I.T. Erudio

Category: technology history

  • programming, teams, and the limits of automation

    It is always worth pointing out that (as a general rule) human beings are terrible at predicting the future. This isn’t a harsh condemnation so much as recognition of the human condition.

    It wouldn’t take much effort to fill up a small book of quotes/proverbs/sayings that all boil down to “it is out of our hands – we can’t guarantee what will happen.” A personal favorite:

    “If the good Lord’s willing and the creeks don’t rise”

    –Jerry Reed

    Of course that doesn’t stop folks from making predictions – which is what I’m getting ready to do …

    Career Training

    Historically the entire concept of “career training” is something that most folks didn’t have to worry about. For most of human history “subsistence farming” has been the “career” for most of humanity.

    The entire idea of needing to be specifically trained for a profession probably only goes back a couple hundred years. What often gets called the “oldest profession” didn’t require any “training” at all.

    Even what modern folks would call “professionals” – people like doctors and lawyers – didn’t require a great deal of formal schooling/training until the 20th Century.

    The reasons “why” this is true becomes a lesson in the development of human civilization – so I’ll just say that the AMOUNT of human knowledge has grown at a great rate due in large part to improved technologies.

    Obviously first you need a writing system – then you need materials to write on and create “tomes of knowledge” – then you need a way to reproduce those “tomes”, etc.

    So if we did a poll on the “most influential invention in the history of humanity” – the “moveable type printing press” would easily be near the top – metal working, gun powder, domestication of animals, fishing/boat construction would probably make the list – but being able to record and transmit knowledge over time and space (i.e. what books allow) was obviously kind of a big deal.

    Of course none of these “inventions” developed independently of the others – that isn’t the point. At some point the accumulation of “knowledge”/”skills”/”expertise” made the concept of “job training” a reality.

    Upward mobility/Job satisfaction

    MAYBE in an ideal society individuals would be able to choose the work they perform.

    Of course there aren’t many “ideal societies” – so I’ll just point out that the worker makes the work “honorable.” How a society tends to reward different professions says a great deal about that society not the workers/profession itself.

    In general people can put up with almost any “how” as long as there is a good enough “why.” (I’ll mention/recommend “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl for the curious).

    ANYWAY – for better or worse, most folks don’t “choose” a profession so much as “wander into one.” Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – e.g. once again, the unexamined life is not worth living. Yes, there is a larger plan being worked out here on earth – but one way or the other:

     Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

    Ecclesiastes 9:10

    ANYWAY – wrong predictions

    I’ve spent a lifetime in “technology” almost by accident. I picked up some “personal computer repair” skills when the ‘personal computer” was a new thing – then moved into “computer networking” partially because it paid more AND an opportunity presented itself.

    During that 20 year period I tended to “buy a book” and read up on the latest technology. While I’m “naturally curious” and enjoy learning – most of the time my motivation for learning was a larger paycheck/$$.

    There was a point in the early 1990’s when the expectation was that “computer programming” would be outsourced to lower cost workers “overseas.” Which did happen – but then those jobs ended up coming back when the “theoretical cost savings” were consumed by “real world communication issues.”

    Now, I don’t think anyone ever officially stood at a podium and said “don’t go into computer programming” – but the trendy concept at the time was “globalization” – and if you wanted a job “safe from globalization/outsourcing” then maybe you should avoid “computer programming” as a career choice.

    The end result? Well, there are a LOT of “coding boot camps” out there trying to fill the the need for trained “computer programmers.” Ok, the “Interweb” kinda happened in the same time period – which changed a lot of things, not just the computer programming field …

    More predictions

    Now (written in 2021) everyone is expecting driverless cars and trucks to make “truck drivers” obsolete.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Either way – the immediate need for “truck drivers” isn’t going away anytime soon.

    Would I suggest “truck driving” to someone looking for a “lifelong career?” Probably not – but that requires context.

    In general I try to stay away from “giving advice” – particularly “career advice.” The problem is that there are just too many variables – e.g. “should someone pursue THIS field or THAT field?” – I have no idea, it depends on the person.

    I tend to say “know yourself” in those situations. HOWEVER – just for fun – “should someone become a truck driver in 2021?”

    Well, relatively short training time, relatively high wages, in demand skill set that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon – might make the job of “truck driver” a good choice for a large number of people.

    If we divide the “supply line” into “long haul”, “medium routes”, and “the last mile” – the sweet spot for HUMAN truck drivers (as in not easily replaceable by automation or crowdsourcing type apps) is the “medium routes.”

    e.g. a “shipment” might come in on a big boat in a large container, get unloaded and placed on a train where “X” miles and then gets “dispatched” to a truck that takes it to a local warehouse, where it gets unloaded and (maybe) delivered to “customers” by someone using “crowdsource delivery app.”

    Automation isn’t free …

    The problem with trying to automate any process is that then the “automation” needs to be maintained.

    Which means the “processes” best suited for “automation” have a few simple steps.

    e.g. if the process is “place a box (that is always the same size) in the same spot (that is also always the same size)” – automate away. BUT if the process is “make hundreds of smaller decisions along the way to an uncertain destination” then automating (and maintaining) the process will probably be extremely expensive and error prone

    … which means that training human drivers is gonna be cheaper than automation for the “foreseeable future.”

    Yes, the technology for “driverless cars” is available in 2021 – the problem is the variability of the deliveries and routes and the cost of constantly updating/maintaining those routes.

    e.g. GPS is great – but if it goes down, then what? Well, the automated system probably completely ceases to function – while the “human driver” might be unaffected or just slowed down.

    I know the “automated workforce” always sounds great to “upper management” types – and I’m not saying that drones/driverless cars aren’t going to change/improve the supply chain EVENTUALLY. Just not in the next couple years …

    Teams

    Imagine that you have “human like devices” that can be trained to play “sports.” Which sport would be easiest to “automate?”

    Well, we would want the sport that has the least amount of interaction between “devices.” Maybe an individual sport like golf? then maybe something like tennis?

    When the “devices” have to work together as a team – then things get complicated. So then the sports with the fewer “players” would be easier to automate – basketball? hockey? Both fast paced, hockey (usually) has a dedicated goalie – I’m not sure if that would make it easier or harder to automate – not important at the moment.

    Both hockey and basketball lack unique “offense” and “defense” players – sure, some players are expected to perform different functions but in theory all of the players are on both “offense” AND “defense”

    Baseball has a kinda complex set of 9 players on defense that we might be able to subdivide into “outfielders”, “infielders”, “pitchers”, and then “catchers.” Maybe the “hitter” and “baserunner” functionality can be 1 generic “offensive player.” still MORE complex in theory (harder to automate) than either basketball or hockey.

    What gets called “soccer” in the U.S. has 11 players on each side (including a goalie) – but from a “theoretical automation” point of view (POV), those 11 players are NOT supposed to run into each other. Coordinating passing of the ball would be a challenge – but from a “team complexity” POV probably somewhere between basketball/hockey and baseball.

    (remember I’m not rating the “sports” – I’m estimating the complexity of automating)

    Then we get to “football” – or more precisely “American football.” We have 11 distinct players on offense AND defense with “collisions” between players/devices on every play. Maybe the players on defense don’t require as much “unified precision” as those on offense but a very high level of “interaction” between all of the devices.

    Obviously the devices on “defense” are working together to try to stop the devices on “offense” which are also working together in a coordinated manner … and don’t forget the “kicking” game … ANYWAY

    SO “in theory” American football would be the hardest sport to “automate” because it requires the most “teamwork.”

    Again, this is about one sport being “superior” to another. In the real world this difference in “required team coordination” is seen in pro-sports on a regular basis.

    Every once in a while some wealthy owner will try to “buy” a championship by spending a lot of money acquiring great individual players.

    This seems to happen in the NBA on a regular basis.

    The NY Yankees have been doing it in MLB since 1923.

    Hockey has had great NHL franchises win a lot of championships in a row – but I don’t know enough about the history of the sport to comment on ownership $$ spend. The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups – but I don’t know if I would compare them to the “NY Yankees” from a player acquisition POV …

    I’m told that the successful “European football” clubs tend to be the same each year because of $$ spent on players – again, I don’t know the sport well enough to make comparisons.

    HOWEVER – anytime a franchise is extremely successful over a long period of time – they are doing something “right” besides spending a lot of money. I certainly don’t want to imply that just because the owners spend a lot of money, AND win championships that they are “cheating” in some form – and moving on …

    … and then we have the NFL. Forbes estimates the “team value” of the Dallas Cowboys (in 2021) at $5.7 billion. The Cowboys are always near the top of the list – and last I checked EVERY NFL franchise had a $billion+ valuation.

    Then as I was writing this an article on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers ownership came up – they guaranteed Tom Brady $50 million to come to Tampa Bay. Does that constitute “buying a championship?”

    Ok, obviously you need great players to win a Super Bowl – and those players are gonna cost $$ – but then those players need to work together as a team to win. You can’t just go out and spend a lot of money on free agents and expect them to automatically win championships.

    I’m guessing that Tom Brady saw a potential championship in Tampa Bay, or he would have gone somewhere else.

    The Cowboys and the “whatever we call the franchise in Washington DC” (last Super Bowl win 1992) both have owners that are willing to spend a massive amount of cash to win a championship – and are still searching for that right combination of talent and then something that money can’t buy “team chemistry.”

    ANYWAY – What makes football fun to watch is that the team with the “best players” doesn’t always win –

    As always – I’m just making observations – if I actually knew the secret ingredient to “winning” in the NFL/pro sports, I’d be making a lot more money 😉

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 2

    Records
    Notice that the word “movie” is not bound to a specific technology. e.g. “Movies” used to be synonymous with “films” – then the film went away, but the pictures remain …

    The same is true of “records” as a noun. Remember, gool ol’ Mr Edison made the first sound recordings on wax cylinders. So “records” is (probably) traced back to “phonograph recording” in some form or other – BUT “wax cylinders” were obviously fragile …

    I’m guessing the “disk shaped vinyl record” that was common for most of the 20th Century came about for practical commercial reasons – that it hit the sweet spot between “cost of production”, “shipping cost/convenience”, and then “sound quality”

    SO “pressed vinyl disks” became synonymous with “records”
    (pop quiz: how many “grooves” does a “vinyl record” have? A: only 1 continuous “groove” – otherwise the recording would “skip”)

    Tapes
    When “tape recordings” became popular they were referred to by the technology (e.g. 8-track, cassette tapes) PROBABLY for simple marketing reasons.

    “Tapes” were obviously more durable than “vinyl records” – i.e. step on the vinyl record that you threw on the floor of your car and it is probably going to break, the cassette might break, while the 8-track would bruise your foot and twist your ankle.

    HOWEVER – the “sound aficionados” out there would probably argue that “vinyl records” always provided superior “sound quality” to both tape technologies.

    “Cassette tape” probably won the technological fight with “8-track” for the same reason “VHS” beat “Betamax.” i.e. The AVERAGE consumer had the ability to “create” recordings with cassette tapes (the dreaded “mixtape”) and then VHS tapes – which made those particular technologies more attractive to the average consumer.

    btw: it seems like I’ve been hearing about how much money “media piracy” costs the “big multinational conglomerate media companies” my entire life – i.e. “that new technology is gonna kill the industry” is something “chicken little executives” have been saying on a regular basis for years

    Don’t get me wrong – “piracy is bad” – but in general the folks pirating content aren’t gonna buy it in the first place (so they aren’t in the “customer” category). The WORST thing a “media company” can do is make it harder for their paying customers to consume media they have purchased – and we are moving on …

    CDs
    then the “compact disk” (CD) was more durable than cassettes AND held more music AND had a better sound quality – so (for the most part) cassettes are no more.

    Ultimately the problem with CDs is lossy compression during digitization – short version: you end up with a “tinny” sound as opposed to the full spectrum preserved with “vinyl record pressings.”

    Speakers
    I always loved the “marketing speak” behind “Hi-Fi” sound systems (i.e. does anyone sell “lo-fi” systems?).

    The term “high fidelity” in regards to “sound recordings” goes back at least to 1938.

    The fact that the recording was supposed to “sound just as good as live” was the whole point of the famous “RCA dog” logo – oh, and then there was “it is live, or is it memorex” back in 1981.

    BUT what gets overlooked is that the sound is coming out of a set of speakers. it doesn’t matter how “hi-fi” your recording medium may be, if you are playing sound out of low quality speakers.

    Well, that is probably why in 2021 we talk about “sound systems” and not necessarily about individual components.

    Cinema Experience
    The obvious advantages that “the cinema” has is (obviously) the “big screen” as well as “theater quality sound.”

    My memory of seeing “Star Wars” (when there was only 1 “Star Wars” movie) “way back when” in a “first run” theater VIVIDLY includes the opening scene with the Star Destroyer coming in from off screen.

    In a “good sound” theater setup you hear and FEEL (through the “bass rumble“) the vessel before it appears on screen (giving the illusion that it is flying overhead and immersing the “younger me” in the movie)

    Obviously I’m a little harder to impress now than “back then” – but “Avatar” in the theater with the 3D-experience was a similar experience. To be clear, I’m not comparing “Star Wars” and “Avatar” as “motion pictures” but as “cinematic experiences.”

    Silent movies
    Since I’ve kind of stumbled into a study of “public domain silent movies” (I’m going to put together a documentary, so I can say I’ve made a “movie”) – I’ll point out that “silent movies” were always accompanied by live music.

    We have come to expect sound and pictures engineered/designed together to create a “cinema experience.” From a practical point of view – that means that any music soundtrack that is included with a “silent” movie was done “after the fact.”

    Kind of like my editing exercise with Home on the Range

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 1

    All the cool kids are doing it…
    I imagine that most people exist on a sort of “sliding scale” of “fashionableness.” At one extreme end is “hip/cool/fashionable/in style/trendy” near the middle is “not as young – but capable of understanding ‘what the kids are saying’” then the other extreme end is “What is everyone talking about? Get off my lawn!”

    Obviously “chronological age” is NOT directly tied to your position on the imaginary “trendiness” scale (just called TS from here on)- but in general “young folks” as a group will be clustered near one end, the parents of those “younger folks” will cluster near the middle, and then the parents of the parents will tend to be near the other extreme.

    There is still “nothing new under the sun” so we see “fashions” repeating. Of course the “fashion” industry is built on the idea that styles will come and go – so I’m not talking about “physical clothes” so much as “styles” — and the difference between “clothes” and “style” probably deserves its own post —

    Now, a handful of things NEVER go out of style – e.g. “good manners” come immediately to mind, but what you think will never go out of style is probably determined by your current location on the TS.

    Wannabes/Posers/Pretenders
    The tricky concept becomes the fact that having “style” and “BEING in style” at not dependent variables – i.e. you can have one, without the other …

    I will quickly say that I am NOT passing judgement on anyone – I am being very “theoretical” – talking about “forms” as it were.

    With that said – we all know (or have been) the person that “tries too hard” and “just doesn’t get it.” I suppose this is where the concept of “coolness” come into play – i.e. if you are TRYING to be “cool” then by definition you aren’t.

    … and of course being worried about how “cool” you are is another sure sign that you aren’t cool – but then being certain that you “cool” also probably means you aren’t. AND we are moving on …

    Vocabulary/Jargon
    ANYWAY – not to sound like a “self-help book” but a person’s vocabulary advertises who they are. In and of itself this isn’t good or bad – i.e. most professions have some “profession specific vocabulary” and if you can “talk the talk” (in general) people will give you the benefit of the doubt that you can “walk the walk.”

    Examples abound – there is even a word for it -however this diatribe (intended in the archaic “prolonged discourse” sense – as I feel myself sliding further to one side of the TS scale) was motivated by the word “movies.”

    Movie
    The word “movie” in English dates back to 1909 as a shortened/slang version of “motion picture.” In 2021 common usage “movie” has almost completely replaced “motion picture.”

    e.g. no one says “I watched a motion picture last night”

    The same can be said for the word “cinema” which is a shortened version of cinematograph – which came to us through the French “cinématographe” which was from the Greek for “motion” and “writing” (though “cinema” is still more popular than “motion picture”)

    Cinema
    then “cinematography” probably falls into the “movie industry jargon” category – the person in charge of a movies “cinematography” may or may not be operating a camera.

    As any amateur photographer will tell you, getting consistently good “pictures” doesn’t happen by accident – there are multiple factors involved. Being able to manipulate those factors to achieve a desired “look” is (probably) what distinguishes the “professional” from the “amateur” photographer/cinematographer.

    btw: The additional problem for cinematography is that people are moving around (both in front of and behind the camera).

    for what it is worth: I’m not going to do a blanket recommendation for ANY directors “body of work” – but in general Stanley Kubrick, John Ford, David Lean, Steven Spielberg, and Ridley Scott always tend to have great “cinematography” in their movies (which didn’t happen by accident).

    Of course George Lucas always had a “good eye” – but not always the biggest budget. Comments by Mr Lucas led me to watch a lot of Akira Kurosawa movies – most of which hold up very well (if you don’t mind subtitles). I’ll just mention that the movie that Kurosawa-san is most known for in the U.S. (Seven Samurai – known as the inspiration for “The Magnificent Seven”) – is my least favorite (it bogs down in the middle)

    … I’m still in full “ramblin’ mode” but also well into TL;DR space – more tomorrow on “records”

  • Nokia-Microsoft, Compaq-HP, thoughts on company size and culture

    Just watched a documentary “The Rise and Fall of Nokia Mobile” – which is available online from various sources (the link is to Tubi).

    From a “history of tech” point of view it was interesting. Nokia is one of the companies that “invented” the mobile phone – i.e. they tell the story of “mobile communication” from Nokia’s perspective.

    That distinction is important – simply because a lot of “co-invention” is always going on. This tendency for multiple companies/people to be working to solve the same problems, and therefore working on competing technological solutions to those problems – is why we have “patents”/copyrights and intellectual property laws in general.

    SO just like (from a business view) who actually wrote a hit song is not as important as whose names are on the copyright filing – who actually invented a technology isn’t nearly as important as what company owns the patent.

    Now, I am not saying Nokia wasn’t a special place to work or that Nokia engineers didn’t do incredible things – but the “rise and fall” of Nokia tells a very old story.

    you know “It’s still the same old story / A fight for love and glory” – best told over a cold beverage, with a piano playing in the background: “small innovative company with a intimate company culture grows from ‘gimmick company’ to market dominance, fortunes are made and lost, outsiders come in and take control – and ultimately the company is relegated to history”

    That is also the “Compaq computers” story as well as the Commodore story. Of course Compaq was on the decline when HP consumed them (“Compaq” still exists as an HP brand.)

    The Nokia documentary – which was made (in part) to help celebrate Finland’s 100 years of independence – takes the view that the “profit hungry Americans came in and ruined Nokia.”

    Ok, sure, that IS what happened – but my point is that what happened is an example of the problems with organizational growth not an example of “what is good about Finland and what is bad about the United States.”

    e.g. small companies can have a very “team oriented” culture – the competition in these environments tends to be focused outward at “the market” in general or maybe a specific large competitor.

    Meanwhile large companies tend to become inefficient bureaucracies with competition being directed internally against other divisions/sections/whatever.

    Slightly funny is that Steve Jobs apparently did to Nokia and the cell phone market what he did to Xerox and the personal computer gui – i.e. he saw they had a superior product and “appropriated” the idea.

    No, the iPhone is NOT the reason Nokia “fell” – but it certainly hastened the demise as an independent company (Microsoft “acquired” Nokia in 2014 and had “ceased operations” on the last vestiges of Nokia in 2016).

    ANYWAY – in a “free market” the small and the quick usually end up beating the big and slow – maybe file that under “business cycles 101” – on the plus side many “former Nokia employees” have started companies, where they will try to replicate what was good about Nokia.

    The reality is that MOST companies DON’T last – and the process from “vibrant startup” to “old company mentioned in documentaries if remembered at all” looks a lot like the rise and fall of Nokia.

    HOWEVER I will say that Finland looks beautiful in the documentary – I’m not going there in the winter, but I my desire to visit has increased since watching the documentary.