Potemkin and more

On this day (and, perhaps, at other times, to boot), we'll always pause to think of Steve's contributions.

Discussions about 'reality distortion' are interesting. Many have charisma, of various types. Salesmen, in general, wouldn't be successful without something of this type of nature. Managers can motivate this way; is it better than using the stick?

We'll have to look at this further since Mr. Jobs was such a good example, given those with whom he worked, their particular domain of interest, and what has unfolded over the decades. You know, issues of computability are still open-ended, in many senses.

---

But, that's all for another day. Let's just reflect on potemkin type of things. The term was mentioned here as being used within a context related to wishes. That is, there was an enormous thrust, evidently, sustained by belief in modern systems (ah yes, we know how the finance people a mere four years ago, or so, were claiming to have conquered risk? Do you then recall what happened?).

People get into their heads that their rose-colored (whatever other color might be used) glasses do not have an effect on their perception, thereby influencing their cognition. Heck, they don't even know they have glasses on. But, hey, even the brilliants (yes, yes) have the same problem. We'll touch upon that theme quite a bit.

So, however these mis-perceptions are characterized, or emerge, and more, we can usually see the thing ex post facto. But, not always, since the effect is very strong. Certain worldviews seem to continue despite seeming lack of evidence (left purposely vague, think of it as a Rorschach test for yourself), and these have been around for oodles and eons of time. Yet, they do have some usefulness (if we can only get these things to settle into some type of peaceful - peace-able - mode).

---

Now, having said all that, reality distortion and potemkin'ism are two peas in a pod (not the only ones, mind you). Unfortunately, we're seeing this up-close during the muck-raking season (yet, are we learning anything therefrom?).

We could change context a little and talk about the issues related to determining value. We would also look at expectations' influence on outcome and measuring such. Going back to Steve, he noted that there were hard problems being worked by all sorts of people. How the interchange methods, and understanding of such, have emerged over the decades was not foreseen.

---

One main problem, folks? Too much effort at trying to pin down the future. Yes, there are a multitude of things to discuss here. In effect, though, look at nature. If you're following Darwin, are you going to propose that evolution is doing a design of experiments expansion? Well, there may be loose analogs, but, in actuality, we see myriads of proposed changes being filtered through some type of mechanism (we can use the notion of the most fit surviving - as, it can be modeled fairly well). And, please, be aware that those things being filtered are ex post facto realizations, not mere thoughtful entities.

Yes, territory-map problems can be one way to think of this. It is not TRUE, in any case, that foreknowledge (say, via computational modeling, visualization) is the same as the phenomenal existence (redundancy noted). Now, mental (loose sense) states can overlap that which is real. But, they are not the same (unless, ..., in certain events, we may have congruence of more than space-time, yet, science has steered from even considering such, except indirectly).

Remarks:

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

Modified: 11/09/2013

Other side of the pond

The engineering oops focus to date has dealt with this side of the pond, for the most part. Today, we get motivation from over there. Flightblogger released an analysis done by Airbus on the problems of the 787.

Well, we all knew that there were problems ever since the rollout of the 'Potemkin Dreamliner' on 07/08/07 in which an empty shell was glorified as if it were ready to fly. Leelaw wrote (9/4/07 12:06 PM): It's beginning to look like the potential negative legal, financial, and PR consequences resulting from the unfolding "Tale of the Potemkin Dreamliner," could make the process of recovering from the "Defense Procurement Scandal of '03" and/or the "Industrialisation Meltdown of '97-98" seem like relative cakewalks.

As of today, we do not have a date for first flight which is probably good if it reflects that Boeing is being more thorough in collecting the information required to firm up the plan.

Given the list of issues in the above report, it may be awhile before there is more firm information. The last poll here suggested that 2010 was the likely deliver date which would could happen with a first flight anytime in mid-2009.

The following was not invented here (seen in a flightblogger comment):
What will happen first? The first pitch at the new Yankee Stadium or 787 first flight?

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

12/12/2008 -- 787 delays continue.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Groundings

Airlines need to protect their customers and their crew, thereby their reputations. Engineers need to be able to work things, as necessary. Marketing? Management? Other players? Such as?

The arm-chair critic, for one. Well, amuse yourself with this blog.

    http://engineermemes.blogspot.ca/

------- later in the day -------

CNN report. Earlier, a Japanese airline, or two, had decided to ground its aircraft. Now, FAA has made a similar decision. We will watch this closely. The hope is to be flying soon.

from CNN report

Aside: We got started here in 2007 because there was an announcement that a major section was ready to ship from a supplier. And, I knew that it could not be true from what I seen two years before. Well, the piece did ship. Boeing put pieces together. Then, it had the audacity (ah, engineers, don't you love those marketeers) to roll out an empty shell under great fanfare (some termed this a potemkin affair). You know, everyone had the expectation that the thing could fly soon. You know how long it took to get to the flying state? Several parts of a year. Now, of course, as problems surfaced, engineering found ways to get things to work. Eventually, the marketing view was told to let engineering take the lead. That thing of idiots driving the world is one big problem with the world, but everyone knows that do we not. We'll visit the issue, again, as we're getting to where complicated states will require, continually, our collective intelligence, with minimal gaming. It was about that time that the financial idiocy was coming out. You see, the engineers finally got the 787 out, albeit there may be still things that need to be worked out. Finance? Ben has done his best to float the idiots. It was just a little while ago that Jamie was arguing that they knew what they were doing and ought to self-regulate. Then, the whale plopped in his lap, poor guy. Fortunately, there are people looking into these matters, such as Rick Bookstaber (his post points to related research).

---

Now, we all ought to consider that complexity is something that ought to keep us from hubris (see Business, as stupid - written before I knew about Rick's post). We have two factors that are at large here. Mathematics and its descent into common use is a prime one. That applies in this case (we noted that earlier) and in business. It's really the same failing for both engineering and business (where these two do not overlap, okay?). In case of business program management, we have ideas that "risk" has been conquered; just think back to idiotic claims in the 2007/2008 time frame. I know, Ben with his largess has open a spigot to imaginary bucks that has aerated the gaming (so what that the DOW is up? tell me, please, in detail, what is behind that? now, please, follow it up with something of value that is real? can you find some balance in your analysis? oh, you're considering that we've hocked the future for our progeny?). Now, engineering has similar problems. Their success with modeling, especially dynamic systems, has caused many to run off as if a model equals reality (again, we can go into depth here and intend to).

What is the second factor? Human nature. In the case of business, it's all of the greed and other positions that push toward things like dark pools and other idiocies. Too, you get people, like the ad-men, using analysis to look for soft parts of yourself (as in, trying to determine how to lure your little arse into a compromising position, essentially). In engineering? It's the complexity, and a bunch of guys, usually, pushing mathematics, perhaps, way beyond its limits. My mathematician friend/mentor always complained that engineers just read the book. They don't prove theorems or work derivations (as in, guys, from a foundation'l sense, tell me why your methods work and what might be their limits). Oh, it computes (acknowledging, of course, that all of these issues go back to that artificial creation of ours) is sufficient? From whence do you make that to be your verification? Oh, because the computer model agrees with what you see in the real world?

Now, as said before, with engineering, you can test in reality (finance cannot do this the same way). With a plane, you can fly the thing, put it through some paces that are significant, and measure performance in the testing situation. Earlier, I left the engineering side alone since the financial idiots were still running amok. Will this latest event push me back to some balanced view? After all, we do have engineering failures. Many times, though, they seem to point back to human failure. I'm not so sure that such is always the case, albeit it is nice when we can do that (to be human is to err - nice little excuse, too many times). 

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.

03/12/2013 -- Boeing has fixes that it wants to test.

02/28/2013 -- Boeing has proposed a solution; FAA is reviewing.

01/24/2013 -- Article from New York -- The Digital Skeptic: Dreamliner Brings iPhone 'Reliability' to the Skies. With something as complex as the 787, how many operational issues can be expected to crop up (at 35K feet -- rhetorical answer? A bunch.)? A student paper at Uniz of Az looks at 787 outsourcing (see Mahmoodi). Boeing Tech Fellow's cautionary note, on outsourcing (2001 - there was quite a bit of discussion at the 2004 conference in LA, to boot, about matters of technical design -- also, whistle blower?). Related, 787 blog.

01/23/2013 -- A look at the battery and related comments. Worth a read.

01/21/2013 -- WSJ has a nice recap from the beginning.

01/20/2013 -- WSJ story from the flightblogger.

01/18/2013 -- Problems, such as those alluded to in this blog, wouldn't have happened under Mullaly? Alan was an engineer; so, he knew his stuff and airplanes. Too bad that we can't go back and see how he would have handled all of those issues over the past few years. I would suggest this: no potemkin event.

01/17/2013 -- One criticism, that might stand up (we'll see), is that engineering took the back seat many (perhaps, too many) times.

Modified: 07/15/2013

100 years old

Illustration: Chad Hagen 

This is a little tardy. IEEE Spectrum featured Boeing's anniversary. Remember the date, July 15. Part of the remarks deal with the 787 which was the motivation for this blog.

How is that? Well, the first posts (August 2007) dealt with mission seeds for posts. This Seeds post was updated for a few years with current topics. Too, this was a month after the event (termed Potemkin, another side of the story) in which the company rolled out an empty shell with a lot of hoopla. Marketing had ruled over engineers (Here we go again). That little thing went on for awhile, then, engineers were given their right of driving themselves, and things worked (2011, lookback).

It was about the time that the program was getting its act together that the effects of financial idiocy started to become so public as to be unavoidable. Actually, that took more of my attention as flightblogger (now history) was doing a good job of following developments. The blogger went over to the Wall Street Journal.

But, continuing with the 787. This blog (started in 2008) is still in operation: All things 787. There are other blogs that were reporting their views throughout the process.

A comment on the All things 787 post is interesting. It concerns an early plane that Boeing cannot sell. This is the suggestion.

For those two 787 frames that are unmarketable, I'd suggest they be donated to the NTSB and FAA for training of emergency crews. Equip one of them to fly unpiloted but controlled from a chase plane and then crash it on a runway that is no longer in use. Firefighters have not yet had to deal with a carbon fiber air frame on fire...with its attendant dangers of toxic fumes and minuscule carbon fibers being released into the air. Key questions would be how to suppress the flames quickly at such a crash site and how to properly outfit the firefighters. Full body hazmat suits? Special masks and air filters? What precautions need to be taken in terms of the spread of toxic fumes and fibrils into the surrounding community? (etc.)

Such training has not yet been done. Are major airports properly equipped and fire crews adequately trained for this new situation?

--

In general, many areas have crept up over the years that are of concern. Of late, Quora has offered a platform to use answering questions as a manner to organize material and thoughts. Activity here will start up, again, sometime in the future. In the meantime, congratulations to Boeing.

Remarks: Modified: 08/24/2016

08/24/2016 --

Before and after

New poll, 01/11/08.
One wonders about the games played in a 'market' economy, though 'games' might just be some type of human proclivity with which we'll always need to cope.

Today, the FED (the money printers who want to support 'moral' hazards in the market, it seems) said that it would reduce the rate which drives those parts of the investment realm that are favored by the more conservative who don't like having so many hands trying to remove whatever money is there in the pocket. Some analysis seems to indicate that the present trouble was due to too much liquidity from the rate being too low.

Why always this bail out of frivolity? Recently, I read where some manager said that risk analysts had told him that they could calculate to within a couple of decimal points. My reaction was: what? in what universe? dreamland? Of course, they can provide numbers; what reliance can we place on them?

In another realm, in May of 2007, Business Week had an article related to 'crunch time' at Boeing. A reader comment there noted that the 7/8/07 looked to be a 'show and tell' (AWatcher May 22, 2007 3:26 GMT) (or as Leelaw #50594 likes to say 'potemkin' in regard to the hugely publicized affair).

Yet, we have about that same time comments from the CEO saying that "problems in the Dreamliner production won't prevent Boeing from delivering the 787 on time", though there were various mentions about experts doubting that Boeing could pull this thing off in the time frame planned years ago. Also, polls seem to indicate that most who participated thought that there would be delays (long before Boeing announced the schedule shift).

So today, more rumors are coming about in regard to another delay; of course, some of this just might be mongers getting into their 2008 stride.

Where are the mature heads that want an exuberant, yet controlled, economy while at the same time wanting 'wise' project management?

The May 22, 2007 comment asked these questions which are still apropos with some unanswered.

• That the program is allowing pieces to be shipped without all the 'stuffing' reeks of a 'show and tell' event for 7/8/7 (well, marketing is running the game - could be the practice assembly that wasn't scheduled?). [yes, a practice put together, but the hoopla continued unabated]
• Can this plane hit May 08 even if there are some delays (however slight) getting the test vehicle off the ground? [well, we found out that it would not]
• There are so many new factors, how can there be such an abbreviated test period? [that talk of an abridged test has gone away, we hope]
• If a time-line re-adjust now would produce a better plane, why not bite that bullet and do so (After all, Boeing must know a lot more now than 2-3 years ago; to keep asserting that things are fine will look worse later.)? [someone needs to carry forward a more wise way to handled these things - now, it looks like a cat-and-mouse play - what is believable?]
• Why doesn't the 'Mythical Man-Month' principle apply here? [open question]
• Also, why doesn't Lean say "stop the line" when there is a problem (don't push defects downstream)? [well, the line did eventually stop or slowed to a snail's pace]

Well, all the things asked by these posts, beginning with the Seed post still apply.

Slogan: modus operandi involves 'blog and truth' and minimizing 'hogwash' in all affairs.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Retrospectively speaking

Jon is gone (flightblogger). He started his blog not long before this one. Similar subject, except he was a little more specific in focus. My interest was, and still is, truth engineering. The TE blog predates this one by one month. The idea was to look at the general issues related to computing and to discuss these with some notion of contribution to the general welfare. Of course, what was taken as the generality was the human condition of being prone to err (especially, those who are in the position of blaze out). And, this blog came about as there was the program for motivation. Hence, 7 oops 7. We'll go more, below, into what was the common interest that helped get the Jon's and my blogs started.

Jon's blog was picked up by a publication firm later that same year. This afforded several things to Jon and the firm (will look at this some later time). Needless to say, Jon's blog had a lot of readership and was there with the news during the 787 recovery process. Of course, now that the work of the program is oriented toward delivery issues, Jon is off to better things. His blog? Not as active (for several reasons that would be interesting to consider).

787 recovery? Yes, 2007, specifically 07/08/07, was when a 'potemkin' event took place that, in retrospect, is still not believable. What were they thinking? But, we'll leave that for another time. Let me quote from a recent article which appeared first in a Seattle paper (mind you, there is now a final assembly plant that is not in the SEATAC area -- who would have known in 2007? -- so, sarcasm out of the northwest would be expected): Jones said the plane rolling out Friday had fewer than 100 jobs incomplete, a very small number. In comparison, when Boeing rolled out the very first Dreamliner in 2007 in Everett, the plane was a shell with a few fake surfaces painted to look real. That plane didn’t fly until 2 ½ years after rollout.

Ignoring, for now, who is Jones and what plane (787, of course, but what number?) is rolling out, we can see that the first plane (in a state that was long way from being operational) was used for a media event that was highly touted and attended (as if the thing was going to be in the air in a matter of weeks -- in fact, delivery was planned for mid-2008). Too, there were reports in papers, at that time, that the snap-together approach was ready to go (the pieces to be joined had been designed by disparate firms -- across the world, mind you -- so as to be brought together in a matter of days -- the pieces were fully stuffed, it was claimed). All sorts of things can be pulled together to sketch the message and mindsets of that time which was five years ago (and what happened afterwards - such as pulling back work, building a new assembly plant, and more). Too, thanks to the new media, we can trace what happened the past few years as the program turned itself around (including some of the engineering issues that were resolved).

Aside: much water has passed 'neath the bridges, if you would. There was a major recession caused by financial mismanagement. Its effects are still being felt. And, a certain banker still thinks that he's the 'last man' standing. At that time, Facebook was relatively unknown. Since then, it has boomed (as in, having the record for the number of users - huge number). An IPO is planned which is making some go gaga. Are we better at things like 'risk' and other management? Well, again, are we?

---

In 2007, new media (including social) was still an unknown entity used by few. The effects of these new methods have become phenomenally distributed widely. Too, though, all of the issues are still there. Jon's emphasis was semi-journalistic, and he had sources that may, or may not, have been reliable. Some of these seem to have been within the company. The Company, itself, started a blog to give its message. And, we know that FB has become a medium for corporate expression. What major company is not represented there (well, many actually)?

The past two days have given us another look at risk and its management. In 2007, prior to things unfolding, those in the game were talking as if a downturn was not ever going to happen. No, we have things under control was the message, and the feeling, albeit the unraveling went much deeper than many had allowed for. The blogger felt like old Rip as he caught up with what he had ignored (in his interest in cyber matters) for so long (a bunch of idiots had screwed up the world, essentially).

So, we'll have to keep revisiting computability issues (and the underlying mathematical paradigm). Of course,  even with all of the problems there has been strides forward. One might say that the success can be measured by its associated grief (let's take the LT 0.001 and GT 9.999, as an example -- the haves have been very successful in bloating their smelly selves -- the have nots did not see the looming troubles -- we'll be getting back to all this, again and again).

---

As we said before, "we're not back" except for retrospective concerns that relate to larger things. What does that mean? Engineers know what they're doing. Management is mostly the issue. Zuckerberg will see this. In a company with a long history of engineering success, there ought to be rewards for those of that mindset (though, things, like IPOs, dazzle some). And, processes that accrue results ought to be favored over hype (somehow, new media seems to be more this than of any substance).

Remarks:

09/16/2013 -- So, the five year retrospective time. Business week devotes a whole issue. It will be interesting to read all of the perspectives, WSJ, FT, etc. We will have to say some things about Raytheon's push out of Hawker and its subsequent bankruptcy. Like Spirit's split from Boeing, wishful thinking on the part of management and the company led to problematic results (for a lot of people).

09/21/2012 -- To err is human; but, to be human is to be error-prone. We can 'hope' that if we're careful, we'll not get bit. It (as in __it) happens, goes the saying. Now, computers are error prone, to boot. Just in a different manner than we are, yet there is an overlap which we'll get to.

08/24/2012 -- Jon reports that there have been seventeen 787s delivered so far, each costing Boeing about $100M. The question is when will the company meet the break-even point.

05/31/2012 -- Today, the module left the ISS, got itself out of orbit, jettisoned as required, got through the heat of re-entry, and parachuted itself down. Successful, in other words, completion of a test shot that also performed (functional orientation during test, we'll look at that further). Essentially, SpaceX demonstrated a way to get material up to and down from the ISS. We'll be watching now as they go toward manned attempts.

Modified: 09/16/2013

Out on a limb

It seems that Boeing may be out on a limb with its 787 project with the limb cracking. We're almost two years past the 'potemkin' roll-out. That there was recently delay news (again) opens up a can of worms requiring analysis and comment.

Here are a couple of items to start a long list.

-- Announcements just prior to the recent delay news were awfully hopeful and essentially misleading (actually, can we say that they were untrue?). Where is the board? What is the disconnect that we see with Boeing's board and management? How can the board sit idly by and let this comedy of errors continue? Two years ago, a Boeing press release exclaimed that the first 787 was getting put together for the roll-out and reminded us all that the plan was to fit pieces from far away places together in just three days. That same year, management kept promising that first delivery would be May 2008 until late in the year. In fact, one manager (PR type) was talking this just a day before Boeing announced its first delay. This type of disjoint communication speaks a lot about underlying problems. Of course, many of the problems may be technically beyond the grasp of the board. But, are they making proper efforts?

-- There seems to be a disconnect between engineering and management. But, how can we know with the widely scattered team that bridges across countries and cultures? Now, the computer was ostensibly the means to bridge the disparity. But, we have already seen Boeing recognize that it has to bring some of the work back in house and more thoroughly monitor the work of partners (sub-contractors) as a means to reduce the rework. Too, the computer was used in lieu of prototyping as a cost-saving measure. Hah! Those who know realize that the physical modeling is not mature enough for this belief. Would the wise advise caution since the science of composites is so new compared to metals? How could the board allow this belief to grow to such an extent that it put Boeing out on the limb and it culminated in a sequence of misadventures that would be comical if the matter was not so serious?

These are only two of many items that will be discussed further.

But, let's be specific, please. The blog is written by someone who has worked CAD/CAE, KBE, and the like. Okay? But, he also knows that we have run off way too strongly after the sirens (yes, of mythology) of computation. That we have many of a gaming generation can be a little disconcerting. The metrics of reality are quite a bit different than that of 'virtual' reality. The 787 has to fly in the natural and not the computational world. See discussion on Truth Engineering.

flightglobal's poll shows that about 300 people think that the project is doomed. Interesting, indeed. We could probably find a few who thought this back in 2005.

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

09/01/2009 -- Scott C is riding off to the sunset. Jim A will take over the reins. Everyone wonders what the new schedule announcement means in that it was right before this changeover. Just as with the finance folk, it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. See prior Remark.

07/23/2009 -- Some confoundedness results from not handling underdetermination properly. Of course, the whole thing is not new; it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. Hubris, in the modern age, will not relate back to engineers who have pen holders in their pockets. That is, those who resolve issues like we're seeing here will mostly be non-elite, and money does not buy the solution.

07/05/2009 -- Recent comments suggests a too strong belief in the computational.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Best and brightest of what?

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

Basis for the below? See the post on Fed-aerated.

---

Earlier (say 2008), I became aware of the pending downturn. Well, I was late waking up; but, hey, down to the end, Ben was saying that things were okay.

From whence came the idiocy (I even characterized, at the time, it as silly games) behind the financial turmoil? You see, I had spent my time working engineering technology, as in, things related to products (full life cycle, as well, I was working real algorithms). I remember hearing discussion about an influx in engineering, even computer science, sometime around the release of TCP/IP by DOD. But, then, later, there was talk of people going into finance.

"Why was this?" was the thought, then. However, it didn't attract my attention beyond the awareness. There were too many other things to look at. Besides, about this time, the tech downturn had hit, creating havoc for many people. Some friends lost bundles. In the case of one guy: he lost an inordinate amount in the crashes; subsequent changes to the company that we were with (motivated by the thinking of the likes of golden sacks) broke his heart (literally - turns out that golden sacks, and those of that ilk, got their rewards, but other investors took a bath - still, that didn't get my attention, since I knew better than to let the likes of the ca-pital-sino drain me dry); he's been dead now for several years (nevertheless, he never enjoyed the well-earned rewards - sheesh, Duffy - see the Fed-aerated post -- ever talk to real people?).

So, after all of that, my attention was not drawn until after I had retired. Yet, it took a couple of years. You see, I was enjoying the rewards. Too, due to the same circumstances that broke the back of many (see above), I had to take the retirement choice. Oh, there were offers, many of which were enticing. In fact, post the retirement, since it was early, I toyed with various roles. I even put my foot in the door, but, then, I decided to not opt that way (it's a long story that will be told - you see, employment with a corporation is only one step above serfdom for many - and, I'm saying that as a highly paid employee).

WSJ op-ed

I started this blog when a company rolled out something that has been compared to the potemkin event (Russia, yes). The questions of engineering with respect to planning and knowing status are formidable. Having improved software, and systems, does not alleviate the need to be careful and watchful. That whole set of points will continue to be topics of concern.

But, after thinking of why engineering goes so far awry (when management interferes, I might add), the financial thing started to impinge on my awareness. For one, I kept hearing of actions that were known to be problematic (and still are, such as? the whole idea of borrowing (without collateral - or, as these idiots did, with collateral that is already spoken for many time over) in order to play the ca-pital-sino that went out (as in, ruled out from what I learned decades ago) and was not allowed - hah!). Too, the talking heads were on all sides. Ben, as said above, was doing his coo-coo-ing (essentially, telling those who play with our economy (financially) that he'll support them - they're too big to fail).

My reaction was, say what? Toxic (Jerk or not, Sep 18, 2013) does not begin to describe the state of things  (best and brightest gone wild) ; a lot of this has not unwound due to Ben's interference. As said, the bankers froze their activity. Why? Well, they were crooks, they knew. So, how could they trust the others, who were most likely crooks, too? We went for years with things frozen; Ben kept upping his support (more and more things way beyond training wheels - gosh, thanks, guy).

So, fast forward to now. Seeing the Duffy bit brings forth a dichotomous state for me. It is nice, on the one hand, to see someone of the Wall Street ilk use the words and express the concepts related to being mature. Integrity? Wall Street? And, trust? Would it not be nice if this were to turn out to be a sincerely (know the concept?) offered viewpoint? Yet, on the other hand, haven't we heard this all before? Happy talk, and such? In fact, talk has been cheap the past 5 years. Once it appeared that the ca-pital-sino was going to push upward to new heights, would not a reasonable mindset draw the parallel with Ben's largess?

As say before, the likes of Harvard, in a very public manner, folks, needs to lead that realm toward a more sustainable future. Will the WASPers, augmented with the newer entrants who were not allowed before, ever step up to the role? That is my challenge to them. Let's go back to Winthrop, and such, and re-look at the issues. Given Harvard's mix of students, perhaps, even those of other cultures (and nations) would enjoy such an exercise.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/06/2015

10/03/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he not know that he has cowboy'ed (explainable) us into a corner?

10/27/2013 -- See Remarks, this day, at Best and Brightest of what? Yes, high-class pawns; why? Banks are not being banks as we would think of them. No, they're playgrounds for the like of the Jamies of the world. Now that they've had their crookery discovered, they're like the reformed whatever (holier than thou-ism) and are too stringent with the money. Actually, why would they lend (too mundane) when the ca-pital-sino is there for their take (raking off the top-ism)? King Alan now touts savings (in part); wonder what he thinks of Ben's breaking the buck (yes, where someone gets less than a dollar for saving 100 bucks and letting the crooks - as in, bankers -- keep it safe, supposedly); what of Ben's thought processes that lead him to continue to slap the savers silly (silly guy - is Janet any better?).

12/31/2013 -- A popular post.

01/08/2014 -- We're patiently waiting for Janet to get her feet wet. At some point, she'll get out of Ben's shadow. Hopefully, it will be soon for the savers who are being slapped silly by the day.

06/12/2014 -- One way to look at these things: cognitive elitism.

01/06/2015 -- Renewal of TE, see Context line.

01/06/2015 --  Best and brightest: 3rd most read (7'oops7),  1st most read (Tru'eng), 7th most read (FEDaerated).

Ten years

Ten years ago, I started this blog one month after I started the truth engineering blog. What precipitated this blog was the 'potemkin' even of the 787 project. With hoopla, a plane was rolled out and touted as being ready to fly. However, the test flight started about two years later.

Why would I have cared? I was watching a local subcontractor who had, formerly, been a Boeing site. The main notion was to have sections that were complete and joined together in Seattle (or wherever the final assembly was to be done). And, arrival of the pieces and first flight was supposed to be a matter of day. Nice concept. It eventually worked out.

But, up-front mouthing off got in the way of engineering. For a long time, this went on. Once the source of the issue was removed and an engineer took over. The program made progress and got into the sky.

And so, that was the end of that, right? Well, for the most part, downstream glitches popped up, but that is normal (out to be expected). The press (harpies) seems to not understand undecidability (which applies to any decision process, not just logic).

In fact, look at the idiots doing business press. They (and investors) want management to forecast to the dime future monetary concerns. What? These are smart folk being the dumbest ones on the planet. Guess what? As the 787 issues were resolved, the financial problems came to fore. Oh Lord.

Myself? I felt like Rip Van Winkle as I had not really paid close attention (for many reasons). So, there are enough posts here that lay out the issues. And, these are not resolved. The Fed (another blog that started later) brought their largess to bear, leaving themselves with a load of toxic crap that still has not been handled.

How to do this? We sure would like to watch this unfold. Also, big Ben tried to taper. That caused a tantrum. Investors? To me, it's like kids in a candy store. Where can we get a mature economy defined?

Given that people err, the 7'oops7 name stuck. Anything complicated has associated error. Business likes to talk risk management. Oh yes, those guys were talking in the 2007/8 timeframe that we would never have another serious downturn. Oh sure, everyone has forgotten? Well, guess what happened soon after that type of bragging.

Yet, there were not perps. None. Fortunately, the press gave us some snapshots of the rogues at a table. They were cowering before Congress, looking for assistance.

In any case, this graphic shows Wikipedia edits starting in 2005. The blogs started in 2007. And, that activity (requiring lots of research) took time. Then, later, the notion of re-looking at American history came to fore, with the added framework of real people who were here through it all. That, folks, needs attention.

To see specifics, go to this post on truth engineering (Ten years).

Remarks: Modified: 05/13/2017

05/13/2017 --

7 oops 7?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks: Modified: 01/14/2020

01/14/2020 --

Missed milestone

Gosh, two days ago it was 07/08/09? Was it not two years ago that Boeing rolled out the Potemkin airliner? Talk about 'pulling wool' over our eyes.

When will Boeing step up and be honest about what is going on with this plane? At this point and time, how can we believe what we hear from them? Do the powers that be speak with a forked tongue or do they just not understand? Or, is it just bad culture?

flightblogger has a recap and commentary to which this blog will respond with additional content.

Expect another poll series the next few days: Poll1, ..., Poll6

Remarks:

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

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Critics can be more of a bane than boon.

07/11/2009 -- Notice the comment about Boeing bashing which ought to be dampened with reason, except stopping a swinging pendulum may be difficult.

Related posts: Here we go again (issues are: Earned value, Parameterized Models, Hype over hypothesis, Misused mathematics, Underdetermination), Out on a limb (the Board and management are way off - can they learn?), Scale up versus extrapolation (basic tenets were ignored in the rush to claim fame - not much wiser than a toddler - which is what computation can do the mind, by the way).

Modified: 08/24/2016

Avoiding oops

Not often, lately, have I posted twice (see Potemkin ...) in one day, but this is just too rich to ignore. While watching a talk given at IJCAI-2011 (Barcelona) in the context of computing (which, we know, is one manifestation of our ability to master the world), the following slide (in the talk, Homo heuristics) is the focus of the discussion.

The question relates to methods, and the power of heuristics. We'll have to discuss this further, but, for now, let's just look at what the slide tells us. In the world populated by those who seem to be advancing the state of the art (for all of us, yet we keep getting ourselves deeper into a hole, it seems), work such as this (Mean-variance model) receive the highest award (hint, yearly, big deal in Sweden).

Yet, when one of the main characters involved with the work invests his own money, he uses the heuristic shown in the slide. The guy's identity is cut out, as he is not the focus. What we ought to be concerned about is a worldview that races after abstract nonsense, that applies supposed knowledge gained from such thinking, and that doesn't restrict losses, or pains, to just those doing the playing.

No, we all are pulled into the quagmire.

The main question is how did this come about. As I've said many times, interloped mathematics and misunderstood computational modeling are the biggest factors related to the messes of today. Of course, that people with excessive greed have their fingers in the pie is a factor, to boot. We don't really want to go into that litany.

---

In brief, are we all not after a sustainable world that allows the fullest expression of the human element's potential (however you might want to express this)?

Yet, have we not let technology, and its sciences, run amok somewhat giving up control (albeit, a lot of this may have been subconsciously done)?


Remarks:

11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

10/05/2012 -- Note the discussion about 28:33 which show that 500 years of data would be necessary for the prize-winning approach to beat the simple heuristic. As the speaker says, 500 years too early for the bank to use.

Modified: 11/09/2012

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

Flightblogger and more

A recent news report was discussed in an airliners.net thread (whistle blower issue, more later). Among the comments was a reminder that investment companies have analysts who specialize in these topics. Too, several reporters (several old media types) watch what is going on. The question arises as to whether 'New Media' (to be defined further, as flightblogger had a discussion related to this) can play a role. Jon was helping to explore this.

The underlying motivation in this current blog, as expressed in the seeds, is a new look at information, especially that which has advanced computational support, and how we might evaluate it. The particular focus is due to its interest and potential, perhaps, to provide access to real-world experiences and backward-looking analysis.

Isn't the world watching things unfold?

Remarks:

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

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.

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

05/17/2009 -- This whole issue will be re-addressed as the flight test results unfold. For one, the new media's impact has grown the past couple of years. Too, plenty of the older media have stopped paper output and only have a web-presence. Yet, how all this will evolve is anyone's guess. There is still the basic issue: how to verify on-line content. Wikipedia's known problems are one example. The issue is not just hoaxing; bad information can propagate quite rapidly; many times the genie, once let loose, cannot be put back into the bottle.

01/11/2009 -- Re-format back into the usual Remarks scheme. which was lost with the 10/20/08 update. It's pure coincidence that we have a 1/11/08 and a 1/11/09 entry for Remarks. As said on 11/2/07, the issues of 'sock puppetry' (and how Jon's blog got this notion started) remain to be discussed.

10/20/2008 -- More evidence as in this article at the Chicago Tribune detailing the evolution of the flightblogger. As the story says, people within Boeing risked their jobs (and did not honor their proprietary agreement) to contact Jon. Hence, that photos, which are really the property of Boeing, came into the possession of Jon is of interest from several sides.

That Boeing, seemingly, has capitulated the issue is something to discuss (albeit, that what has been characterized as a 'potemkin' event occurred is puzzling, too).

How there will be many ways for the new media to unfold is another topic that'll get some attention.

01/11/2008 -- We have more evidence now that Jon is real. Expect, at some point, more discussion about why this might have been an issue to a viewpoint based entirely on bits portrayed on the screen (representative, you know, of many types of 'virtual' experiences where our need for truth evaluation rest upon fairly weak measures and weaker substance) and critical analysis of content.

11/2/2007 -- flightblogger is back; we'll see what information comes from that source; the context will change due to the flightglobal connection.

The issues about how we identify sock-puppets remain.

9/22/2007 -- The flightblogger is offline until further notice (see Jon's explanation, Reply 5 by IAD787, on airliners.net). The airliner.net thread looked at possible reasons, such as the Comments getting out of hand. Jon said that he had no pressure to take it down. We look forward to the resurrection.

In the meantime, topics to discuss here are several. The seeds need to be updated. The first poll will expire shortly. At that time results from the existing 3 polls will be summarized; other polls will start with a role poll attempting to show who is interested.

With 26 votes, most were 'other (just interested)' followed by 'a Supplier' and encompassed a large majority.

Modified: 08/24/2016

What's in a name

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks: Modified: 03/03/2024

03/03/2024 -- Adding more links.