been farmed out (out-housed) or pushed to a seemingly lower realm of humanity or considered of no value (yes, trash the earth, by all means) ought to be of our concern.

So, let's talk about letting finance be run by those who, first, don't salivate when they see a buck (can it be eaten?) and who, then, know the values behind 'on the behalf' of' in their core.

By the way, what we saw with the one program, mentioned earlier, was a bunch of guys realizing that they couldn't make a baby collectively in a couple of months. Metaphor, folks.

Can engineering learn 'ethics' and a more informed type of 'value' soon enough to not run us collectively into the crapper? Oh, wait. political truth needs to (and will) be added to the first principles list. Defenders of GS are touting political motives. That may be, in part, yet the Street (Wall, if you must ask) has not really shined, of late. Oh, did it ever?

Remarks:

01/17/2013 -- Removed reference to Rand's fictional character. For various reasons.

04/27/2010 -- To quote Tourre of GS: Well, what if we created a 'thing', which had no purpose, which is absolutely conceptual and highly theoretical and nobody knows how to price?

Value? Oh, I reply. I've been arguing all along for a quasi-empirical approach that would respect our prowess yet know that these complications are easily manipulated into a shell-game look-alike. How did we let this happen? Where were the economists?

Modified: 01/17/2013

The cyber-physical

Silence, as seen recently as measured by a small number of posts, on the topics of this blog has no meaning other than evidence that a respite occurred. The world is changing in many ways such that one has to stop from time to time to observe the landscape.

Below, there are a few words on a new development in thinking about the types of problems of interest to advanced techniques. That some may have thought that a process, like designing and building some complicated system such as an airplane, could be a one-button affair driven by computational prowess will continue to have some attention. Of course, such types of thinking were not being done by the engineers who are responsible for success and safety.

That some may think of modeling, especially of the mathematical type, as being a replacement for natural processes, too, will require a re-look in order to know why 'quasi-empiricism' is not more prominently considered.

But, for now, let's look at developments under the guise of cyber-physical systems: the NSF's introductory statement, one interested party and a related blog.

Now, as an aside, we ought to know that the quasi-empirical stance is at the basis for these types of inquiries. Too, there are tighter couplings for us to note between the cyber and the physical that will be necessarily considered. Some of these issues will be discussed in future posts.

Remarks:

05/28/2011 -- The 'avatar' will be multi-faceted in use, not just play its current role of fancy icon with behavior.

12/17/2010 -- These types of issues are continually there for our resolution.

09/14/2010 -- Must and may. Two important concepts.

03/02/2010 -- Perhaps, misinformed might be used instead of misplaced. That the title uses 'faith' might suggest that what we have with human reactions to software, and computational modeling in general, is a belief-based system. But, then, is not science so, at its core?

Ah, arguable point, one might say. Yet, those who argue the importance of 'quasi-empirical' thinking might bear more attention. That is, if the underlying mathematics can be problematic, why would not that which is super-positioned there upon?

Too boot, the NSF description, in my mind, ignores a whole slew of issues related to problems of logic and problem solving. That is, for one example, 'undecidable' is not just a property of the infinite set. It has operational use.

What we see, in my opinion, is a reliance on various types of ad-hoc closures, some of which are learned since they are really at the essence of human intelligence. These need to be lifted out for inspection and management, perhaps even toward control.

One might suggest that the concepts related to 'truth engineering' are necessary for complicated systems, especially those that are heavily involved with human affairs.

By the way, the auto engineers are not guilty of sins any worse than those committed by the best-and-brightest who spawned toxic financial material on an unsuspecting populace (and their leaders) through their mis-use (interlopers, all) of quantitative techniques in a very un-insightful manner. At least, with the auto, we can be empirical, albeit more quasi than not.

Modified: 05/28/2011

Brain retrain

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.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/09/2010 -- Can of worms is what we've gotten from letting the genie out of the bottle.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

Modified: 01/22/2013

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:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/12/2010 -- Toyota's web site that is related to recalls.

03/09/2010 -- Can of worms is what we've gotten from letting the genie out of the bottle.

02/22/2010 -- Business Week uses 'drive-by-wire' in a recent article about computational driving.

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: 01/22/2013

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.

• 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
  

Ah, it'll be fun. Need to thank William Eggers and John O'Leary. Now, if business leaders think that these messages are only for government works, they're in a trap which we'll need to add to the list.

Let's see, Lordly Prince trap? There will be others added later.

Remarks:

01/19/2011 -- Changed the pointer (Deloitte moved the page) to support the 4th January post.

Modified: 01/19/2011

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.

Remarks:

01/01/2011 -- We have four last posts of December under our belt.

Modified 01/01/2011