Avatars

An older person, intellectual and college educated (very good school), asked about avatars. Its use by the gamesters was confusing the person, since the contexts were modern and computational. You see, 'avatar' is older than the hills (well, almost - and, implicit in this is that yo has been into that mindset since the early 60s); too, the world view behind the concept may seem strange to some western minds; and, as we see a whole lot, young minds took an older thing and used it to be something somewhat like, but really different from, the age-old usages (bringing angst forward, as well, each time -- until we get inured (or is it indoctrinated?)) .

---

We probably ought to enumerate these types of idea morphs from the past 1/2 century; I've been involved with the development of computational techniques using mathematics and modeling for a long time and will start getting together a list if I don't find that it has already been done; development meaning, of course, the evolution of our artificially oriented prowess.

---

Now, concepts found in abstract mathematics can relate to the 'avatar' theme. Mainly, the lift and the projection. We'll go on about that, to boot. Sufficient for now is this: many times what seems like a lift is actually a projection. And the confusion arises from a 'virtual' vertigo, so to speak.

Take the avatar, for instance. It can be embedded in a space that 'lifts' (no, not a change of usage, let me explain - at some point). However, what we see is that its usage is involved with a projection (implying into a lower-order affair - again, will explain) many times. Let this slogan suffice, for now: lifts can trample while projections squish 'being' (unfortunately, we'll have to pause to consider some t-issues - but, as said before, PTIME may apply).

---

And, folks, that type of thing (see Remarks 05/28/2011, below, on vertigo) is behind a whole bunch of 'oops' that we see in life. Mind you, this discussion, in no way, is meant to imply that 'gaming' is never the 'lift' that it appears to be. Rather, we want 'computational being-ness' to be more uplifting than it has been to date.

---

Aside: the avatar concept may have more applicability than not; in fact, it allows another way to look at several problems that might be effective; too, why limit 'avatar' to being a glorified icon (even if it exhibits behavior -- hint: think duck test against an embodiment)?

Remarks:

09/16/2012 -- Avatar (movie's tale) as parable.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

06/22/2011 -- IEEE has a nice overview of social media and related issues.

05/28/2011 -- In what situations will an 'avatar' be confused (as in befuddled)? What? Yes, in the traditional sense, one would think never (except for those whose role might include the possibility). Because we have the quasi-empirical issues to resolve since we like to push the envelope, there is a 'vertigo' state that is possible computationally (or cyber-ally). The recent re-look at the Air France event (of 2009) that was made possible with the recovery of the flight data recorder can allow us an analog. One commenter talked about how the bucking of the plane, and it being night, did not allow any basis to determine appropriate action. That state has many more possible occurrences than we have admitted (for many reasons) to be likely in computational frameworks. We'll continue to try to explain why. The article on the Lemons problem touched on one possible avenue of expression of this phenomenon - implying, yes, that the cyber-based (without confusing map-territory) is what we know as the reality (think sensors and their increasingly electronic basis) many, many times. Aside: what the heck is money except for bits within the FED's (and its cohorts worldwide) cyber-realm, though all sorts of first-world expectations fill in its 'avatar' (if I'm allowed that stretch)?

Modified: 09/16/2012

Caveat Emptor

A few words are apropos in the context of truth and lemons.

---

We've all know about, or heard of, buyer's remorse. That is, you spend your hard-earned money on something and then wonder if it was junk that you bought. There have been ways to help with this: consumer protection laws, etc.

You see, though, the bankers did just that. That is, bought junk. Actually, sold junk, too. And, got away with it, almost. Why almost? They did crash the economy for which we are still paying while they have, essentially, been playing (with our money).

Any remorse on their part? Not that I can see. At the ex ante time, they were rolling the dough with glee. Luxury was almost synonymous with banking (investment type). In the ex post time, they've spent oodles of money (on lobbyists, for instance) and time on avoiding any notion of blame.

Now, the article mentioned in 'lemons' and 'truth' (both above) somewhat offers bankers an out. You see, they were moving the shells in an indiscernible manner while only being human. We should all know that bankers wallow; have you ever seen one that might be considered angelic?

Aside: talking those best-and-brightest who have been allowed to lead the old farts astray, not the laboring clerks, and lowly managers, who work to help the customer base.

Yes, all the while, gaming our beans and trying to appear, to the public, as if they knew about due diligence, fiduciary duty, and the like. Yet, behind the scenes, the depths of idiocy were being explored.

---

Aside: I agree with the FED dude in KC who wants to clamp down on banks and to put banking back into its utility framework. Too, I saw banking 'fraud' up close. Was actually thrown out of a bank since I could do mathematical modeling, noticed slight perturbations on their returns that suggested chicanery, brought it to the attention of management. The government? They said to take the banking company to court. What? An individual trying to do what ought to have been done by the OCC, the FDIC, or such? Too, the state banking association told me categorically that they were for the banks, not the customers. What, again? And, there were never any repercussions for the potential losses to that bank's customers who were not aware of the 'thumb on the scale' tactic. How much did the bank take in with their little scheme?

Aside: It's funny that the bank responded by throwing me, and my money, out; too, they did some character assassinations (or tried to) as if I were a harasser. When the machinations of Made-off (my ordeal was prior to this -- in summary: depositor, mainly - no debts) were revealed, what was brought out? Many had tried to tell the tale of his misdeeds. One even depicted the state of being alone and fearing legal repercussions. My motivations for 'truth engineering' are deep (long association with computing) and wide (everywhere dense).

Aside: Not anti-banking. I deal with several. Financial advisers? That's another story.

Aside: The bank also got back at me by taking TARP money which, we all know, came out of the taxpayers' pockets. Why did not TARP have strings?

---

Essentially, there are serious issues to resolve with computing and finance. To date, those in charge have let the young people run, almost without restraint, after riches and glories. Some have hit things big time (and, we get freebies, like blogger, for instance). Many more (a very many more) have become impoverished with the new types of 'gaming' that resulted in the ca-pital-sino.

Now, the authorities can blubber all they want about legalities, and such, and the law-makers can listen to as many of the lobbyists as they want (by the way, these people do not want us to think about these underlying, systemic, problems), but malfeasance seems to have become an acceptable mode (what did one headline say today? John Edwards, mis-used campaign money and hid it -- the adage? mis-use was not the issue, covering up is -- what a state of affairs!).

So, to make this short, for now, here are some things with which we will need to concern ourselves:

• -- mathematization does not equate to truth - nor, does computation -- we will have to work to build a framework that is sustainable, and does not do harm (nod to those behind this medium). We cannot let those who can spawn off all of these awful instruments that have unknown consequences to continue to do so willy nilly. A sandbox would help. But, what exactly is that?
• -- just as the prior bullet suggests, we cannot let pseudo-science reign in finance, and economics. We need to make it real. Of course, many have said that. For one thing, we could expect some type of 'testing' (no, not what Timmy did last year) within our money realm that is more solid than what we have now. Of course, that has implications on the bean counting, to boot.
• -- following up on the prior bullet requires me to note that the 'pseudo' is partly tongue-in-cheek, due to the dismal nature of the domains. Oh, of course, those who roll in the dough (a very small percentage) may not be dismal. The reality is, folks, that for the most, the dire situation does not have to be, in many cases. True, there are natural disasters, accidents, and such. Yet, the type of things where a few, because they can, risk the livelihood, and the health, of the many need to scrutinized. Where that is not being done is with those things computational, for a variety of reasons. Some of it is pure laziness (ah, it's too difficult) and hubris (what? you expect me to dirty my hands?).
• -- ..., doing what might be consider a flip-flop, we ought to encourage 'open' methods in computing and software. However, there is a big potential for hidden 'snakes' (find the article about this - that is, altered electronics that can be controlled remotely, embedded within something that is widely distributed) on the hardware/firmware side. Too, even with open software, there are issues, such as understanding how code works, is executed, and such. Then, algorithms are not necessarily grasped correctly.
• -- So, we will be back to using computing, and networks, to found the truth, albeit augmented with devices everywhere in the hands of trained minds who are not afraid to recognize the importance, and use, of intuition (what? - being mindful of the map-territory silliness).
• -- And, we'll have to put insurance back into its proper state -- not where some dude, at the top, pulls in 100+ million, for himself, in one year, by not doing things: paying claims, etc. After all, 'lemons' can be insured against, AIG's little (actually large) turmoils notwithstanding.
• -- ...

Remarks:

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

05/26/2011 -- Quoted 'fraud' as will carry this discussion over to Fedaerated in a continuing discussion of banking, money, etc. Along the line of truth & lemons (context of the post), how do we discern the truth when mathematics/computation are involved? There are serious issues that have not been given enough attention, probably due to the operational effectiveness that we have seen. Too, there are human issues. Auditors are cut from the same cloth as the bankers, in many cases. Politicos are limited many ways. Somehow, we need to introduce independent reviews, beyond the oversight attempts by regulators. We'll closely look at this case of a bank throwing me out after I had been a good customer for 10 years. What changed? New management came in, an expansive mode went into effect (buying banks at other locales), and some operational changes were put into place to put the balance toward the bank (this is a key issue). At that time, returns started to diverge from the expected. Another factor is that it was not just me computing and checking one bank. I was comparing this bank's results against three others. Of the four, one bank's results were right on target with my expected return calculations (as in, mind you, zero deviation). The other two had slight residues, but that is to be expected given that one can interpret regulations several ways and still remain compliant. The bank out of which I was catapulted had deltas, in their favor, that were significant. We'll explain why and discuss why this was so. And, do it all in a nice manner despite a growing awareness that bankers are not upright (to wit, dead peasant - classy, indeed).

Modified: 05/29/2011

Not back II

In the context of the new plane program, flightblogger notes a couple of recent developments that were mentioned in public announcements this week. For each of the below, the comments are well worth a browse.

• Rework (April 27, 2011) -- evidently, all of the planes that have been manufactured, to date, need some changes dealing with handling lightening. One estimate said weeks of work per each. Too, there will be schedule issues, but does the current plan allow for things taking longer, in some cases, than expected? One comment mentions that relaxing along all decisional axes is almost guaranteed to raise problems. Similar statements (Rush job) here, earlier.
• Break even (April 28, 2011) -- as the plane moves toward release, discussions will turn from technical issues to the economic ones. How one handles rework (prior Bullet) very much has to do with cost as well as with knowledge; confounding issues can arise along the whole development timeline, as we have seen. From a continual improvement viewpoint, one hopes that lessons learned carry forward.

It would be interesting to see Boeing lead in efforts to understand, for the betterment of all, when human and computational knowledge are not equivalent. And, that would deal with several subjects (things in themselves, model limits, Turing space, and more).

---

Again, there a parallels between plane engineering and the thing called financial engineering sufficient to allow some interesting discussion. This can continue (even while being 'not back').

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.

04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes which are beyond aviation, only one of a whole bunch of domains. 

06/06/2011 -- Still gone.

Modified: 07/15/2013

Not back I

Earlier, it was said: we're gone. That did not mean interminable silence; no, any appropriate situation can raise issues.

Like this one with the skin. Notice that it's a technical guy saying that they don't know. And, you know that they've modeled this stuff to the point of exhaustion. Guess what? How well are other areas modeled? Folks, did you know that skins are made lighter by reduction of material? Too, that the notions behind this minimization are not dissimilar?

One theme here, and in truth engineering, has been that the advances in systems thinking, despite the successes that we experience everyday, do not (will not) ever get us to where the model is more 'real' than matter itself.

As the economic messes are from a similar type of hubris (not picking on engineers, as they do have to match wits with nature), this theme will (is expected to) continue.

It'll be fun to look at these things. Perhaps, this event indicates that discussion on this theme ought to have parallel tracks between the three views. That is, the oops factor, aerated thoughts of the set with the money and power, and what can we do to help the folks live happily and travel safely.

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.

04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes which are beyond aviation, only one of a whole bunch of domains.

04/26/2011 -- As said, we're paying attention from afar. Yesterday, there was a report that rivets may be a contributing factor to the skin problem. But, process steps (this was a popular piece today), such as inspection, loom large, to boot. And, of course, any analysis (that is mathematically framed) assumes certain (a lot of) things (has to) about that being modeled; a weak point is always that there may be discrepancies between the model and the object (remember, the former is the map, the latter the territory, in this context) for whatever reason, such as pieces not being made to spec, or assembly steps not being followed, ....

04/19/2011 -- It was said that engineering has science behind it. What the hell is behind all of the gaming by the idiots in best-and-brightest clothing? That an insanity goes on daily is not seen (from whence, the blindness?); those in power (with their suits, suntans, ...) act with such grace. Somewhat vacuously, do you not think?

The prime characteristic: mutual admiration society! Almost like the 'royal' courts of old.

Modified 07/15/2013

The madness of March

Having watched the #1 seeds (as if that means much) fall (2011 NCAA #1s who lost - Pittsburg, then Ohio State, then Duke, then Kansas), with one of the more esteemed being 'trashed' (said one newsie), one has to think about this madness [see Remarks, 03/22/2013, 03/06/2014] which seems to have now permeated business. Alas.

You see, for the sporting event, there is a small group of youngsters (a team), generally right out of high school, who are on a floor playing a game. Then, you have the cadre of watchers. Essentially, we have many multitudes of those which are of many types.

Of course, the fans make up the largest crowd. Now, some of these may be affiliated directly with the institution sponsoring the team (students, alumni, etc.). Many are not, having adopted the school, for a very large number of possible reasons. Then, there are the pundits, too many to enumerate, especially with the growing social media. But, taking the media pros, we have all sorts of analysis and predictions.

---

No sense belaboring the point here. This madness has been around for awhile.

Yet, is not business now similar? That is, you have a small group of people actually doing something (doers, et al). I'll be nice and include the large body of middle people as doers. After all, distribution is a necessary service (and a human-oriented economy means 'service' as a main part - now, how to get this type of work to be respected with proper renumeration).

However, there is then a very large set of speculators. Even these are of types. The pros. We'll get back to those as that set does have some rational basis; for instance, hedging, in its proper sense (yes, I'll be so bold as to try to help define what that might be -- necessary to get hold of the need and use of a sandbox), is a must.

Too, there are a whole plethora of noisy media; some of these are full of pundits, while others are exploiting technical prowess such as to allow betting on about anything. Every business day, almost 24/5, there are up-to-date numbers and graphs about almost anything.

This state of possibility leads (or led) many to think that business might just be about this gaming (hence, the casino) and that we ought to let the individual investor in on the game (with serious odds against them, as those who run the game have regular extractions of the cream - will not name names, but just go back to the bad guys of three years ago to start a list).

---

Now, just as we see a winner and a loser (zero-sum, folks) in the March madness, we, too, see this in business (near-zero). However, for that played on the floor, it's only a matter of pride. Except, plenty put real money on this via the business casino's counterpart in the gambling meccas.

In business (economics), playing games leads to real hurt. Of course, many of the best-and-brightest got their bonuses despite poor performance; yet, the downturn (no matter the current chimera's climb) was painful to the majority. In fact, the toxic assets are still there; we have a national debt that is way out of line (let's not detail the litany, as of yet).

Just too much to say, including Big Ben's sacking of the savers.

---

Does business have to be that way? Well, as Buffet says, we don't need derivatives. Trying to control that whole thing (old idea bolstered by advances in technology) is imperative to a stable economy. Money? This thing of Ben and his crowd being oracles (ah, is it not fun, big guy?) is out of whack, to boot.

Of course, the gaming crowd thinks that futures betting will help us understand what might happen in the future. Sort of crowd sourcing, of and by the monied.

---

One thing about the 'madness' of March. It's over quickly. Too, the lessons can be extracted without sloughing through seemingly endless mire. That? Priceless!

The madness of business? Lingering pain, and more, for the most. Gluttony for the fat cats.

Remarks:

03/10/2018 -- There is a new wrinkle this year, as someone saw a transcript at the FBI (supposedly) of a wire-tap that was between a Miller (who was?) and one of those who prey on the youngsters who play ball. And, the topic was paying a student who has the stature of being potentially the #1 draft pick this year to go to Tucson. Hey, Noam went to Tucson, of late. Then, the harpies all jumped on the finger-pointing, stone-throwing wagon. So, we have judge-jury-executioner all being played by the media. This is nothing new, but it's been warped by social (dis)media. Only one point, for now. Two committed players took back their choice. One went to UCLA which was controversial this year, too. Was that one of the points for this thing? Some are saying, pay the athletes. There are many other positions. But, the larger picture is related to justice and fairness. Those dumbing devices have taken away what little rationality there was, it seems. I am still 1G/2G. 5G? The IEEE had an oped saying, don't hold your breath. Lots to be settled before those ugly towers are on every street corner.

04/02/2014 -- NCAA's take, plus.

03/06/2014 --  This comment motivated by two articles: Roy Williams' school (It applies across the board; notice that Stanford is mentioned. Perhaps, it is time to lose the hypocrisy and admit in talents others than those determined by sitting tests -- SAT, et al. Look up the theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner.), MTXE versus angry playing (The "MT" was for mental toughness. Who wants a society of patsies? Wait. There is a long list, starting with bullies. One has to consider that aggressive part of being angry. You know, those who have are above such. Admitting anger is a sign, many times of lack of control and influence. ... Oh yes, I need to remember James Dean's influence, perhaps. ... The, righteous anger comes to mind. Sheesh. We now have to get metaphysical.).

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.

03/22/2013 -- GW at ESPN (see image on right) has a nice point of view on the madness (and related comments). We ought to have something similar for the financial folks, using play money, with prizes. That's the sandbox, folks. Then, the real stuff would be handled by mature, stable adults (not the greed ridden - and similar ilks -- okay?). The madness has to do with animal spirits just like the market (ala Adam). Too bad that one loss gets one out the door. Perhaps, at the final four level, there ought to be a round robin, like college baseball. --- Now, having just written the above, this glorious bit of madness is really a sham (see comment on 03/12/2012, below). The whole madness pits kids against each other, who are playing for naught (comparatively), being coached by millionaires, with big buck media behind the affair, and a bunch of other lucrative ploys benefiting from the labors of the few. If one looked at qualities (as in, abstract out a truthful look at this), one could find parallels (many, many) all across history (these things being not consider our best behavior). Granted some (as in, not all) of the kids go on to big bucks. Others find glory in their endeavors (what would be be without school spirit?). Yet, besides the commonality with historic events that aren't looked at as being our (humankind's) best moments, there are all sorts of analogs in business (which we've seen of late, in glorious detail, as being problematic at its core - the heart that is supposed to be related to finance). By the way, see the below comment (02/08/2013); that particular team ended up with a #1 seed.

02/08/2013 -- We're within 40 or so days of the Selection Sunday. Within the past few weeks, every team that got the #1 ranking lost in short order. The latest was Indiana. Earlier, Michigan got the #1 nod for the first time in 20 years. Guess what? They lost. Other #1s who lost: Duke, Florida, Syracuse. While not #1, within the last week, Kansas a perennial #1 lost twice. Coach Self then denigrates his team (see video at ESPN). That behavior raises questions of propriety (or it ought to). He makes 4 million or so; his success relies on a bunch of young guys who play 5 at a time on the court (see 03/12/2012 comment). As coach, is he to bring more to the table than just basketball prowess? Or bullying? Say what? Yes, teaching by example is precisely the message, yet does anyone even care? As well, isn't performance best tuned by leading, not whipping?

04/01/2012 -- By the way, we all saw a 1/2 billion payout (well, less in actuality) come to the fore in the news. Those, like Self, aren't paid like that, yet there ought to be some more discussion about the reality what with the offer to Weber at KSU (losing season, yet paid multitudes of some average "joe" pay).

Earlier (3/12/12), there was mention of doing a random thing with the 'big dance' (yeah, NCAA, you listening?). Oh, would Self (et al) even be in the game if it weren't for the remuneration? Anyway, there are all sorts of re-configurations that could be thought about. Oh wait! TV, and its monies, is what drives the deals?

04/01/2012 -- No, it's not April Fool. We have "ku,uk" (as in KU and UK, or as in a #2 and a #1). At UK (Lexington, if you need to know), there was rioting because of a win in a semi-final game. Sheesh. Louisville, thanks for being classy.

By the way, Self got his payday. You know, people. The issues regarding this post remain to be discussed.

So, here is a conundrum of major sorts. I was afraid that if KU wins, I would be hearing the braying of semi-asses for a year (as if this were Missouri). However, how could one want to favor UK with the behavior last night? What would be the reaction to winning the title? If KU wins, let's hope that Mass Ave (not 12th and Oread, but close enough) remains peaceful, relatively.

03/12/2012 -- Sentiment hasn't changed about the Shame of College Sports. Many push the ethical boundaries fairly far in order to get into the big dance. Why not have a random assignment between the NCAA and the NIT for some schools? Let's, at least, talk about it.

03/03/2012 -- Time again. Still of a mind that things are awry. Coaches make too much. If athletics are to be part of higher education, then make it a full person sort of thing. Is intramural still there? Full person? Yes,  think peripatetics, if you would.

05/28/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

05/07/02011 -- This week a story about Warren used 'ruthless' as if this is how business is expected to run. In the sense of a game, that would mean no refs/umps. Think of it. Too, Big Ben (get link) says that they cannot understand enough to know problems in advance (channeling King Alan).

04/03/2011 -- We will look at the background issues and more.

04/02/2011-- Weierstrass did not banish the motivations behind Berkeley's concerns.

03/29/2011 -- Part of the madness is seen in the warped ideology. As well, See 03/24/2011 Remarks (1/2 rant).

Modified 03/10/2018

Fourth March

Just as we looked at December and January, across four years, we can sample March posts. Since we're still in March, we'll not have one for 2011.

• 2008 (3 posts) -- Another oops generator -- this was the time of the unfoldment of the results of idiocy. Yet, did things really change? Other than Big Ben sacking the savers? In fact, this was well before the notion became more clear that what has been wrought by the idiots is a casino.
• 2009 (5 posts) -- More on culprits -- that was hard to pick, since there were posts dealing with toxic assets (this was not resolved, people), idiocy, and our beans (the main problem: some seem to think that they can accumulate at will and without end). Aside: thank God for people like Paul Schervish (Money is like fire: can warm your toes or burn your feet).
• 2010 () -- No posts. FEDaerated had two. Truth Engineering had only one.

Remarks:

03/28/2011 -- See 03/24/2011 Remarks (1/2 rant) and on March madness.

Modified 03/28/2011

The lessons of Bernie

What are these? Well, there are several that Bernie wants us to know.

To recap, this post (By necessity, Ponzi) is dated 12/15/2008. We even proposed that Made-off be used rather than the name of that guy from the olden times.

Remember those times, a couple of years ago? Even after the new day, things appeared to be dire. They still are, for most folks, despite the shining chimera.

We'll have to re-look at this since our monetary basis is a 'gab standard' that is weak. How can we make it real? Not an easy subject, folks. The motivation? Look at Minsky's (7oops7, Truth Engineering, FEDaerated) take on the matter.

As further refreshing of memory, here is 'Made-off' in the three blogs.

• 7oops7
• Truth Engineering
• FEDaerated

Bernie exploited our unstable computational ontology, meaning, of course, more than just the platforms, technology, and mathematics. He was able to 'pull the wool' for a very long time. And, he did this on very smart people.

Much to learn there.

Remarks:

04/12/2011 -- Now, we hear that Harvard wants Bernie to teach ethics to the best and brightest! It is obvious that he ought to be a case study and a specimen of what not to do. That is, analyze him to the core. His motivations would be included. The biggest lesson? How we have dumbed down ourselves in order to make the system, and its artifacts (see comments on hive mentality), work.

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

Modified: 04/12/2011

Sealy shimming

Being kind in the use here, as 'shim' implies thin. The shim being used for the Sealy consists of 4 folded bath towels, two folded sheets, and then two layers of mattress pad. That, foks, is not a slim shim.

Too, remember, in some engineering circles, the use of shims points to poor design or workmanship. Of course, it could be related to material, to boot.

---

What does this problem imply in the case of Sealy? As we saw before, their quality assessment filters out, very successfully, this type of problem. That is, they seem to have consciously applied techniques that do not 'see' the problem. Not only is their assessment targeted to looks (as in, a 1 1/2" permanent depression considered okay), the whole approach averages across an eight-inch span.

---

I was given the challenge of finding a 'functional' test that would be fair. Hence, these posts. The challenge did not come directly from Sealy, yet one has to think that they know about the issue.

---

Imagine trying to sleep on a 'firm' mattress that has differences in how much the mattress sinks when a small amount of weight is placed on the surface. And, consider that the difference in the 'give' amounts to several inches at one point.

10 lbs test (actually, a mere 2 lbs)

	1	2	3
1	2.25	1.50	2.25	head of mattress
2	1.25	1.00	3.50	middle of mattress
3	1.00	0.50	1.50	foot of mattress

This table show the amount of 'give' at nine points on the mattress, using two five-pound weights placed together. The measurement was to the lowest point of the mattress from a string that was stretched across the mattress and that was weighted on both ends. The string was similar to the one in the 'jig' set that was used by the Sealy representative when he did the static (averaged) test.

---

One could characterize the experience as sinking into a hole out of which one has to climb in order to get out of the bed. The 'hole' appears only on one side, as if the mattress is firm on one side and the most plush of the plush on the other.

---

A mere three and one-half inches (3 1/2", 8.89 cm)? (See Remarks, 04/29/2011) Probably, the psychological impact ought to use a logarithmic scale for any depression beyond the 1/2" expectation.

---

But, what is 'firm' in this context? We'll look at that and more.

---

There will be a re-measure (see Remarks, 04/29/2011 -- the new measure doubled the weight in a couple of areas), using a smaller basis for the 10 lbs. The above numbers actually applied only about a 2-lbs test, due to the fact that the 'jig' had too broad of a span.

Remarks:

11/24/2011 -- The finale.

04/29/2011 -- The store is honoring its guarantee and replacing the mattress. Before it left the premises, I thought that there ought to be one more measurement. Remember, from the above table, that a 10-lb pressure test was used. Between the highest and lowest depression, there was a difference of three inches. So, what would it look like if, at those two areas, we added 10-lbs to the weight (broad base, that is, this was not a point test)?

In the more firm area, the additional ten pounds (20-lb test) increased the depression a little over an inch. In the softer area (reminder: ultra-firm mattress), the additional weight caused a depression, in that area of the mattress, that measured almost SIX inches. That is, the additional ten pounds pushed the mattress down a further 2 1/2 inches.

And, the difference between firm and soft increased from three inches to four and one-half inches. Would that not be considered significant?

Reminder: we're talking a functional, pressure test that ought to be within the capability of Sealy. Their representative mentioned that he thought such a test (see Sealy Snafu) would be an improvement (and said that he had asked an engineer customer, to no effect). In their static test, which was cosmetic, there was no way to test how a mattress performs while in use. Too, their current jig is seriously biased in their favor. The outer cover may spring back, yet yield like soft butter to a reclining body.

Given their current scheme, how the heck can Sealy learn anything to make improvements that are functionally sound?

03/15/2011 -- Status, the store will replace the mattress. They, essentially, were waiting for Sealy to step up to its responsibility which never happened. Further measurements coming.

Modified: 11/24/2011

Sealy saga

In the prior post on this subject, a weight-based measuring theme was discussed as being, perhaps, more fair than the current method in trying to assess a mattress. In other words, try to do a functional test (that is, how well does the mattress hold weight?) rather than do a mere cosmetic measurement.

So, what steps, and the tools, would be in that method? We'll keep the string (stretched across the bed, with weighted ends), use a metal tape measure, and figure some type of jig.

We can use an example with this real case. Let's divide the mattress into nine cells, namely 3x3. If the first row was across the top of the mattress, from left to right, then, third row would be across the bottom. In the middle of each cell, there would be a measurement while the weight was applied in that area.

The 'weight jig' for this case will have a base of about five inches which is a little smaller than the jig used by Sealy. The measurement would be done two times, one at five lbs and one at ten lbs. And, the measurement is from the string to the lowest part of the mattress under the string.

---

In the below image, measurements at five and ten pounds, and a couple of difference calculations are shown. What is obvious from these numbers is that the total delta of the measurements shown at the 10-pound weight is huge (up to 3.5") and widely variant (3" spread of the numbers).

Measurements (inches)

5 lbs test

	1	2	3
1	1.50	1.00	1.25	head of mattress
2	1.00	0.75	2.50	middle of mattress
3	0.75	0.50	0.75	foot of mattress

10 lbs test

	1	2	3
1	2.25	1.50	2.25	head of mattress
2	1.25	1.00	3.50	middle of mattress
3	1.00	0.50	1.50	foot of mattress

Deltas (inches)

5-to-10 lbs diff

	1	2	3
1	0.75	0.50	1.00	head of mattress
2	0.25	0.25	1.00	middle of mattress
3	0.25	0.00	0.75	foot of mattress

10 lbs, diff of sides

	1	2	3
1	0.75	0.00	0.75	head of mattress
2	0.25	0.00	2.50	middle of mattress
3	0.50	0.00	1.00	foot of mattress

Two deltas are shown. '10 lbs, diff of sides' indicates the difference between the middle and the two sides using the 10-lbs measurement. That is, taking column two (middle) as the base expectation, the right side (column three) has excessive give (2.5"), especially in the middle of the mattress.

With the 5-to-10 pound delta, we see that the right side (column three) shows excess changes (that is, applying another 10 lbs caused 1" of sink; as comparison, note that some areas had only a 1/4" change). It was the right side of the mattress that raised the original concern after only two weeks of use.

-----

Now, there are many other ways to go with a functional assessment. The measurement, in this case, was at a point, using a standard tape measure. The measuring device could be a little wider.

What weight? Ten pounds seemed reasonable. However, if one sits in bed and reads, the area of most pressure would be far beyond that. Why not test for that?

The device used by Sealy (recalled as about 8"x4") could be altered slightly to make a fair measurement. Sealy could just change their jig to be a little shorter by only a few inches. Then, they add weight which would be very easy to do.

The questions are several. For instance, what is proper give (sink) by type of mattress? Remember, the mattress being measured here is, supposedly, FIRM. What weight would need to be applied in a reasonable fashion?

---

As well as a pressure test, why not have the evaluator try the mattress? Is that too subjective? How else can a soft spot be identified? In this case, it is obvious that there is more of a sink on the right-hand side (looking from the foot to the head) than on the left side.

---

When did business start to have a defensive mode with regard to its customers? The customer is looking for a product that works, has value, and can last. What is the business out for? Mere profit?

Ah, so many questions to discuss, especially with regard to that belief system called capitalism. Has it not been demonstrated, of late, that capitalism mainly devolves into the cap-ital-sino? Does it not reward those with jungle mentality?

Come to think of it, the current problems (of the recent three to four years) show many things, like the disparity between the elite (The Atlantic - Global Elite) and the rest. I really don't know of any historic case, that has been sustained for a period of time. And, libertarian folks, I'm not talking fictional examples. Even in the US, we have had a long history, what with the robber barons, the Made-offs, et al. But, those issues are addressed at FEDaerated.

Remarks:

11/24/2011 -- The finale.

04/29/2011 -- See Remarks, 04/29/2011

.03/15/2011 -- Status, the store will replace the mattress. They, essentially, were waiting for Sealy to step up to its responsibility which never happened. Further measurements coming.

02/27/2011 -- Switched measurements table from an image to HTML. As well, shimmy, shim, shim.

02/23/2011 -- What faces the consumer? Making a decision about which piece of crap is more worthy than another, essentially.

02/22/2011 -- One may ask how the Sealy customer fairs with such a poor mattress. How can one sleep? With folded towels and sheets under two sets of mattress pads which fill in the holes sufficiently, for now. Yes, quite a contraption and contrivance to use for what is not a cheap mattress set.

Modified: 11/24/2011