I.T. Erudio

Category: business

  • extremists, expert knowledge, more rules don’t make people honest

    Back when “tradition warfare” was, well, “traditional” – I stumbled across a book that tried to answer the age old “why do countries go to ‘war’ against each other.”

    The researchers where approaching the question from a secular psychology perspective – but I’ll point out James 4:1-10 as kind of summarizing what the researchers found – i.e. the problem seems to be part of that ol’ “human nature” thing.

    ANYWAY – this came to mind because (if memory serves – I have a copy of the book somewhere) one of the “phases” on the way to full blown “war” which the researchers identified was the depersonalization of the “other side.”

    In my lifetime I can remember when the residents of the U.S.S.R. were “Godless communists intent on world domination and destroying the American way of life” – which at one point may have been true for the leaders of the Communist Party in Russia, but was almost certainly NOT true for the “average Russian citizen.”

    There were “close calls” where a full blown “traditional war” could have erupted between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. – but obviously it never happened.

    The “why” is beyond me – but the “how” is that the leaders of both nations were always willing to communicate with each other at some level.

    In full blown 20/20 hindsight we might say that they realized that “winning” a modern nuclear war isn’t possible – but that is probably an example of the historian fallacy of seeing events as “inevitable.”

    I’ve heard it argued that “Dynasty” (the 1980’s primetime soap opera) helped end the cold war. How? Well, ordinary folks in the U.S.S.R. were somehow able to watch the show – and the “conspicuous consumption” obvious in the show wasn’t what they had been told life was like in the U.S.

    They didn’t see people waiting in line to buy things, or being put on a waiting list to be able to buy a car. The show was obviously not “real America” BUT then they would have seen the commercials as well – and again they saw “economic prosperity” not “capitalists oppressing the masses.”

    The larger point being that they began to see “Americans” as individual people – not as a large anonymous group.

    Of course in the “west” you can trace a similar change in attitudes by how “Russians” where portrayed in pop-culture.

    The Bond franchise serves as a convenient example – in the “Sean Connery” Bond movies, the “Russians” are anonymous at best. Sure, the U.S.S.R. is never the villain (Spectre is always the “bad guy”). When the villains/antagonists are “eastern European” they are agents of Spectre – but “Russia” exists as an “ominous presence.”

    Then in the “Roger Moore” Bond movies in the 1970’s and early 1980’s the “Russians” were “competition” but not “anonymous enemies.” The two sides were “respected opponents” – not “mortal enemies.”

    Then by the time the U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991 the “Russians” had become “co-workers” in the Bond Franchise.

    In the late 1980’s and 1990’s we got Timothy Dalton (great actor, not my favorite “Bond”) and then Pierce Brosnan as Bond – and the “bad guys” were drug dealers and “extremists.”

    Finally in “No Time To Die” – Daniel Craig as Bond says his Russian is “rusty” …

    Extremists

    SO – obvious economic, cultural, ethnic differences aside – people tend to be the same where ever you go 😉

    The rule of thumb seems to be that “extremist views” are dangerous and must be censored/controlled. The question becomes “what makes someone an extremist.”

    It must be pointed out that just because you don’t agree with the message, or don’t like the messenger – does not make the message “extreme.”

    e.g. “I think men that button the top button – and don’t wear a tie – look silly.” Agree or disagree (I see enough guys with “top button buttoned/no tie” enough to know that some folks disagree with me) am I an extremist? obviously not.

    MAYBE, the easiest way to identify an “extremist” is that they tend to address those that disagree with them as a malicious group – just like the “early phase to war”.

    e.g. “I think men that button the top button – and don’t wear a tie – look silly AND they are out to destroy us all therefore they must be censored!” extremist? this time very much “yes”

    (oh, and while I’m at it – belt OR suspenders NOT both, and you over there pull up your pants and tie those shoes!)

    Expert Knowledge

    Silly examples aside – we have run headlong into the concept of “expert knowledge.”

    Merriam-Webster tell us an expert is someone with “special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.”

    Another way to put it is that an “expert” is someone that knows “more and more about less and less.”

    SO while I don’t consider myself an expert on ANY subject – I get paid to talk about computers/technology. Sometimes I might appear to “know things” but that is usually an illusion – some form of this quote applies:

    It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.

    HOWEVER – a lot of actual research has been done into the “learning process.” I tend to use the term “expert knowledge” because in the early 1990’s the concept of “expert systems” was something of a computing fad (which probably grew into “AI” and/or “computer learning” in the last few years) – but call it the “path to mastery” if you prefer.

    When we first start learning about a subject we tend to over generalize as part of “knowledge processing.”

    The old saying that someone “Can’t see the forest because of the trees” might be an example of the concept “amateur knowledge.”

    e.g. someone first learning about “trees” might go out and look at a bunch of different types of trees in the same area and come away from the experience overwhelmed by information about individual trees.

    It turns out that “experts” – as in “those that have ‘mastered’ a certain set of skills/knowledge” – tend to seamlessly go from specific to general and back again.

    e.g. the “expert” showing that group of amateurs the trees also has an appreciation for how those trees interact with each other as well as the impact “the forest” has on the larger ecosystem.

    Which kinda means that the “expert” sees the trees AND the forest.

    Of course there is a Biblical reference – umm, I’ll just point out that those who were regarded as “experts” where quizzing Jesus on the “greatest commandment” – and Jesus summarizes the teachings of what we call the Old Testament in two sentences – which probably also illustrates that there are always more people that THINK they are “experts” on a subject than are ACTUALLY experts …

    as always, don’t trust me – I am only a bear of very little brain 😉

    Rules, Rules, Rules

    From a organizational behavior point of view “more rules do not make people better.”

    I’ve worked for a couple of places that wanted me to sign “non compete” agreements – which I was happy to sign because signing the “non compete” agreement was completely pointless.

    I understand that the employer wanted to guard themselves against someone coming in and stealing “organizational intellectual property” or (more likely in the tech support arena) an employee stealing “customer support contracts” and starting their own company.

    I say it was pointless both because the judicial system rarely enforces “non compete” type contracts AND because if I was the type of person that would actually do what they are afraid of – then no “contract” would stop me from doing it.

    The point being that “making a bunch of rules” hoping to change the behavior of lazy/stupid/malicious employees ends up making the “good employees” less productive.

    i.e. the people that are doing what the rules are supposed to stop don’t care about the rules, and the people that aren’t doing it will be burdened by having to comply with additional (pointless) rules.

    SO there is probably an inverse relationship between the size of the “employee manual” and the efficiency/productivity of the organization – but that falls into the “personal observation” category

    … with the obvious addendum that industries will differ and the need to comply with “regulation” is the root cause for a lot of very large employee manuals…

    EVEN WORSE

    Then add in that the additional rules are (usually) made because of a problem with an individual that is no longer with the organization.

    This becomes my favorite example of “incompetent management 101” – i.e. they are “managing” employees that aren’t there anymore.

    Hey, I’m sorry the last guy was an incompetent jerk – how about we pretend like I’m NOT an incompetent jerk – you know, just in case I’m NOT that other person that caused you problems.

    Yes, that is (almost certainly) unfair – with “interpersonal relationships” of any kind, it is seldom only one sides “fault” – a Hank Williams song comes to mind – but that is a different subject 😉

    $600? $10,000? does it really matter?

    Those with long memories might remember Eliot Spitzer (for those that don’t there is a documentary called Client 9).

    Salacious aspects aside – Mr. Spitzer reportedly got caught in part because of deposit notification rules

    “They” (as in the various law enforcement entities involved) have been monitoring “large deposits” in an effort to catch “money laundering” by drug cartels and terrorists for a long time. I’m not sure HOW long, but it has been going on for awhile.

    Apparently Mr Spitzer was aware of the rules in question – and so he purposefully kept his withdrawals below the $10,000 limit that was supposed to trigger notification.

    It turns out that the people that work in the banking industry aren’t complete idiots – SO they had been monitoring for “suspicious activity” that someone trying to avoid setting off the automatic notification limit might use.

    It wasn’t the AMOUNT of the transactions that got Mr Spitzer investigated – it was the suspicious behavior that caused the investigation.

    I don’t know if it was still based on a specific limit or not – i.e. did 3 transactions of $4,000 each in the same week equal 1 transaction of $12,000? either way, it doesn’t matter.

    The point is that if you are trying to catch scofflaws you need to monitor behaviors NOT specific transaction amounts.

    Which PROBABLY means that any law requiring “automatic reporting” to “some gov’ment agency” is also PROBABLY pointless for “law enforcement” purposes and simply becomes gov’ment intrusion on individual liberty – i.e. another step towards “Big Brother” watching you – which might start with noble intentions but becomes the slippery slope to modern serfdom …

  • 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 😉

  • Capitalism, unions, THINK

    Capitalism
    “Capital” is simply “money and goods” used to produce more “money and goods.” Merriam-Webster tells me the first known use of the term “capitalism” goes back to 1833.

    It is slightly interesting that “Banking” goes back to 1660. Then the parable of the “minas” also comes to mind (where earning “interest” is mentioned in passing – not as the central message).

    If you want to be slightly cynical you might argue that humans are “economic animals” (the first occurrence of “economic” popping up in 1599 with an archaic meaning of “of or relating to a household or its management” – thank you Merriam-Webster).

    If I have a point – it is simply that human beings are capable of creating goods and services and then exchanging those goods and services for “something else” (“money” is a convenient concept – the word first appeared in English in the 14th Century).

    Behaviorism
    If you are a student of human development – you might recognize the “behaviorist” theory of human motivation that tries to boil down all human actions to “reactions to stimuli” of some form – e.g. incentives, rewards, punishments of various forms.

    This always sounds plausible – i.e. why does anyone do anything? they want “something” in exchange?

    It isn’t as bad as it may sound – the “something” doesn’t have to be “money.” Someone donating their time to help those in need might be receiving a non-tangible benefit – something like “sense of purpose”, “self-worth”, or the REALLY hard to nail down “happiness.”

    Human beings are also complex emotional beings – so saying that someone did something for a SINGLE purpose is always hard. We can get an understanding of someone by observing what they “do” AND how they “do it.” The amount of “character information” in a single action is limited – the more “behavior data” available, the more accurate the “character profile.”

    Fictional Characters
    When you are reading a novel or watching a movie – one of two lines of dialogue or a few actions may be there to “say something important” about the character.

    e.g. In a “cute” movie from 1993 “Amos & Andrew” Nicolas Cage plays a petty thief with a terrible “sense of direction” – which becomes “character information” as well as “running joke” (warning: this movie makes fun of a LOT of “self righteous” authority stereotypes – so it isn’t exactly “politically correct” in 2021 – but it is “fun”)

    I also have a terrible “sense of direction” – which if I was a fictional character might be important – but in the real world doesn’t mean anything in particular except that I shouldn’t be the first choice to drive if “navigation without Google” is required.

    Wait, where are we going?
    Most “-isms” aren’t inherently good or bad. It is always the implementation of the “system” that becomes problematic.

    So pick you favorite “-ism” – on paper it probably looks perfect/pure/”good.” Implement it with human beings, and things get messy.

    Consider “capitalism” – how can anyone object to the idea of people using “money and goods” to make MORE “money and goods.” In an efficient “market economy” we would see natural division of labor – e.g. not everyone needs to make their own bread every day, the baker can specialize in “baking bread” – the butcher can specialize in “meat production” – and the candlestick maker can specialize in whatever candlestick makers did 😉

    The baker/butcher/candlestick maker will probably produce better quality products at a lower price – so even when they add a small amount to the price of their product to make a “profit”, the consumer is better off than if they had to do it all themselves.

    Then the wise craftsman would set aside part of their profits and invest it in expanding/improving their craft, or hiring/training workers to produce more quality goods and services.

    Assuming everything goes well, eventually the craftsman has “money and goods” to invest in other enterprises – so our baker/butcher/candlestick maker has suddenly become a “capitalist.”

    Historically I can say that “community ovens” where common 1500 years ago, then folks would bring there bread to the baker and pay to have it baked, eventually got to the point where (in the U.S. at least) we have “walls of bread” at the supermarket – all due to individuals acting in their own best interest and providing a needed service.

    A modern version of that story is told in “The Donut King” – and also the negative side of human nature. i.e. Ted Ngoy built a “donut empire” by helping others and then greed and lust destroyed that empire.

    Banking
    Explaining the modern “banking system” probably requires its own class – but at a basic level it is still just a “business” that holds peoples money and lends out that money to other people in exchange for “interest.”

    That “money” stuff also has a “time-value” – which is really not important at the moment.

    ANYWAY – when our wise baker wants to “invest” his profits he would start by putting some of his money in a bank/financial institution of some kind.

    If the bank pays our baker “2% interest” on deposits and then is able to lend that money at 4% to the butcher (who wants to expand his business) – then once again, everyone wins.

    Once again, “banking” isn’t good or bad – just a business. Once again the real problem becomes “greed” not financial institutions/capitalism.

    Our imaginary banker might be making a living off of that 2% difference between loans and deposits. Even if our banker is completely honest – there is always the risk of “moral hazard” – e.g. what happens if the Donut King takes out a big loan to “expand the business” and then runs off to Las Vegas and loses it all on blackjack?

    Well, in the real world financial institutions are heavily regulated and have to keep a certain amount of “reserve capital” for “bad loans.”

    Again, once normal people get involved and not “theoretical models on paper” – things get messy.

    Frank Capra
    Frank Capra was one of the great movie makers of early Hollywood. Many of his movies get interpreted as “communist sympathizing” by biased modern audiences.

    Since it tends to get shown every Christmas season “It’s a Wonderful Life” is probably Mr Capra’s most familiar movie to “modern audiences.”

    If you watch the movie – it is a small – and easy to miss – plot point that Mr Potter (the movie’s villain) buys the local bank during an economic downturn. Mr Potter is guilty of both bitterness and greed – and uses the bank for those purposes.

    The “true capitalist” in the movie is George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart). Mr Bailey runs the “Building and Loan” – which in 2021 terms would probably be considered a “credit union.”

    I suppose there is someone that hasn’t seen the movie – so I won’t give away the ending. I’ll just point out that “people working together for common benefit” is not unique to ANY “-ism” –

    George Bailey is (probably) exceptionally generous, while Mr Potter is exceptionally greedy – so if anything the movie is a morality tale about the superiority of generosity over greed – BUT certainly not an endorsement of communism.

    Looking at Frank Capra’s movies as a whole – you see a common thread of “individual liberty over authoritarianism.” Of course he was making movies in and around the Great Depression – but if his movies are concerned with a particular “-ism” then it is “individualism.”

    Remember the command is to “love your neighbor as yourself” – so individuals within a society have obligations to other members of that society as well as privileges within that society. BUT society does not “own” the individual and society does not “owe” the individual anything – we are all free moral and economic agents with responsibilities

    Have I mentioned these things get “real world” messy very fast …

    Who makes the decisions
    Look at all of the “-isms” from 10,000 feet and they kind of look the same. The key differentiator in “real world economic systems” usually centers around who makes the decisions.

    SO should you bake bread or make candlesticks? Maybe one, maybe the other, probably you want to do something completely different – should you make that decision or should someone else tell you what you are going to do?

    Well, almost everyone is going opt for “let me make my own decision.” Which is the fantasy that “true communism” tries to sell – maybe in an truly efficient optimal society where “everyone VOLUNTARILY contributes as required” AND “everything required for living is freely available” that might be possible.

    Meanwhile in the real world – “real work” tends to get neglected simply because, well, it is “work.”

    The oversimplified history lesson
    HISTORICALLY – most folks have been subsistence farmers. i.e. “choosing a career” (for the average person) was never really an option for MOST of human history.

    Then, well, “capitalism” happened – ok, from a “western civilization” point of few the “Black Death” wiped out enough people in Europe that “economic mobility” increased. Labor became scarce – and therefore more valuable.

    The old “middle school world history textbook” explanation of the divisions of Medieval Europe was that there were three groups – 1. those that “fought” (the upper class/nobility), 2. those that “prayed” (the Church), and 3. those that “worked” (everyone else – again, a lot of subsistence farmers).

    The rise of a skilled middle class/merchants kind of disrupted the status quo. Then the wealth accumulated by that skilled middle class/merchants combined with the “body count” from the Black Death allowed for “social mobility.”

    SO as a rule of thumb – we see “economic liberty” always precedes “civil liberty.”

    Unions
    Squeezed into that mess somewhere are “trade unions.” Once upon a time these were formal agreements between a “master” and an “apprentice” intended to provide labor for the “master” and training for the “apprentice.”

    In a world without “accreditations”/”licenses”/”certifications” the apprenticeship was a way to pass on skills and give some guarantee of “quality” to the consumer. e.g. paying for the “trade union approved” work might cost a little more – but you could expect quality work.

    The “modern labor union” probably dates back to the industrial revolution and the creation of “factories” and then the “assembly line.” The “union job” might still be skilled labor, but the trend was towards “unskilled commodity labor.”

    The “assembly line” broke the creation/assembly process into smaller processes – i.e. a single worker was easily replaced because the skills to perform the task could be easily taught/learned (no long drawn out master/apprentice process required).

    Unions Good
    There were a LOT of “abuses of labor” early in the industrial revolution. Child labor, long work days, no “job security” or “workman’s compensation” – early “labor unions” helped bring about needed reform.

    The real motivation for “management” to change how they treated “labor” probably revolved around productivity and worker efficiency.

    Henry Ford famously offered a $5 a day wage in 1914 (when the average daily wage was around $2). The improved wages cut down on employee turnover and improved Ford’s profitability – i.e. paying workers more made them stick around longer and the company actually made more money.

    In “modern times” organized labor is on the decline for any number of reasons – part of the problem is that “the Unions” got big and corrupt at worst/inefficient at best.

    Unions not so good
    Yes, the modern workplace owes “unions” a great deal – but the old “Animal Farm” story applies – i.e. if/when the “new masters” start acting like the “old masters” the ordinary worker pays the price.

    The decline of the American auto-industry serves as a good example – with the Unions illustrating that “greed” is a problem for “labor” as well as “management.”

    Yes, it is a complicated issue – but ideally the “union” should be a partner with “management.” If the relationship is adversarial then no one “wins.”

    e.g. For years “Southwest Airlines” treated their labor union as a partner – and had a long run of profitability (and appear to be coming out of the pandemic fueled downturn).

    ANYWAY – unions aren’t “good” or “bad.” If they serve their members by providing a common communication platform, then they are doing a great job. If all the “union” does is collect dues, make political contributions, and bitch about how management doesn’t want to pay more, then they are probably NOT doing a great job.

    Unions and Communism
    Another pet peeve is the idea that somehow “unions” and “communism” are dependent on each other when they are completely unrelated.

    Unions are not “communism”, communism is not “unions” – unions are about organization, “communism” (as it exists in the real world and not some academic fantasy) is about gov’ment control of the economy.

    I suppose a communist regime might require all workers join a union – but again, that is “management” (i.e. the gov’ment) communicating with “labor” (i.e. individual workers) en masse.

    Meanwhile in a “free market capitalist” system the decision to form a union or not would be left up to the workers – not coerced from above.

  • roots of happiness

    A study of character
    Just watched “Citizen Kane” again – always near the top of the “best American movies” list, it wasn’t a commercial success when first released.

    PART of the problem is that the movie is very much a “character study.” I suppose the main character getting divorced twice might have been more interesting in 1941 – but there is nothing that would qualify as an “action sequence” which is always kind of the recipe for “low box office” numbers.

    Of course this is the sort of movie that “critics” would describe as an “adult story” – e.g. no fist fights, no car chases, no gunfight in the middle of the street, etc.

    What audiences get is a McGuffin driven mystery and a deep dive into the character of a “wealthy failure.” Don’t get me wrong – it is a great movie – just NOT the type of movie that you would ever expect to set records at the box office.

    Studio System
    Of course it would have done better at the box office if it hadn’t been “blacklisted” by William Randolph Hearst’s media empire. At the time the movie was considered to be “about” Mr Hearst – the movie essentially got a “limited release” because theater owners refused to show the movie in fear of reprisal from the Hearst empire.

    In reality the movie isn’t a “bio pic” about Hearst. It contains references to real life events that 1941 audiences would have associated with various “famous rich folks” – not JUST Hearst.

    Also worth pointing out is that the “studio system” at the time tended to control the entire process of movie production and distribution (i.e. studios could own movie theater chains – a practice that required a Supreme Court ruling to end it in 1948).

    Maybe not surprisingly the reputation of “Citizen Kane” improved in the 1950’s.

    My personal opinion is that Orson Welles would have found much more commercial success if he was 25 years old in 1971 instead of 1941 – kind of like Marty in Back to the Future

    Boy Genius
    Orson Welles had earned his “boy genius” status through radio and stage productions – so what jumped out at me in this viewing is the fact that the movie “feels” like a radio show. A lot of talking heads/interviews – minimal “action.” Yes, the visual style was “groundbreaking”, the cinematography is great – and the visuals obviously enhance the story – still not a “popcorn movie”.

    Mr Welles always said that he didn’t get a lot of money to make “Citizen Kane” – what he got was “control.” Back in 1941 the movie had a $1 million budget – which I’m told was typical for the time.

    The 2021 comparison – “independent” movies tend to have budgets in the $400,000 to $2 million range. My guess is that the LEAST a “studio” will budget for a project is $5 to $10 million – but then we get into “creative Hollywood accounting practices.”

    When “Citizen Kane” received great reviews from the “critics” but bombed at the box office – the blue print for Welles’ relationship with “Hollywood” was probably set – Orson Welles never got the amount of “artistic freedom” he desired from that point on.

    Of course the “movie business” is a “business” – so I’m not sure anyone is to “blame.” For his part Welles’ never appeared angry or bitter but it had to be frustrating.

    The “cost” problems in 2021 usually involve “post production labor” – as in the team of “digital artists” required to produce all those CGI effects the big budget blockbusters tend to be full of.

    Oh, and in 2021 the process of “self funding” for an “Orson Welles” type artist is much easier with this modern technology stuff — but once again I digress …

    Happiness
    As for the character of “Charles Foster Kane” – Luke 12:15 comes to mind followed closely by Ecclesiastes 5:10 BUT the movie isn’t condemning greed so much as pointing out that “buying more stuff won’t make you happy.”

    If the Charles Foster Kane character had been “greedy” then he wouldn’t have made the business decisions he made. He would have worked with the shady politicians, not try to joust with windmills as a “political reformer”.

    A “McGuffin” is any plot device that is used to advance the plot/story – but isn’t ‘valuable’ in and if itself – e.g. the black bird statuette in “The Maltese Falcon”, the Dude’s carpet in “The Big Lebowski” and then probably the most famous McGuffin in movie history – “Rosebud” in “Citizen Kane.”

    While the “Citizen Kane” plot is driven by the search for “Rosebud” – the point is made that human beings are complex emotional beings, and “one object” can never sum up anyone’s “total character” (well, they don’t put it that way – we get a little speech before the big reveal)

    Psycho 101
    The “psych 101” character analysis would start with his parents (implied) bad marriage, followed by the fact that his mother “sends him away to school” – i.e. the cliche of abusive father and emotionally distance mother is easy to imagine (and notice the sled he is playing with when his mother tells him he is “going on a trip”).

    Then Mr Kane gets kicked out of multiple colleges before deciding that running a newspaper sounds like “fun” (i.e. he has been aimless, waiting to come of age to inherit/control his family fortune).

    The newspaper becomes a way to “win the love” of “the public” – i.e. his addiction is “newspaper circulation” not “hedonistic alcohol abuse” (like Arthur Bach in “Arthur”) – but both characters are looking for people to “play along with them”

    TWO divorces!
    The cliche used to be that only the wealthy could afford to get divorced – that obviously doesn’t mean that “poor people” had happier marriages, just that getting a divorce used to be much harder in the “pre no fault divorce” days (1969 California passed first ‘no-fault’ divorce bill).

    I’m not throwing any stones at anyone – just pointing out that in true “production code censorship” style Mr Kane has an extramarital affair (which ends his first marriage and any political ambitions) but I don’t think we see a “bed” in the entire movie (well, there is a scene when he takes over the newspaper and they bring a “bed” into the office because he plans on sleeping there – but no men and women in the same room with a bed).

    Modern audiences will probably infer that Mr Kane wasn’t just being nice paying for the singing lessons – i.e. if an older wealthy man is paying for a young beautiful woman’s apartment and “singing lessons” he PROBABLY isn’t just listening to her sing.

    Sure, I can imagine a scenario where he just wants to help the young lady – BUT IF it was a “mentor” type relationship then he would have informed his wife in some form.

    Hubris
    A common trait of many “tragic figures” is arrogance/excessive pride/hubris. SO if we once again consider Charles Kane and Arthur Bach – Mr Kane “wants to be loved,” but then is full of pride and wants “more” – If Mr Kane isn’t a narcissist, then he is a type of “emotional black whole” that can’t be satisfied. Meanwhile Arthur Bach “wants to be loved,” but is humble to the point of being meek

    e.g. Mr Kane shouts “I’m Charles Foster Kane” at the shady politician that has exposed (Mr. Kane’s) adultery – while Arthur tells the wedding guests that his fiancee has decided not to marry him (after he has been beaten up by her father after telling her that the wedding is off).

    ANYWAY if there are lessons to be learned from “Citizen Kane” one of those lessons is NOT a condemnation of capitalism as a system. Arrogance and greed are never good – but “money” is just a tool and isn’t “good” or “bad” – 1 Timothy 6:10 comes to mind

    fwiw: I’ve heard enough people try to cram this “capitalism is evil” interpretation into a number of classic movies – enough that it might become its own post … maybe next week 😉

  • situational leadership, reciprocity, football?, Hamlet?, random thoughts …

    Random thoughts …
    I find myself wondering this morning if saying “I’m a proud Gen Xer” is an oxymoron. Kind of like saying someone is enthusiastic about apathy. hmmm – I’m usually TRYING to be funny when I say “proud Gen Xer” – a line from “Chinatown” comes to mind

    “’Course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” 

    Noah Cross – Chinatown”

    Maybe add – “generations” to that list as well – umm, if you haven’t seen “Chinatown” it isn’t one for the little ones to watch, great example of the “noir” genre though.

    ANYWAY
    I have been find of collecting “quotes” as long as I can remember. I recently stumbled across a “pre 1920’s joke” that went:

    “I just read Hamlet. I don’t know what all the fuss is about – it is just a collection of famous quotes”

    (pre 1920’s joke)

    Which I thought was funny because it reminded me of how I first ended up reading Hamlet – i.e. I had a “famous quotation” book that had numerous quotes from Shakespeare’s play – so in the “pre web” days I actually went to the bookstore and paid $2 for a copy of the play.

    (really random thought: if you watch “old” tv shows occasionally someone will hold up a skull and say “Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well” – when they want to appear to be ‘acting’ or show a knowledge of Shakespeare.

    I won’t bother explaining the quote – but it shows the “intended funny” in the “Hamlet” joke – i.e. the subtext to Hamlet can be “complicated” (extreme understatement), but there aren’t many sections of the play that don’t have a famous quote –

    since I’ve wandered into the subject – the BBC did a very good “traditional” version of Hamlet back in 1980 with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 version is a beautiful movie – but 4 hours long. Mr Branagh received an Oscar nomination for “adapted screenplay” – he kept all of Mr Shakespeare’s words, but updated the location to the 19th century, and there is a nude scene as I recall (which obviously wasn’t in the “text” as it were).

    Oh, and if you don’t mind black and white movies – Hamlet (1948) with Laurence Olivier is a decent version that covers the story very well (in 2 hours 30 minutes) and showcases Mr Olivier’s acting prowess (he won an Oscar in 1948 for his performance)

    The Team …
    Legendary football coach Bo Schembechler gave a famous speech about The Team

    (*cough*) great speech, of course Illinois won the Big 10 that year, Michigan’s only conference loss was to Illinois (16-6) – I’m sure they were both very good teams – which is why they play the games (and why “sports” is the original “reality tv”).

    The point I’ve been building up to is that “teams” will always consist of individuals with different abilities, motivations, and/or desires. To a certain degree the individual agrees to sacrifice some of that “individual desire” in service to “the team.”

    The beauty of “team sports” is that the ‘scrappy team of less talented individuals’ can beat the ‘big team of skilled competitors’ IF that ‘big team’ doesn’t play as a “team.” (but of course the “smart money” will be on the team with the talent – cliche: “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard”

    Reciprocity
    Sports at all levels illustrate how “team building” tends to be self- fulfilling to a certain degree. We see this when we talk about a school/team as having a “good program” – e.g. “such and such school always has a good X team.”A very important part of that “program” is coaches and administrators. But you also obviously need athletes. SO which is more important “coaches” or “athletes” – well, you need both.

    “Teams” don’t instantly form – I know there are the inspirational stories of “teams coming out of nowhere” and winning a championship going from “worst to first.” BUT those are extremely rare (which is probably why they are “inspirational stories” – i.e. they had most of the coaches and players equation and find the “missing part” needed to succeed).

    Much more common is the story of building a program bit by bit – continual slow improvements, and then suddenly (after 10 years of work) they become an “overnight” success.

    SO where does reciprocity come into play? well, the team members have to all believe that the team IS a team – and not just a collection of cliques.

    e.g. the person with the whip, might think he and the galley slaves are a “team” – but the galley slaves probably don’t (“motivational speech” from ‘guy with whip’: “We keep you alive to serve this vessel, row well and live!”)

    Back to Bo Schembechler – he was well known for his integrity. e.g. “You may not have liked him, but you knew where you stood with him” is a famous quote from a former Michigan player.

    I always like the idea that “you don’t have to like the coach/leader, but you should RESPECT the coach/leader” – and if the coach/leader is routinely lying and/or forming groups of ‘preferred’ players that get “special treatment” (e.g. “the rule is X for everyone except that small group over there that has done nothing special except ingratiate themselves to the coach by kissing his posterior”) then that becomes a recipe for “team destruction.”

    Once again …
    So once more time – all human relationships are based on ‘trust.’ All of the above about ‘sport ball teams’ applies to interpersonal relationships in general. Marriage, ‘work groups’, ‘project teams’ – whatever … all founded on “trust” that the individual is going to be valued for their contributions and not treated like a disposable “cog” in the machine …

    Arguably, in a “healthy society” the first team someone belongs to is the family unit – with “marriage” being the formative act in starting a “family” — but that gets complex fast – so another “football coach” story …

    Good ol’ Woody Hayes (he coached at one of those schools in Columbus, Ohio) wrote a book titled “You Win With People.” (used copies available on Amazon).

    While all the general public saw was Mr Hayes tearing up his hat and acting wild on the sidelines – by (most accounts) Woody Hayes was respected by his players – i.e. they trusted that he was “fighting for them”, and they had the same mission.

    Fwiw: Bo Schembechler retired from coaching when he got tired of begging 19 year olds to come play at Michigan (my words, but he said as much in his 1989 autobiography – still in print). He stayed at Michigan as the Athletic Director for a number of years.

    Saying that Woody Hayes had a “colorful” career is an understatement – but both men are worth a little bit of study from a “leadership” point of view. The end of Mr Hayes career almost falls into the “urban legend” sort of thing. He was fired for APPARENTLY punching an opposing team player on the sideline – the video is out there on the interweb. There are still plenty of “Woody Hayes defenders” but maybe the “big picture” lesson is that nobody is perfect.

    For the most part Mr Hayes is remembered for the 28 years BEFORE the incident – which is probably as much as you can ask/expect …

    Situational Leadership
    Pop quiz: What is the most effective way to lead a group? Answer: it depends on the group.

    This is one of those “incredibly obvious after it is pointed out” concepts – i.e. you can’t lead every group the same, because not every group is the same.

    Just like you can’t treat everyone in the group exactly the same, simply because they aren’t all the same.

    Individual members of the group should expect to be treated with respect, as well as held accountable for their duties within the group. Beyond that nothing is carved in stone.

    To continue my football theme – you can’t “coach” a group of 3rd graders that have never played organized football the same as you might coach a group of high school athletes that have been playing football since the 3rd grade.

    Not only should the high school athletes know more “football” than the 3rd graders, they (should) also be more mature. If you treat those 3rd graders like high school athletes you probably end up with chaos and a lot of unhappy athletes/parents – OR if you treat those high school athletes like they are supposed to be “professional athletes” you aren’t likely to have sustained success …

    If you happen to have the luxury of picking all the members of your team – then you should pick folks that mesh with your preferred leadership style. (which is why successful NFL coaches sometimes end up as both “coach” and “general manager”).

    But if you have to ‘work with the athletes that show up’ – then you need to adjust to the athletes. That doesn’t mean the coach “coddles” the athletes – but trust has to be established AND THEN MAINTAINED.

    Both Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes were good at “yelling at players” when they needed to be yelled at and “patting them on the back” when they needed encouragement.

    (… and that is “situational leadership” based on the individual athlete – btw I don’t think insults and/or profanity are ever productive leadership tools, what the athlete will remember is that the coach insulted them or cussed and not much else …)

    Mr Hayes was also famous for being a great recruiter – his tactic was to “recruit the family.” Stories were told of Mr Hayes on recruiting trips essentially “recruiting the mother.” The story usually goes that before the visit the mother would say “MY son isn’t going to play for that mad man” – then Woody would come in and charm the mother and afterwards the athlete was committed to Ohio State.

    (I also love the story that Woody Hayes said that the difference between him and the faculty at Ohio State was that HE could THEIR job, but THEY couldn’t do HIS job. The legend is that Woody was “well read” and also a “full professor of physical education” or something – )

    ANYWAY – It can take years to build up a program, but then that program can appear to disintegrate almost overnight. Though (most of the time) the decline from “top program” to “used to be a good program” is a gradual process …

    Did I have a point?
    No, not really – football season is starting, random thoughts 😉

    I will point out that an “average coach” can have “above average success” if they master the “integrity” and “motivation” parts of coaching. i.e. it is easier for a coach to improve their “football knowledge’ than it is for them to change their character.

    Maybe the “least effective coach” is the one that coaches exactly the way they were coached (if/when they played) – without understanding “why” they were coached that way.

    e.g. if the ONLY reason a team does “whatever” is because “that is what my coach used to have us do.” Maybe this explains the scenario where the “star athlete”/high performer isn’t a very good “coach” when they get the opportunity.

    More effective is the coach that consciously chooses a style based on their preferences/coaching strengths. Then the challenge might be finding a “place to coach” that “fits” the coach.

    Then the “superior coach” would be the one that “can beat you with his athletes, or take your athletes and beat his with yours.” Sun Tzu comes to mind – “Know your opponent and know yourself and you need not fear the results of 100 battles”

    (… of course if faced with a “superior force” Sun Tzu would advise “not engaging that force” – so the coaching applications become a little limited – i.e. you gotta beat the “best teams” to win a championship at any level …)

  • “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”

  • A rose by any other name …

    The Bard reference:
    An optimistic young singer named Sara Niemietz responded to a fan question by saying something like “she never met a flower she didn’t like” (or maybe it was she “never saw an ugly flower” – it was on her Instagram feed – the exact quote isn’t important)

    Which brought to mind Mr Shakespeare’s line about roses from that Romeo and Juliet thing – which I will resist the temptation to explain.

    Aren’t familiar with the play? I recommend watching one of the MANY versions out there. If you want “stage authenticity” then the BBC version from 1976 is a good choice. If you want the “cinema experience” – the 1968 theatrical version won Oscars for cinematography and costume design.

    Both versions (and a few more) are available for free (streaming) online if you have access to kanopy.com through your local library (the first step in creating an account on their site is checking if your public/college library gives you access).

    Weeds …
    In all fairness Ms Niemietz has been performing a long time – as I write this, Google tells me she is in her late 20’s. BUT anyone born after I graduated high school I tend to call “young.”

    Young doesn’t mean “immature” or even “inexperienced” – just a relative descriptive term for trips around the sun.

    Again, what is in a name?

    My other response to the “never met a flower I didn’t like” concept is that we tend to call “undesirable flowers” by another term – weeds.

    Maybe I’m going for a concept like “If dandelions were hard to grow, people would call them flowers” … the concept has been in my head long enough that I don’t remember where it came from …

    Google tells me Andrew Mason (founder of groupon) gets credit for saying: “If dandelions were hard to grow, they would be most welcome on any lawn” – but I had to Google “Andrew Mason” so the idea pre-dates his quote …

    Will Rogers …
    Then anyone born before me, I tend to call “good ol’ whatever” – SO good ol’ Will Rogers once noted that “He never met a man he didn’t like.”

    Now, ol’ Will was what we call a “humorist” – that died in a plane crash in 1935. He had a kind of easy-going, “affable “, nature – but also “poked fun” at a lot of folks, while talking about the politics of the day.

    To put the quote in context: “I joked about every prominent man of my time, but I never met a man I didn’t like.”

    I guess Will Rogers never met you …
    Now, “liking” someone doesn’t mean that you agree with them or that you approve of their opinions. My personal interpretation is that Will Rogers was able to disagree with folks, while not being disagreeable.

    The same concept is found in the “love your neighbor as yourself” concept – i.e. you don’t have to “approve of them” so much as accept their right to their worldview.

    Ben Franklin …
    I’m doing some “light editing” on a “Story of Ben Franklin” book – that was written for “children” 100 years ago (but the demographic/target audience would be called “young adults” in 2021).

    Good ol’ Mr Franklin loved to argue but the author of the book highlights Franklin’s “Socratic” approach to argument. An approach that reminds me of Will Rogers 😉

    Franklin could also add “inventor/scientist/statesman” to his list of titles. Yes, obviously Ben Franklin has a much deserved place in American history – maybe both men could be considered “entertainer diplomats” – with Franklin also being a “philosopher scientist.”

    The Junto
    I remember reading books about Ben Franklin as a youth – back in the day when if you asked for books on “super heroes” you were led to the “American History” section (seriously, that is one of my early “childhood” memories – I wanted “Spider-Man” comics, they gave me “Ben Franklin”).

    I slogged though a massive modern biography of Franklin a few years back (there have been a couple very good ones – not “bad” just “massive”). What jumped out at me THEN was that Ben Franklin was kind of a “hell-raiser” in his youth – which obviously gets glossed over in the “young adult” books.

    Proof reading the “children’s book” from 100+ years ago – the author is emphasizing Franklin’s “gift for organization” and how he was able to influence public opinion BECAUSE he was trusted by the public.

    Just like Walter Cronkite was once the “most trusted man on television” – Ben Franklin was the “most trusted man in print” back in his day.

    From a “leadership” perspective – Franklin understood his limitations (which is rare) and then also managed to stay within his limits most of the time (even more rare). SO we find Franklin refusing military leadership, because he didn’t have those skills – while also serving as a “regular soldier” in the militia …

    TL;DR
    If you have read this far – hey, how you doin’. One of Franklin’s first “organizations” was named the Junto – in 2021 it would probably be called a “think tank.” Individuals got together and shared discoveries/inventions – with the price of admission basically being “willingness to contribute.”

    Interested? I’ve got a handful of “project ideas” that require “other people” much more than “additional cash” – though if you need a tech/geek/expert for a project, I’m available for that as well like/comment/share/message me and we might get something good going …

  • The business of motion pictures …

    First principles

    In the category of “first principles” put “healthy competition is good for everyone.”

    To be clear – saying “HEALTHY COMPETITION is good” implies that there is such a thing as “unhealthy competition.”

    “Healthy competition” – is a version of the classic “win-win” scenario. Ok, obviously in many/most “competitions” someone “wins” and someone else “loses” – so we have to expand the “concept” of winning to include “short term winning” and “long term winning”.

    Storytime – short term win vs long term success

    Examples from the “world of sport” should be obvious – e.g. that “young talented team” that gets blown out by the “experienced champion team” obviously didn’t win THAT GAME. If that “young team” learned that they need to put in the practice time/effort to improve themselves – then THEY might be a championship team down the road.

    When/if that happens players/coaches might look back and say, “it all really started when we got blown out by ‘so and so’ and learned how much we needed to improve to be a championship team” — again, short term win vs long term win/success.

    Disruption

    Of course, our hypothetical “young talented team” isn’t going to enjoy getting taught the lesson. If that team responds by saying “the game isn’t fair” or “we stink and will never be as good as those guys” – then the result of the hypothetical sport-game above was truly win/lose.

    Sports cliches aside – switching to a “business industry competition” point of view. Competition is usually good for the consumer but always “disruptive” for companies.

    If that “disruption” causes companies to improve their products and services – then we end up with a true “win/win” scenario.

    Motion picture industry disruption

    SO the “motion picture” industry has survived multiple “major disruptive events” in its 120+ year history.

    The first “motion pictures” were short novelty films sold via nickelodeons – i.e. an individual put a nickel in the machine, then watched the short film through a viewing port.

    Thomas Edison is said to have opposed the development of a “projector” (where an audience could all watch the same film at the same time) because it would “kill the motion picture industry.”

    Mr Edison was probably correct – the projector “killed” the nickelodeon film market. The disruption in the market spurred demand for longer narrative features – i.e. “motion pictures” moved from “novelty” to “story telling.”

    Then in the late 1920’s the motion picture industry was disrupted by “sound.” If you were a silent movie star – you probably thought that “sound” killed the motion picture industry.

    Then in the 1950’s “television” came along and disrupted the motion picture industry again.

    Easy to forget in 2021 is that the old “studio system” ended in 1948 (United States v. Paramount) – which much more than television “disrupted” the motion picture industry.

    HOWEVER, you can make a good argument that “television” wouldn’t have had the actors/directors/writers/other technical talent to create that “golden age of American television” if the old “studio system” was still in place.

    The “small screen” didn’t have the prestige of “the movies.” If given the choice between being a “movie star” or a “television star” – my guess is that most “talent” would choose “movie star.” BUT if the choice was between “starving” and “working in television” – well, that choice is obvious as well …

    Television also didn’t have the big production and DISTRIBUTION costs of “the movies.” Which illustrates how “competition” was good for the average consumer (more “entertainment” choices), good for a great number of talented individuals, but bad for the “big movie business studio status quo.”

    Off the top of my head – other disruptors:

    • the “production code” ended in the late 1960’s. In 1968-ish the age based “ratings” system was introduced.
    • “cable tv”/”pay tv” in general – HBO started in 1972
    • disruption can come from “within” the industry as well – e.g. the “summer blockbuster” was accidently created in 1975 when “Jaws” ran into production problems and couldn’t be released until “summer”

    Streaming

    Once again the history of the “internet” is a story that can be told many ways.

    With the caveat that putting an exact date on any “disruption” is problematic:

    This time around I’ll point out that the “internet as industry changing disruption” first hit the financial markets (mid 1990s) with the availability of “stock” information and then the “online brokerages.” THEN the music industry was disrupted (late 1990s) by a combination of Napster/peer to peer file sharing and the DMCA.

    In 2006 Google acquired YouTube (a story for another time) – but as I remember it “video streaming” was on everybody’s radar as the “next big thing.”

    SO in 2007 when Netflix offered a “streaming movies” option it was really just the “other shoe dropping“.

    In 2007 the streaming options were about being “on demand.” i.e. “streaming” in 2007 was a disruptor to “television” NOT to “the movies.”

    the cinema experience
    Then 2020 happened and COVID-19 lockdowns forced movie theaters to shutdown.

    To be honest I don’t think it has ever been “easy” to be in the “movie theater” business. Technology disrupting the “theater business” is another post – but again for the most part the disruptions have been “win/win.”

    From a THEATER point of view – the movies are almost a “loss leader.” The typical theater makes much more money off of selling popcorn/concessions than they do from ticket sales.

    SO (again in general) what the theater is selling is the “movie going experience” – i.e. Something that you can’t replicate at home – whether that is from renting a DVD or paying for a “streaming option.”

    … me thinking out loud …

    From a profit and loss/return on investment point of view – the folks doing best are probably the “second run” theaters.

    Once upon a time – in the “pre digital” world – the “second run” theaters got the “movie film canisters” AFTER the “first run theaters” had shown the movie for several weeks.

    Since the physical film degrades slightly each time the film is run through the projector – the “second run theater” was also a “second class” viewing experience – and so the ticket prices were also much lower BUT the price of concessions were not much lower.

    Remember video tape and then DVDs were only a minor disruptor for “theaters.” For the “movie industry” video tapes and DVDs became another lucrative market – to the point where it became rare for “big Hollywood movies” to lose money (subject for another post 😉 )

    My point is that the primary demographics for “second run theaters” is (probably) “younger folks looking to go out.” The movie is almost a secondary concern, spending time with friends/socializing the goal.

    Back in days of “video rental chains” it was common for a movie to be available to rent for home viewing while the movie was being shown in “second run” theaters.

    Whatever the demographic differences between the two market segments – there were people that would rent the movie and watch it at home, and there were also people that would pay to see it in the “second run theater.”

    (btw: if you want to “watch/examine/interpret” the movie – then home viewing is always better. if you want the movie “experience” – that is better in a theater)

    td;dr

    If someone want to say that “streaming” killed Blockbuster/Hollywood video – I’ll agree with that.

    HOWEVER – “streaming” is good for the motion picture industry in general. Disruptive, yes – but still “good.”

  • 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.