I've heard the statement before. I'll hear it again. And it's completely false.
"Kids these days..."
That's how it always starts. It's a giant discussion about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket because the kids these days aren't doing what they should be doing. I'm not going to blame most of it on the kids. They get a bad rap, and childhood is a pain in the ass.
I'm going to blame it on the parents. Children by and large are a direct representative of what their parents do. Let me be clear: I didn't say what their parents say. I said what their parents do. If you yell at your kids, your kids will yell at each other. They will be you, but with less of a filter. It is both weird and creepy. I've seen it out of my own kids.
If I want them to start listening more, I have to start listening. To everyone.
If I want them to quit yelling, I have to quit yelling.
Do as I say not as I do doesn't work. Yet that's what many parents use. For a while. Then they phone it in and quit trying.
It's strange how we start off wanting our children to be the president when they are four. By the time the child is 15, you're hoping to avoid jail.
Where did that come from? How did we fall so low as parents as to go from supremely high achievement to less than the average? Where did our grasp disappear and our fight go? Too many bills and too many problems in the world?
Parents, you must hold on longer than you think. Maintain the discipline longer than you think is necessary. Especially in the teenage years. There is a time for responsibility, and that is as the child earns it. Fail in responsibilities, reduce responsibilities. It's a constant give and take.
We want women to achieve in life at the rate of their male counterparts, but what do we teach them via most children's education method? TV teaches most children. And you demonize business or anyone starting a business. And you end up with some single mom on TV with multiple kids and a contrived story about how they got there. Might as well say the sperm donor walked as some of the crap they come up with.
If you want to see women succeed, start writing successful women. Start teaching that parenting requires two parents. And it requires full time effort from both parents. I don't care if you are tired at the end of a work day. You aren't done until the kids go to bed. Quit dialing it in and being a dead beat parent. Achieve something.
And... don't let the hippies teach you how to parent. Because they haven't got a clue.
I've heard numerous stories, and I'll leave you with one from "the old Corps". I heard it during Corporals Course in Iraq back in 2007.
An instructor was asked about the differences between the "old Corps" and the "new Corps". He said there was a Marine who would show up to a unit, and be great for a few weeks. Then the Marine would start becoming insubordinate and rude. Eventually, the guy would be taken out back and beaten up. It worked OK for a few days. And then he was back to the same old thing.
He was moved to a new unit, probably due to his disciplinary issues. Same scenario proceeded. The man would show up and be great at his job for a while. Then he'd turn insubordinate and rude. And he would be taken out back and beaten.
And that same thing persisted until he was finally discharged.
Following the end of the story, I remember a bunch of people looking like it was something to look forward to. Like they had missed a great institution. But they missed the crucial point. Despite the beatings, the man never changed. The beatings did not fix the problem. It was a stupid application of force that only temporarily solved the problem.
And yet here was Insanity rearing its ugly head again. Over, and over, and over again.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Happiness is...
I've heard people discuss how a store experience can make a customer happy.
If you hear someone selling this, run the other way as fast as possible. They are disconnected from reality and will not solve your problem.
First, happiness is a choice. It has nothing to do with the circumstance. It has nothing to do with what you have or don't have. You choose to be happy.
If you are not choosing to be happy, you are probably basing your happiness on external factors. As such, you are probably either affected by stuffitis or you have no direction in life. You buy stuff to make you happy, and wonder why you aren't happy. That person has confused happiness with temporary amusement.
Second, don't try to make your customer happy. See point 1. You are not a psychologist (unless that's your business. I'm assuming most of you aren't). Try to engage and entertain your customers. But don't try to make them happy.
Because you can't make them happy.
That bears repeating again.
You can not make your customers happy.
Engage your customers. Entertain them. Delight them. But realize all of these are temporary, transitory emotions. They fall suite to whim just like everything else. But that just means you have to keep bringing your A game every time. Because every single experience is a new opportunity to engage a customer.
If you hear someone selling this, run the other way as fast as possible. They are disconnected from reality and will not solve your problem.
First, happiness is a choice. It has nothing to do with the circumstance. It has nothing to do with what you have or don't have. You choose to be happy.
If you are not choosing to be happy, you are probably basing your happiness on external factors. As such, you are probably either affected by stuffitis or you have no direction in life. You buy stuff to make you happy, and wonder why you aren't happy. That person has confused happiness with temporary amusement.
Second, don't try to make your customer happy. See point 1. You are not a psychologist (unless that's your business. I'm assuming most of you aren't). Try to engage and entertain your customers. But don't try to make them happy.
Because you can't make them happy.
That bears repeating again.
You can not make your customers happy.
Engage your customers. Entertain them. Delight them. But realize all of these are temporary, transitory emotions. They fall suite to whim just like everything else. But that just means you have to keep bringing your A game every time. Because every single experience is a new opportunity to engage a customer.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Random Theories
Still reading the Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Several thoughts struck me as reading this. I was particularly going through the chapter on the bell curve. In this chapter, Taleb talks about network theory. It says the more connected something is, the more stable it is to a point. But there are certain nodes in that connection that can affect the entire ecosystem. The edges of the system are incredibly stable, the center is highly affected by problems.
Which made me think of Apple. Apple is a highly centralized company with a highly centralized development/distribution system. Then compare their ecosystem to network theory. With Apple, the central connector is Apple itself. So the one thing that is most capable of being effected by a black swan is the center. They have the possibility of other interconnections in their suppliers, but by and large those are mostly fungible. Foxconn is probably their biggest non-direct control node. Failures at Foxconn can temporarily bring the company to its knees. Otherwise, they have deep control of their own black swans because they have deep control of their network nodes. The biggest problem Apple faces is internal. They are unlikely to be effected by large external variations.
Conversely, that also seems to mean that their explosive change and variation must also come from inside. They can't have explosive growth in a non-center node that effects their entire system. So Apple has direct control of their scale.
Google/Android operates under a different model. They use the Microsoft model. The Microsoft model uses a large, highly decentralized network to build resources. Which creates two results. 1) They are highly affected by explosive growth in the wings of their network. A side business that Google has no control of has the possibility to take complete market ownership. 2) They are capable of being negatively affected by wings of the network. Depending on the strength of the network node, they could easily be taken down by a shift in an influential node.
Which shows the difference in two different development/business methods. Neither is better or worse. Just different.
I'm probably wrong. Humans are notorious in being bad predictors. I'm also very likely to have used affect/effect wrong in several places.
Anyways.
Several thoughts struck me as reading this. I was particularly going through the chapter on the bell curve. In this chapter, Taleb talks about network theory. It says the more connected something is, the more stable it is to a point. But there are certain nodes in that connection that can affect the entire ecosystem. The edges of the system are incredibly stable, the center is highly affected by problems.
Which made me think of Apple. Apple is a highly centralized company with a highly centralized development/distribution system. Then compare their ecosystem to network theory. With Apple, the central connector is Apple itself. So the one thing that is most capable of being effected by a black swan is the center. They have the possibility of other interconnections in their suppliers, but by and large those are mostly fungible. Foxconn is probably their biggest non-direct control node. Failures at Foxconn can temporarily bring the company to its knees. Otherwise, they have deep control of their own black swans because they have deep control of their network nodes. The biggest problem Apple faces is internal. They are unlikely to be effected by large external variations.
Conversely, that also seems to mean that their explosive change and variation must also come from inside. They can't have explosive growth in a non-center node that effects their entire system. So Apple has direct control of their scale.
Google/Android operates under a different model. They use the Microsoft model. The Microsoft model uses a large, highly decentralized network to build resources. Which creates two results. 1) They are highly affected by explosive growth in the wings of their network. A side business that Google has no control of has the possibility to take complete market ownership. 2) They are capable of being negatively affected by wings of the network. Depending on the strength of the network node, they could easily be taken down by a shift in an influential node.
Which shows the difference in two different development/business methods. Neither is better or worse. Just different.
I'm probably wrong. Humans are notorious in being bad predictors. I'm also very likely to have used affect/effect wrong in several places.
Anyways.
Monday, February 15, 2016
The Next Revolution
The next revolution will be in energy, but I don't think it will be in the way people think. Many of the current revolutions have come things that were commodities and were innovated in the off-commodity market to create a new product. Phones and Internet are great examples.
With energy, you have two issues. One is storage, and the other is creation. Both need answered. With current energy creation methods, you create way more than you need, and force it down the path (the electrical grid). In 99% of cases, all the energy isn't used and it just burns off somewhere. Where? I haven't a clue. In that 1% case where you don't have enough energy going down the path, you have brownouts. So you want to avoid the brownouts by forcing too much energy down the path that will never get used.
So, that comes to the second problem: storage. If you have too much energy coming down the path and you don't just dissipate it into the air, then why not store it? Storage could easily come in the form of individual homes and municipality wide storage.
Now the problem has been explained. What are you going to do with all that new energy? The better question is: what can't I do now that new energy is going to solve? Almost anything.
Giant mechanical robots? Need new energy. Space ships that are worth a darn? New energy. Flying cars? New energy. Laser blasters? New energy.
Because the big problem with most of these technologies is the ability to produce sufficient energy to make it work. A giant robot is easy, just so long as you leave a tether on it. But who wants a giant robot that is tethered to a cable? Diesel engines are nice, but they are incredibly inefficient and need to be exceptionally huge to produce the kind of energy you need. And after creating that huge engine, you need a place to put all that fuel. Where is all that going to go?
And I have a distinct feeling that an institution is not going to create this new form of energy. It's probably going to be someone pissed at paying their electric bill, trying to deal with the next fuel crisis. Because solving rocketing heating costs by building a new technology is very likely. Revolution usually happens when the issues with the existing system become so onerous that someone starts looking for an answer.
If it's going to be American, then the cost of fuel prices will necessarily have to skyrocket to create a sufficient pinch. When gas prices were jumping towards $5 a gallon, people talked constantly about 100 mile per gallon cars. At $1.25 a gallon, people don't even think about it. So the issue is likely to be solved by someone from Africa. It's that need issue. When you don't have a power grid, you don't have the issue of dealing with regulation. And if you can create power in Africa, then you can solve lots of issues.
It's that lack of alternative that causes such amazing growth. When there is no other option, a new option must be created.
And I have no faith that government is going to fund or create the next energy revolution. They think wrong. And you have to solve the thinking issue before you start solving any other issue.
Which leads in to why I think people should get out of debt and get on Thrive. More energy to solve your issues and more money to experiment to create the world you want.
With energy, you have two issues. One is storage, and the other is creation. Both need answered. With current energy creation methods, you create way more than you need, and force it down the path (the electrical grid). In 99% of cases, all the energy isn't used and it just burns off somewhere. Where? I haven't a clue. In that 1% case where you don't have enough energy going down the path, you have brownouts. So you want to avoid the brownouts by forcing too much energy down the path that will never get used.
So, that comes to the second problem: storage. If you have too much energy coming down the path and you don't just dissipate it into the air, then why not store it? Storage could easily come in the form of individual homes and municipality wide storage.
Now the problem has been explained. What are you going to do with all that new energy? The better question is: what can't I do now that new energy is going to solve? Almost anything.
Giant mechanical robots? Need new energy. Space ships that are worth a darn? New energy. Flying cars? New energy. Laser blasters? New energy.
Because the big problem with most of these technologies is the ability to produce sufficient energy to make it work. A giant robot is easy, just so long as you leave a tether on it. But who wants a giant robot that is tethered to a cable? Diesel engines are nice, but they are incredibly inefficient and need to be exceptionally huge to produce the kind of energy you need. And after creating that huge engine, you need a place to put all that fuel. Where is all that going to go?
And I have a distinct feeling that an institution is not going to create this new form of energy. It's probably going to be someone pissed at paying their electric bill, trying to deal with the next fuel crisis. Because solving rocketing heating costs by building a new technology is very likely. Revolution usually happens when the issues with the existing system become so onerous that someone starts looking for an answer.
If it's going to be American, then the cost of fuel prices will necessarily have to skyrocket to create a sufficient pinch. When gas prices were jumping towards $5 a gallon, people talked constantly about 100 mile per gallon cars. At $1.25 a gallon, people don't even think about it. So the issue is likely to be solved by someone from Africa. It's that need issue. When you don't have a power grid, you don't have the issue of dealing with regulation. And if you can create power in Africa, then you can solve lots of issues.
It's that lack of alternative that causes such amazing growth. When there is no other option, a new option must be created.
And I have no faith that government is going to fund or create the next energy revolution. They think wrong. And you have to solve the thinking issue before you start solving any other issue.
Which leads in to why I think people should get out of debt and get on Thrive. More energy to solve your issues and more money to experiment to create the world you want.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Wayne Hose Assignments in Base 39
So POP discount wouldn't work. And POP discount is something the company wants working. We were dealing with a Commander, running a base 39 application. Verifone had told me I needed to set everything up for Wayne auto configuration. My pumps are all 3+1. In layman's terms, that means I have two physical hoses on the pump. One hose distributes 3 grades of fuel. A 2nd hose distributes another grade of fuel. In this case, the 3 represents Nolead, Plus, and Super. The +1 represents Diesel. Nolead and Super are pure grades, and Plus is a 60/40 blend.
Wayne says you should set up a 3+1 as Diesel, none, none, Super, Plus, Nolead. Fuel assignments worked great, but POP discount didn't work
A short discussion on acronyms. POP can either mean Point of Presence, or Point of Payment. One refers to a gas pump. The other refers to a pin pad. At one point, I knew the story of who created two same lettered acryonyms in the Verifone world.
Anyways, the answer. Or maybe not.
I asked a person who went to VASC school, taught by Verifone itself, back in December. Dude aced the test. He had no idea what Wayne auto configuration was.
So, Verifone told me the hose assignment should be set up as Gilbarco normally set them up. Gilbarco setups up their hose assignments on a 3+1 as Nolead, Plus, Super, none, none, Diesel. Now, Verifone told me to use the "Gilbarco" method to assign hoses, but don't skip positions. Great, so we just missed true Gilbarco setup.
So, the new hose assignment is Nolead, Plus, Super, Diesel. I go check pumps. And everything has hose assignments, but it's not right.
In the midst of the drive back to the town, I figure out the answer, and its back to SFC days.
SFC is the Smart Fuel Controller. Imagine a box that is way too small fitting way too many wires and is a bit too complicated.
So... Change the hose assignments to (and here's the real answer)....
Diesel, Super, Plus, Nolead, none, none, none, none
So...
That's it.
Wayne says you should set up a 3+1 as Diesel, none, none, Super, Plus, Nolead. Fuel assignments worked great, but POP discount didn't work
A short discussion on acronyms. POP can either mean Point of Presence, or Point of Payment. One refers to a gas pump. The other refers to a pin pad. At one point, I knew the story of who created two same lettered acryonyms in the Verifone world.
Anyways, the answer. Or maybe not.
I asked a person who went to VASC school, taught by Verifone itself, back in December. Dude aced the test. He had no idea what Wayne auto configuration was.
So, Verifone told me the hose assignment should be set up as Gilbarco normally set them up. Gilbarco setups up their hose assignments on a 3+1 as Nolead, Plus, Super, none, none, Diesel. Now, Verifone told me to use the "Gilbarco" method to assign hoses, but don't skip positions. Great, so we just missed true Gilbarco setup.
So, the new hose assignment is Nolead, Plus, Super, Diesel. I go check pumps. And everything has hose assignments, but it's not right.
In the midst of the drive back to the town, I figure out the answer, and its back to SFC days.
SFC is the Smart Fuel Controller. Imagine a box that is way too small fitting way too many wires and is a bit too complicated.
So... Change the hose assignments to (and here's the real answer)....
Diesel, Super, Plus, Nolead, none, none, none, none
So...
That's it.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
The Not So Monday Post
I know it says the "not so Monday post", even though it is still technically Monday while I'm writing this. Monday evening to be exact. Which is a bit different than Monday morning, though not by much. I didn't watch the Super Bowl, so anything I say can't be blamed on the greatness (or failure) of something I am completely unaware of. Strangely enough, I didn't even know who was playing until some point in to the game. My wife was Facebooking ,while I was doing something else.
I couldn't really tell you what I was doing at the specific time of the game, seeing as how I didn't watch the game. What I can tell you is that I got back to teaching my kids math and reading. I know I've been spending a lot of time thinking about how best to teach children. I also know I've been thinking about how best to automate a good deal of the process.
The problem is I need to start teaching now. My kids aren't learning what they need to learn while I try to figure out the entire equation before I begin. That would be great if I could. But it doesn't look like its going happen for the first two kids. I've got two more years before my youngest starts school. Hopefully, I'll have it figured out by then. If not, then I think I'll still be okay. At the very least, I'll have started and produced something.
I'm currently using Saxon Math for home school. The scripting seems to work for me, as I'm not terribly sure what I should be teaching. I guess I don't realize how much I know without any sort of background of when I started knowing it. Sure I can read a calendar. And a map. And I can navigate using a compass. Do I remember when I learned those things? I can't narrow down the basics of compass navigation, but I can remember when I learned the final refinement. I know it because it was relatively recently. Reading a calendar? That has to have been 30 years ago.
My current reading book is also script based, though my kids have gone decently off script. It's Teach your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons. I'm currently on lesson 45, and my kids can site read most of the material. So no need to completely follow the script.
I think the bigger part of all this discussion is that in the beginning, you must start somewhere. Start with scripts, start with anything. Just start.
And get some Thrive so you can make it through that teaching session after 12 hours of work.
I couldn't really tell you what I was doing at the specific time of the game, seeing as how I didn't watch the game. What I can tell you is that I got back to teaching my kids math and reading. I know I've been spending a lot of time thinking about how best to teach children. I also know I've been thinking about how best to automate a good deal of the process.
The problem is I need to start teaching now. My kids aren't learning what they need to learn while I try to figure out the entire equation before I begin. That would be great if I could. But it doesn't look like its going happen for the first two kids. I've got two more years before my youngest starts school. Hopefully, I'll have it figured out by then. If not, then I think I'll still be okay. At the very least, I'll have started and produced something.
I'm currently using Saxon Math for home school. The scripting seems to work for me, as I'm not terribly sure what I should be teaching. I guess I don't realize how much I know without any sort of background of when I started knowing it. Sure I can read a calendar. And a map. And I can navigate using a compass. Do I remember when I learned those things? I can't narrow down the basics of compass navigation, but I can remember when I learned the final refinement. I know it because it was relatively recently. Reading a calendar? That has to have been 30 years ago.
My current reading book is also script based, though my kids have gone decently off script. It's Teach your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons. I'm currently on lesson 45, and my kids can site read most of the material. So no need to completely follow the script.
I think the bigger part of all this discussion is that in the beginning, you must start somewhere. Start with scripts, start with anything. Just start.
And get some Thrive so you can make it through that teaching session after 12 hours of work.
Monday, February 8, 2016
The Monday Post
It's Monday, so I suppose it's time to post something.
I shouldn't have that feeling, but I do. Anyways. I am on Thrive. It's pretty awesome. You should go check it out. After a week, I've cut my coffee intake to about 1/3 of a cup per day from 1 cup per day. And I actually gained weight. I'm not as incredibly scrawny as I was.
So that's definite progress.
After reading something on LinkedIn, I started reviewing my goals twice daily. I don't think I was spending enough time on them, and really they weren't even in the forefront of my brain during the day. How can you possibly achieve your goals if you aren't focused on them? When was the last time you looked at your goals? I'm guessing it has been a while. Probably right after you made them.
I did this with an Outlook calendar event. I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, but it is definitely the most portable. It is also the version that is likely to be with me at any given time.
Running out of time this morning, so... I'll be back.
I shouldn't have that feeling, but I do. Anyways. I am on Thrive. It's pretty awesome. You should go check it out. After a week, I've cut my coffee intake to about 1/3 of a cup per day from 1 cup per day. And I actually gained weight. I'm not as incredibly scrawny as I was.
So that's definite progress.
After reading something on LinkedIn, I started reviewing my goals twice daily. I don't think I was spending enough time on them, and really they weren't even in the forefront of my brain during the day. How can you possibly achieve your goals if you aren't focused on them? When was the last time you looked at your goals? I'm guessing it has been a while. Probably right after you made them.
I did this with an Outlook calendar event. I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, but it is definitely the most portable. It is also the version that is likely to be with me at any given time.
Running out of time this morning, so... I'll be back.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Content Production
A while ago, I was thinking about content creation. And I was thinking that the ratio should probably be better than a 2:1 ratio of production versus consumption. It was just some number that randomly popped into my head. And the number sounded good, but that's... quite unrealistic.
A production of that level would mean for every 2 pages you write, you would read 1 page. Which sounds like a great idea, but I consume a page at about every 2-3 minutes. Production of a page can take upwards of an hour. So the time comparisons aren't really comparable.
And then you deal with esoteric subjects like measuring production of non-text info. What about drawings? Or 3D models? You don't really consume 3D models. You could consume drawings in the form of comics and cartoons. But how do you measure progress on those things? It's a good question.
So, rather than use absolute measures of production/consumption, I think the measure should be time spent. I'm still convinced you should maintain a 2:1 ratio, but it's two hours to one hour. Two hours of content production can produce different levels based on the media, but it still produces. It also causes long term progress towards goals.
One hour of consumption allows you to get a more absolute measure. Because really, it's all opportunity taxes. An hour spent consuming is quite literally an hour you will never get back. An hour spent producing is also, paradoxically, an hour you will never get back. But it makes you feel a lot better to spend an hour working on something that will lead you to accomplish your goals.
A production of that level would mean for every 2 pages you write, you would read 1 page. Which sounds like a great idea, but I consume a page at about every 2-3 minutes. Production of a page can take upwards of an hour. So the time comparisons aren't really comparable.
And then you deal with esoteric subjects like measuring production of non-text info. What about drawings? Or 3D models? You don't really consume 3D models. You could consume drawings in the form of comics and cartoons. But how do you measure progress on those things? It's a good question.
So, rather than use absolute measures of production/consumption, I think the measure should be time spent. I'm still convinced you should maintain a 2:1 ratio, but it's two hours to one hour. Two hours of content production can produce different levels based on the media, but it still produces. It also causes long term progress towards goals.
One hour of consumption allows you to get a more absolute measure. Because really, it's all opportunity taxes. An hour spent consuming is quite literally an hour you will never get back. An hour spent producing is also, paradoxically, an hour you will never get back. But it makes you feel a lot better to spend an hour working on something that will lead you to accomplish your goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)