I just realized why I hate on call. I am not currently on call, so that is not the issue. I will be in a couple of weeks. But that's a future problem. Who's going to solve that one? Future Matt.
Right now, I know why I dislike on call.
It breaks my routines.
That's about it.
I have several routines that I go through Monday through Friday. They are simple actions that result in a controlled beginning to a day. Occasionally, the day crashes and burns. Other days, it goes fine. But my routine stays with me.
When I lose the ability to perform that routine, things go haywire. It's not something I inherently like or am happy with. It's just a gigantic failing. It's unpleasant.
And my entire week goes to hell.
I can tell it's been a bad week when the last time I shaved was Monday. Shaving is a boring ritual. Along with brushing and flossing. Shaving happens three times a week: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This week, I only shaved Monday. Tuesday was the last day I performed my routine.
And I'm headed to the end the week, dragging this controlled crash into the best possibility.
I want my routine back.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
something started, something finished
I've heard it said that writers end up writing the book they need to hear, not necessarily the book they live by. I think that was true of the post yesterday. I'm fully convinced that is what happened. I've been writing a story about what would happen if dimension hopping became a thing, and the guy going dimension hopping was a self-centered asshole out of to save his own skin from his own stupidity. I've been writing that story for a while, off and on. It's currently sitting about 19 pages worth of material, but the story isn't finished and it's going to take a few more pages before I even start to finalize.
The problem is that I haven't been adding to the story very frequently. I'm a proponent of tracking most things you do during the day. I don't do it near enough, but I'm a proponent. I can give you a rough estimate when I will finish the book I'm currently reading, and I can tell you the average days between when I write. And right now that average days number is sitting at 26.
The simple answer is you are never going to finish anything if you don't pick it up but once a month. It doesn't matter how many words you write during those single sessions. And I can almost guarantee when you do write for that one session, it's going to be way shorter than you thought. On Average, I write about 360 words per period. The max I've ever tracked in a day was 757. So that tells me is I'm not going to finish this thing any time soon if one of those numbers doesn't change.
Given that collection of numbers: 26 days between writing, 360 words per session, a maximum of 757 words in a day. The easiest of those numbers to change is the 26. See, it's all about math. 360 words seems to be where my brain starts to falter. Or my limited time runs out. But... If I got to the point of writing at least 5 days a week, that would cover about 94,000 words in a year, skipping weekends.
I started this post... sometime back in 2015. I finished the story back in August. It took well longer than it probably should have. I added 9 pages until I finally came to a conclusion I wanted. Or at least that's where the story seemed to want to go. It's interesting that stories have a tendency to take on a life of their own after a while. Sometimes you have ideas. Other times, the ideas just flow from the characters you create.
It's interesting forcing those characters to life. It sometimes feels like a birth. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe that's where the real interesting stuff happens. It's between the point where the idea ran out and the execution is all there is left. That's where the most complicated bits lie. It's also where you end up having the most fun and force the best of life out of the story. Or the worst. It's also at that point that the characters start taking on a life of their own.
There was a point in the story I was talking about where I thought about adding a secondary character. But that didn't fit with the character I had created. It just wasn't that person. So I moved forward and changed the idea. All based on the character that I created. It was... the way things needed to be.
I can't say I'm really an impressive writer. What I can say is that I try to show up. And that's where I'm at with that.
I should probably go back to working on the story I'm currently working on. It's the nightmare I had turned into a story. Not sure whether it's a horror or something else. It sounds like it. But we'll see.
The problem is that I haven't been adding to the story very frequently. I'm a proponent of tracking most things you do during the day. I don't do it near enough, but I'm a proponent. I can give you a rough estimate when I will finish the book I'm currently reading, and I can tell you the average days between when I write. And right now that average days number is sitting at 26.
The simple answer is you are never going to finish anything if you don't pick it up but once a month. It doesn't matter how many words you write during those single sessions. And I can almost guarantee when you do write for that one session, it's going to be way shorter than you thought. On Average, I write about 360 words per period. The max I've ever tracked in a day was 757. So that tells me is I'm not going to finish this thing any time soon if one of those numbers doesn't change.
Given that collection of numbers: 26 days between writing, 360 words per session, a maximum of 757 words in a day. The easiest of those numbers to change is the 26. See, it's all about math. 360 words seems to be where my brain starts to falter. Or my limited time runs out. But... If I got to the point of writing at least 5 days a week, that would cover about 94,000 words in a year, skipping weekends.
I started this post... sometime back in 2015. I finished the story back in August. It took well longer than it probably should have. I added 9 pages until I finally came to a conclusion I wanted. Or at least that's where the story seemed to want to go. It's interesting that stories have a tendency to take on a life of their own after a while. Sometimes you have ideas. Other times, the ideas just flow from the characters you create.
It's interesting forcing those characters to life. It sometimes feels like a birth. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe that's where the real interesting stuff happens. It's between the point where the idea ran out and the execution is all there is left. That's where the most complicated bits lie. It's also where you end up having the most fun and force the best of life out of the story. Or the worst. It's also at that point that the characters start taking on a life of their own.
There was a point in the story I was talking about where I thought about adding a secondary character. But that didn't fit with the character I had created. It just wasn't that person. So I moved forward and changed the idea. All based on the character that I created. It was... the way things needed to be.
I can't say I'm really an impressive writer. What I can say is that I try to show up. And that's where I'm at with that.
I should probably go back to working on the story I'm currently working on. It's the nightmare I had turned into a story. Not sure whether it's a horror or something else. It sounds like it. But we'll see.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Belief vs Belief
This post is about belief versus belief.
I run into many people who believe things. But it doesn't change what they do. They say they believe in something, but they choose to do nothing that proves that belief.
Perfect example. A person goes to the doctor and the doctor tells them they are at risk for a heart attack. You then get two scenarios.
Scenario 1: the person comes back the next year looking considerably better. They have changed their diet and dropped a few pounds. They believed the doctor and took action.
Scenario 2: the person has a heart attack.
Belief existed in both scenarios. Scenario 1 combined belief with action. Scenario 2 believed but didn't do a thing.
I find believers in global warming fit in the second category. They believe in global warming, but its hashtag activism. It's a pathetic belief that causes zero action.
So... going back to the scenario I proposed earlier: which one actually believed?
I'm going to guess only scenario 1 truly believed. Because that person changed their actions in accordance with their beliefs.
So if you believe in global warming... which category do you fit into?
I run into many people who believe things. But it doesn't change what they do. They say they believe in something, but they choose to do nothing that proves that belief.
Perfect example. A person goes to the doctor and the doctor tells them they are at risk for a heart attack. You then get two scenarios.
Scenario 1: the person comes back the next year looking considerably better. They have changed their diet and dropped a few pounds. They believed the doctor and took action.
Scenario 2: the person has a heart attack.
Belief existed in both scenarios. Scenario 1 combined belief with action. Scenario 2 believed but didn't do a thing.
I find believers in global warming fit in the second category. They believe in global warming, but its hashtag activism. It's a pathetic belief that causes zero action.
So... going back to the scenario I proposed earlier: which one actually believed?
I'm going to guess only scenario 1 truly believed. Because that person changed their actions in accordance with their beliefs.
So if you believe in global warming... which category do you fit into?
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Still not believing (in global warming)
I don't believe in global warming. My argument is pretty simple. I haven't heard anything that points out otherwise. I haven't actively searched, either.
Simple argument is thus: quantifiable inputs to global warming follow an exponential growth curve, not a linear growth curve. I think I'm getting my wording right here. The point is best illustrated by a finance joke.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet walk into a bar. The average net worth in the bar goes to $30 billion.
Not much of a joke, but it illustrates the Pareto principle pretty good. Let me add another couple of lines.
In one corner, a man is losing his entire net worth gambling on a horse race. By the end of the race, the man will have lost $500,000 dollars of his net worth and he will be homeless. The average net worth in the room will be completely unaffected.
In another corner, a woman has won the lottery. She just won $5 million dollars. The average net worth in the room will be completely unaffected.
Now. Let's go re-examine that story. It well illustrates the power of exponential growth curves to destroy averages. That doesn't mean those lives weren't affected in the gain and loss. It just means the average is unaffected.
Now, lets apply the idea to pollution. Of all the polluters in the world, 20% of the polluters produce 80% of the pollution. It's the same concept as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Let me give you an example.
A household is told to reduce their pollution by turning the AC up 5 degrees in summer. That will "solve" global warming. Compare then a TV studio and audience. That building uses energy at a greater rate. Given common electricity usage rates, that TV studio probably has monthly electrical bill of $3,000. The house has a monthly electrical bill of $100. I'm guessing on both of those. So one studio is the equivalent of 30 houses.
The other part of the equation is the house has a higher use rate than that TV studio. The TV studio probably runs about 10 hours a day at high capacity. Lets say 70% occupation. The rest of the day, it runs closer to 10% occupation. It is either empty, or has very few people. The house is a study in contrasts. It runs at 0% occupation for 8 hours, and 60% occupation for the other 16 hours of the day.
Which building is better capable of reducing electrical usage? The TV studio. The changes in that single building would easily dwarf the changes to 30 houses.
Now, the second part of this is in the implementation allowance. Or should I call it the "put your money where your mouth is" tax? The people most likely to declare the need for changes regarding global warming are, by a high percentage, unwilling to make meaningful prolonged change. Despite everything, that person wants to continue their lifestyle while you cramp yours.
Let's look at this another way. How many large metropolitan areas have city ordinances against windmills and solar panels? Why? Because solar panels are reflective and remove the picture postcard view of the city. It narrows down to the "not in my back yard" problem. So people want you to change, but won't change themselves. If you are that adamant about something, you'd do it first.
I think I've covered that section pretty well. Next...
The next part is one that drives me up the wall. It really does. It's the lack of a failure state in global warming. The lack of a failure state is invalid in most events. There is a failure state built into all weather forecasting models. That's why you get a percentage of a chance of rain. That's why forecasts longer than five days are negatively correlated.
In global warming, there is no failure state. If the weather gets colder, it's global warming. If the weather gets hotter, it's global warming. If the weather stays the same, it's global warming.
There is no condition where the global warming crowd is ever wrong. Except when they are.
Anyone remember acid rain?
I remember acid rain. It was the rain the was going to fall and burn our faces off. I was a kid, and had assumptions about what acid did. Mostly the horrible, horrible kinds of acid that destroyed things badly. You can still see such idea propagated to movies. And when you hear it, it causes you to stop.
Because there never was any acid rain.
But the people who declared there was going to be acid rain suddenly changed their position when it didn't happen. Amazing how that happens. And it was like they never preached to the choir about acid rain. It just quickly disappeared. And then suddenly global warming is here. And then global cooling. And then global weirding.
Yeah. There is no failure state. There is no point where these scientists sit back and declare "yup, I'm wrong". Everything has a failure state. Everything.
The third part of all of this is the lobbyists. Yes, the lobbyists come into play. But not the science ones. No, these are the lobbyists from the power company. Why would the power company have lobbyists? Simple: remember that 80/20 rule discussed earlier? Who's the 20% doing 80% of the damage? The power company. Who's the 20% that is likely to suffer the most from individuals generating their own power? The power company. The power company builds its business model off of monopoly. It's not designed to compete. It's designed for winner take all, and loser becomes illegal.
There was a point when that was required. But I think we're beyond that point. There will probably still be the need for a public utility company. But that company needs to have to compete with private individuals in order to become more efficient. There is no need for the power company to innovate due to the nature of their monopoly. And they will protect that monopoly to the best of their ability for as long as they can.
And the thought of individuals living off the public grid is something that does not appeal to them.
So what would it take to generate an off the grid solution? You'd need some sort of solution or a partial solution. And an electrician. The solution would probably be a one box solution. And you need an electrician to safely wire the thing into your house. There's a giant boom for the electricians and a major loss for the electric company.
I wonder what the lifetime loss is of one person leaving the grid? What about 1% of the population? I'm guessing its astronomically huge.
Simple argument is thus: quantifiable inputs to global warming follow an exponential growth curve, not a linear growth curve. I think I'm getting my wording right here. The point is best illustrated by a finance joke.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet walk into a bar. The average net worth in the bar goes to $30 billion.
Not much of a joke, but it illustrates the Pareto principle pretty good. Let me add another couple of lines.
In one corner, a man is losing his entire net worth gambling on a horse race. By the end of the race, the man will have lost $500,000 dollars of his net worth and he will be homeless. The average net worth in the room will be completely unaffected.
In another corner, a woman has won the lottery. She just won $5 million dollars. The average net worth in the room will be completely unaffected.
Now. Let's go re-examine that story. It well illustrates the power of exponential growth curves to destroy averages. That doesn't mean those lives weren't affected in the gain and loss. It just means the average is unaffected.
Now, lets apply the idea to pollution. Of all the polluters in the world, 20% of the polluters produce 80% of the pollution. It's the same concept as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Let me give you an example.
A household is told to reduce their pollution by turning the AC up 5 degrees in summer. That will "solve" global warming. Compare then a TV studio and audience. That building uses energy at a greater rate. Given common electricity usage rates, that TV studio probably has monthly electrical bill of $3,000. The house has a monthly electrical bill of $100. I'm guessing on both of those. So one studio is the equivalent of 30 houses.
The other part of the equation is the house has a higher use rate than that TV studio. The TV studio probably runs about 10 hours a day at high capacity. Lets say 70% occupation. The rest of the day, it runs closer to 10% occupation. It is either empty, or has very few people. The house is a study in contrasts. It runs at 0% occupation for 8 hours, and 60% occupation for the other 16 hours of the day.
Which building is better capable of reducing electrical usage? The TV studio. The changes in that single building would easily dwarf the changes to 30 houses.
Now, the second part of this is in the implementation allowance. Or should I call it the "put your money where your mouth is" tax? The people most likely to declare the need for changes regarding global warming are, by a high percentage, unwilling to make meaningful prolonged change. Despite everything, that person wants to continue their lifestyle while you cramp yours.
Let's look at this another way. How many large metropolitan areas have city ordinances against windmills and solar panels? Why? Because solar panels are reflective and remove the picture postcard view of the city. It narrows down to the "not in my back yard" problem. So people want you to change, but won't change themselves. If you are that adamant about something, you'd do it first.
I think I've covered that section pretty well. Next...
The next part is one that drives me up the wall. It really does. It's the lack of a failure state in global warming. The lack of a failure state is invalid in most events. There is a failure state built into all weather forecasting models. That's why you get a percentage of a chance of rain. That's why forecasts longer than five days are negatively correlated.
In global warming, there is no failure state. If the weather gets colder, it's global warming. If the weather gets hotter, it's global warming. If the weather stays the same, it's global warming.
There is no condition where the global warming crowd is ever wrong. Except when they are.
Anyone remember acid rain?
I remember acid rain. It was the rain the was going to fall and burn our faces off. I was a kid, and had assumptions about what acid did. Mostly the horrible, horrible kinds of acid that destroyed things badly. You can still see such idea propagated to movies. And when you hear it, it causes you to stop.
Because there never was any acid rain.
But the people who declared there was going to be acid rain suddenly changed their position when it didn't happen. Amazing how that happens. And it was like they never preached to the choir about acid rain. It just quickly disappeared. And then suddenly global warming is here. And then global cooling. And then global weirding.
Yeah. There is no failure state. There is no point where these scientists sit back and declare "yup, I'm wrong". Everything has a failure state. Everything.
The third part of all of this is the lobbyists. Yes, the lobbyists come into play. But not the science ones. No, these are the lobbyists from the power company. Why would the power company have lobbyists? Simple: remember that 80/20 rule discussed earlier? Who's the 20% doing 80% of the damage? The power company. Who's the 20% that is likely to suffer the most from individuals generating their own power? The power company. The power company builds its business model off of monopoly. It's not designed to compete. It's designed for winner take all, and loser becomes illegal.
There was a point when that was required. But I think we're beyond that point. There will probably still be the need for a public utility company. But that company needs to have to compete with private individuals in order to become more efficient. There is no need for the power company to innovate due to the nature of their monopoly. And they will protect that monopoly to the best of their ability for as long as they can.
And the thought of individuals living off the public grid is something that does not appeal to them.
So what would it take to generate an off the grid solution? You'd need some sort of solution or a partial solution. And an electrician. The solution would probably be a one box solution. And you need an electrician to safely wire the thing into your house. There's a giant boom for the electricians and a major loss for the electric company.
I wonder what the lifetime loss is of one person leaving the grid? What about 1% of the population? I'm guessing its astronomically huge.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Color redesign
I decided to change the colors around this morning. The old background was my dinner table from a few years ago, and is now sitting out on the back porch. Not terribly impressive, but hey. It's out there.
The new one fits more with the manilla folder idea I've been obsessively using in the past few decades. I remember a website I created back following the days of GeoCities where I had a manilla folder background. Nothing terribly impressive, but it takes me back to those days.
This one was a little more professionally designed and actually tiles like it is supposed to.
At work, I've recently been using TWiki a lot. Seems like a good platform. After my vacation a couple of weeks ago, I realized the catalyst for much change is documentation. If you don't document, then you are going to keep repeating the same tasks over and over again, and wondering why no one ever gets around to changing.
You can't shove a part of the job you don't want to do on someone if you do not document. It's that simple.
If you will not document, then you will do the same thing over and over again.
Once the documentation is complete, you must then hand the documentation off to someone else in order to test your documentation. If your documentation is never examined or tested, it's not really documentation.
You must also revise and expand on your documentation to the point where it is excessively long. You have to realize the person you are handing your documentation off to has no clue what a native VLAN is or why it could affect communication between a router and a switch. And why have a native VLAN in the first place. I've probably heard that question before, but I don't remember the answer. I know the difference between a native VLAN and a non-native VLAN. Hell, I brought up ISL in the conversation in order to back up enough to provide a starting point.
But in the end you must document to the point of excessive. All you are going to do is take up disk space, and disk space is relatively free.
Anyways....
Upgrades Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week. At least the prep work is mostly done on them. So they should go relatively quickly.
The new one fits more with the manilla folder idea I've been obsessively using in the past few decades. I remember a website I created back following the days of GeoCities where I had a manilla folder background. Nothing terribly impressive, but it takes me back to those days.
This one was a little more professionally designed and actually tiles like it is supposed to.
At work, I've recently been using TWiki a lot. Seems like a good platform. After my vacation a couple of weeks ago, I realized the catalyst for much change is documentation. If you don't document, then you are going to keep repeating the same tasks over and over again, and wondering why no one ever gets around to changing.
You can't shove a part of the job you don't want to do on someone if you do not document. It's that simple.
If you will not document, then you will do the same thing over and over again.
Once the documentation is complete, you must then hand the documentation off to someone else in order to test your documentation. If your documentation is never examined or tested, it's not really documentation.
You must also revise and expand on your documentation to the point where it is excessively long. You have to realize the person you are handing your documentation off to has no clue what a native VLAN is or why it could affect communication between a router and a switch. And why have a native VLAN in the first place. I've probably heard that question before, but I don't remember the answer. I know the difference between a native VLAN and a non-native VLAN. Hell, I brought up ISL in the conversation in order to back up enough to provide a starting point.
But in the end you must document to the point of excessive. All you are going to do is take up disk space, and disk space is relatively free.
Anyways....
Upgrades Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week. At least the prep work is mostly done on them. So they should go relatively quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)