If the cost associated with complaining is eliminated does that mean that negative reviews become worthless?
If the cost associated with complaining is eliminated does that mean that negative reviews become worthless?
I’ve been having discussion regarding plans with some folks recently. It got me thinking and I’ve come to the conclusion that you should keep Eisenhower and Powell’s Axioms in mind, namely: Eisenhower’s Axiom: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” Powell’s Axiom: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” To this I’d like to add my own: Eugen’s Axiom: “The foundation of a good plan is to rely on those you trust.” It makes the planning quite useful if you know that when the plan becomes obsolete you can move forward with conviction.
I’ve been through a number of start-ups and friends of mine are still toiling through theirs. And although I have rejoined their ranks as a CTO in a research-oriented startup I don’t miss the turmoil associated with trying to please investors, customers, and employees all before you have a product. Especially when it seems that you don’t get to include yourself in that mix of who has to be pleased. Like most geeky types I’ve been watched the Star Wars series repeatedly. My kids watch the original three at least twice a year, with my son and I’ve come to notice something: Darth Vader is a venture capitalist. Now, you may think me nuts — I’ve been called that before, usually before heading off on another start-up adventure — however, hear me out. When you listen to Darth Vader motivating the troops or attempting to get the upper hand on the competition (i.e., the Rebel Alliance), he speaks like a seasoned venture capitalist. I’ll provide some examples although this may mean you can never watch the Star Wars saga in the same way again. On Deals I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further. When
This article is interesting in an ironic way. Why? Mostly because the black-or-white thinker is how I think. Make a decision, go with it. Hemming and hawing is stupid and just delays the inevitable. Pick a way, go that way. If it’s wrong. Admit it, turn around. Duh. Stupid people drive me nuts. And this article just shows that even the author is unable to just come out and say that dithering just leads to problems. Especially the dithering that so many people engage in in trying to make sure everyone is happy or that no one is offended. Bah. No wonder so many people are screwed up today. They’ve never had their feelings hurt. They’ve never been allowed to fail or been told their ideas are stupid or wrong. They’ve never had to deal with reality within the safe confines of the social fabric that is modern Western Civilization. Instead, we get this placation of “every opinion matters/counts”. Which is utter bullshit. Not every opinion matters or counts. If someone tells me the moon is made of cheese his (or her) opinion is bullshit and doesn’t count. If someone tells me that the heart is the seat of intelligence,
I came across this article titled The Last Days of the Polymath. It’s an excellent article that got me thinking about my day job. I’m a generalist, though, ironically, my title proclaims me a specialist albeit in an artificial construct called “complex solutions”. Generally, what I do is think about the problems our clients inform us about. Our clients have a variety of problems. A single solution isn’t going to cut it, otherwise they’d already have purchased said solution. These clients usually have compelling and complex problems that are (usually) ahead of what the industry norm is currently focused upon. That’s OK, that’s cooler in my mind. However, to address the problem requires the outlook of a generalist and not a specialist. The problem at hand is never so narrowly focused or defined that a single, simple, and deep approach can be applied. The problem is usually one where you want to apply a “good enough” solution. One that may only resolve 50% of the issues at hand, but that’s better than what the client currently is dealing with which is a 0% solution to the problem. True specialists usually come in before us and proclaim how their given product
Probably the best description of what most irritates me about Dawkins is his constant harping on his dislike of religion. Randy Olson in his review of Dawkins’ latest endeavour points out how bad it has become, asking “But in the end, you have to wonder why Dawkins wastes so much time trying to argue with creationists. We all know that creationists are not rational thinkers. They are driven by beliefs, not by logic.” There is some kind of deep rooted hatred or anger that drives Dawkins. He seems incapble of accepting that someone can believe in evolution and God. He also ends up being massively condescending, which turns way too many people off. And his either-or stance re: God and evolution is simply absurd. Not everyone is as smart as Dawkins, but making them feel stupid isn’t the answer to getting them to see your point of view. In fact, taking an absurdist either-or stance drives those on the fence towards the absolutist religious fundamentalists, losing entire generations in the process! It’s the worst thing that can be done. Especially in a democracy where those now deluded, irrational creationists will demand their “theory” supplant science and scientific theories in the
Just read Chris Anderson’s Free online via his online blog. You can get it in a variety of formats if you read through recent entries there, including an audio format. Note that the book is available for free but not if you’re outside the US. The audio book is free regardless, it seems. It’s an interesting read, but a quick read as well. I could probably summarize the whole book as follows: Give away something that’s common or easily created in abundance while selling something that is rare or precious or more fully featured to those who wish a more intimate, more private, or simply more extensive instance of the thing you are selling. Thus, he’s proposing that that which has become a commodity — too cheap to meter, say — should be given away or provided in an open fashion. That which is rarer, say the statistical analysis of some data, should be sold to those wishing access to it and then at a premium. He even uses his own book as an example. The audio book is literally free (gratis). You can download it and listen to it. However, the abridged version is somewhere in the neighbourhood of
I’ve been trying for a long while to put into words why I became disenchanted with the Ph.D. process, and why that was one reason — though not the overriding reason — why I terminated my pursuit of a doctorate. But today, sitting back and reading a bit of Thomas Aquinas I came to a sudden epiphany. The reason is straightforward, and ironically was told to me by a dearly departed friend years ago. The problem, is that Ph.D.s are too narrowly focused. Or, as Jim Anderson so eloquently put it way back when, “Some of the stupidest people I know have Ph.D.s.” He bemoaned their inability to grasp the larger picture, instead focusing on minutiae, some small problem ignoring all else. Sometimes ignoring reality itself and coming up with a “solution” that worked only within some fantastical model that had little relation to how the real world functioned. Now Jim, like myself, was an old grey beard of security. In fact, I would argue that Jim was responsible for what today is called “information security”. The very foundations of computer security were formulated and documented by Jim way back in 1972. I was fortunate enough to work with Jim
I tire of these creationist fools, in all their guises. Without diligence they’ll shove us back thousands of years with their insane takes on science. Even after Judge Jones’ stated that those pushing creationism displays “breathtaking inanity”. That phrase can be applied to a lot of idiocy out there, today. For the curious wishing to be educated — and probably affronted — watch BullShit! by Penn and Teller. The multifronted assaults on Reason must stop. I worry about our future when wishful thinking is even contemplated as being “science”. Why is stupidity and ignorance constantly elevated above intelligence and knowledge? It baffles me. Breathtaking inanity, indeed.
From The Chronicle Review comes a most lovely definition of procrastination. “If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the life of Leonardo, it is that procrastination reveals the things at which we are most gifted — the things we truly want to do. Procrastination is a calling away from something that we do against our desires toward something that we do for pleasure, in that joyful state of self-forgetful inspiration that we call genius.”