Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Take care with the messages you send job interviewees if you really want to hire someone.

Another job interview, another headache.

Some organizations use this process in a job interview. There are N people sitting around the table. Each person has a sheet with N questions on it. Person #1 reads question #1. The interviewee answers the question while all N people write the answer. Person #2 reads question #2 and on and on until each person has read a question and everyone has written the same thing on paper.

The organization could have given the interviewee the questions ahead of time and let the person write the answers. Well…

What is the meta message? We don’t think often and we often think poorly. Therefore, we use rote techniques so that we act like little cogs in a machine. Does the interviewee want to be another little cog in a machine? Usually not. Sometimes the paycheck is needed so badly that the interviewee will choke on it all and take it.

I once had a job interview where the first two questions were:

• Can you type?
• How many words per minute?

I found this strange as I had a PhD and had written a few books, a thesis, a dissertation, and whatever else came along the way. Drivel.

Another job interview started with, “Have you ever made any mistakes that you’d like to talk about?” Ah! Thought. A good smart person wanting to know something about me.

Let’s consider the meta messages in our job interviews.

by Dwayne Phillips

When we build systems, build them to do and have no more and no less than we intend.

A few pseudo definitions:

• Requirements: what the user wants.
• Intentions: what the builder intends.
• Hazards: when the builder builds more or less than intended.

The users says, “I want a system that does this and that is and like this and that.”

The builders say among themselves, “We can do those things and a little more here and maybe a little less there, but we will provide value for the price.”

Years later if something horrible happens, an observer will say, “The builder put more into the system than they intended. Someone else saw that extra and exploited it.”

This is about the recently neglected field of systems engineering. Requirements are traced to design, build, test, delivery, etc. The builders build what they intend to build: no more and no less. The system doesn’t do more than intended. The system doesn’t do less than intended. Those things would be apparent when the systems engineer(s) trace requirements to the rest of it.

“But if you press these three keys for four seconds and then these four keys for three seconds the system will…” Nope. This is not a movie with heroes and villains and last-second rescues. This is real life. That extra clever thing is a capability built into the system and it wasn’t intended. The cyber security weakness is a capability built into the system and it wasn’t intended.

Let’s do what we intend. No more and no less.

by Dwayne Phillips

Let’s do what we can do bring more people into the solution-providing space.

I am going to repeat some things I wrote in a blog post in 2015. In researching today’s post, I found that old post and wondered a bit at how good it was.

Anyway, Linus’ Law is: “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” This is from Eric Raymond in his book “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” (1999).

If someone wants to come and look at what I am working, I should let them. But it’s not ready to be seen! So what? But, I am embarrassed! So what?

From 2015…

Someone out there knows the answer or knows a different approach that makes the answer available with a little (not a lot of) work.

Some technical “availables” include the ever less expensive:

• computer
• health monitor
• microscope
• telescope
• blog platform
• pencil and paper

All these things put more eyeballs on more problems. Perhaps the cure for cancer is coming from an unexpected (unfunded) source in an unexpected place. Wouldn’t it be great if a 13-year-old in Tibet raised her hand with the answer?

Give that person a second-hand $100 Chromebook and show them how to get a one-month, free-trial of a cloud computing platform. Stand back in wonder.

Have a set of used pots and pans? Someone needs them to discover the next great thing in cooking or chemistry or medicine.

And, have a kind word? Sometimes that is what is needed to expand the set of eyeballs and make the problem so shallow that the solution is provided.

by Dwayne Phillips

This is really good (to someone on some day). And I don’t know who that someone is or when that day is.

This blog post is really good. I felt great when I wrote it. The words flew through my fingers onto the screen and to the Internet. Wow! People will love it.

Blah, blah, blah.

Someone will love this post. They will print it, frame it, and put it on their desk so they see it everyday. It will be the most important thing they read on this day.

My trouble is I don’t know who that someone is. I also don’t know what day this day will be.

I have spoken to hundred of people on dozens of occasions. Some fell asleep. Now and then, someone came to me later and told me how what I said changed their life. The part of my presentation that changed their life was an afterthought that I don’t even remember saying.

I don’t know what “is really good” to some person on some day. I do what I can. I think of things that I think are good and helpful. I spread those things. That is what I can do. The rest is not up to me. Let’s do more spreading of what we think are good and helpful. And then let’s see what happens.

by Dwayne Phillips

Meta understanding is understanding about understanding. This is rarely practiced. That lack of practice is perilous.

I once worked with a man who had a high school diploma and nothing else as far as formal education. Still, this person rose in the ranks of government service to the level of Senior Executive Service. He was competent, and…

He understood what needed to be understood.

Some things on the job are more important than others. Some folks call this, “majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors.” This concept applies to jobs, families, and all endeavors. We look for “the difference that makes a difference.”

Enough cliches’.

This is another example of thinking. Think about the here and know. Also, think at a level of abstraction above that and at a level of abstraction below that. I am not the universe. There are things happening outside my little world. I should try to understand those things.

This is a simple concept that is difficult to apply. We should, however, do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

Sorry, we (you and me) don’t “know” as often as we like to think.

When I ask a person a question and their eyes look up, that means…

Hah! Silly notion. I know what this means. I know what that means. I know what the other person is doing and thinking and feeling and what they will do next.

Hah! Silly notion. It is silly, however, until I take action that brings great harm to others based on my silly notion of “knowing.”

But, I feel uneasy when that person won’t look me in the eye. My unease is my problem. What am I going to do about my unease? I should not ruin another person’s life because I don’t know what to do with my unease.

By the way, direct eye contact in some cultures is a justification for killing. If I stare into a person’s eyes, I am stealing part of their soul. They are justified in killing me to retrieve their soul. These cultures exist in America, today. Didn’t know that? I didn’t either until one day…

Sorry, I don’t “know” as often as I like to think.

by Dwayne Phillips

Tomorrow America turns 247 years old. Much younger than many places and older than some. We are still trying.

Tomorrow is the Fourth of July. Back in 1776, some folks penned a document and signed their names declaring that this place was independent from that place. Those who signed would all be executed if they whole thing flopped. Somehow, it all held together.

“Things in America aren’t the way they used to be.” Of course they aren’t. Things are different every day. Some things change for the worse; others for the better, and most stay the same.

Waiting for yet another, “No, we aren’t perfect, but we are better than…” essay?

I guess that is still true. We are human and we make lots of mistakes every moment of every day. We try to interpret the words of those folks back in 1776 with what we know today.

Fun fact: people in many other countries want to come to America. They jump on a floating log or walk a thousand miles to do so. They even sneak in and hope to live here long enough so that no one cares about them any longer. I guess that means we have something here that is better than some other places.

And some of us here don’t like it when others sneak in. I guess that means we like what we have. Hmmm, think about that one for a while: we like what we have.

So, once again, we observe a Fourth of July. Maybe we cook hot dogs (from Europe) and shoot fireworks (from Asia). Maybe we watch a baseball game (from here). Those are things that make America what it is. Stuff from there and there and here and all mixed in the way we like it. Not too bad after all.

by Dwayne Phillips

You would think by now that we would have straightened out all this mess with computers not quite working right. Sigh. Maybe one day.

Over 30 years ago, (yes, I am that old) I was loading software onto a computer via 5 1/4″ floppy disks (yes, I am that old) and… kaput. The software didn’t work.

“Ah,” said an older man looking on with disgust, “you are trying to run version 2.017 on version 1.89 and that doodad isn’t compatible with the thingabob. You need to reverse to last week’s version and match it with next month’s version and …”

On he went in derision. The computer wasn’t working right. The versions were backwards incompatible or some explanation that sounded more professional than doodad and thingabob. The result was the same.

Just this past week… The same thing. Load this, load that, twiddle this and that, hope it worked… it didn’t. The problems were on several different systems attempting to do wildly different things.

“Well,” I can hear someone chime in, “you should be using the triple-B system as that overcomes these incompatibilities and it has all been settled and … “

Yes, the triple-B system or whatever we have now is a bit better that this and that, but it too has its foibles when paired with something that is more than 32 hours old and…

You would think by now that we had this all worked out and some of this new AI stuff would patch it up or settle it down or move it just a little bit this way or that way like hanging a painting on a wall. Sigh.

Maybe one day these things will work. Still, on that day, someone will create something newer and wonderful-er that will not work with last week’s wonderfulness and we will have to…

by Dwayne Phillips

Sometimes we fight against something with all our might only to discover that are foe is ourselves and what we do everyday.

As I write this, there is a writer’s strike in Hollywood. Note, I am not in Hollywood writing this as a writer who is on a writer’s strike. Now that I have cleared that up, let me continue.

One of the central issues in the writer’s strike and in all lines of work in Hollywood is the work that AI software can do. This new software, with a little help from real intelligence from people, can write scripts for jingles and commercials and TV episodes and even full-length movies. Then this new software can create the appearance of human actors with just the right look and just the right voice and just the right wardrobe. And the the software can create the sets out of thin air. And then the new software puts all this stuff it created onto a video ready for distribution to the world for entertainment. And, by the way, those who are entertained give money to those who created the entertainment.

The folks in the entertainment business are upset that new software will create things that don’t exist for our entertainment.

Oh, uh, er, wait a minute. “Create things that don’t exist for our entertainment.” Hasn’t Hollywood been doing that for a hundred years or so? Didn’t Shakespeare do that? Didn’t the court jesters do that 5,000 years ago or something or other?

Washing the dishes isn’t entertaining. Seeing someone wash the dishes on a star ship while battling bad guys with light sabres on a 50-foot screen with Dolby stereo sound blasters with a thousand dancers in flashy costumes… now THAT IS ENTERTAINING. It doesn’t really exist, and that is why it is entertaining.

What is wrong with those Hollywood folks? Don’t they realize they are fighting against what they do?

Those of us who program computers are programming computers to program themselves so that those who use computers won’t have to talk to those who program computers because the folks who program computers are difficult and nerdy and … are us. Wait a minute.

Those of us who write news stories belittle those in power who make lots of mistakes that make life difficult for us and who should be replaced by people who don’t make mistakes so that we won’t have any news stories to write that belittle those in power and … Wait a minute. If our stories came true, we wouldn’t have a job.

I could continue with silly examples of how silly we often act. We can be fighting ourselves and what we do everyday.

Solution? Think. Examine our words and actions. We can all do better. Let’s try.

by Dwayne Phillips

Sometimes we attribute things we don’t like to things we don’t like. It’s easier that way, even though it isn’t reality.

Well, here we have it: AI is replacing people. We can read it in the newspaper. Plain and simple. I link to one newspaper article. I could link to a dozen more. Sigh. Newspapers used to have editors. I guess newspapers still have people called “editors,” but they don’t seem to do their jobs any more.

All this AI chatter-this and chatter-that stuff does not and will not replace people. People replace other people with new tools that are less costly.

Yes, I am writing that, “AI doesn’t replace people; people replace people.” (Readers can wince in pain at such a trite statement that mirrors other statements in the press.)

People in positions who have the authority to fire and hire other people are firing other people. Why? Because there are new tools that will do the jobs of those other people at lower cost.

When word processing computers and software became widespread, secretaries lost their jobs. Everyone was supposed to do their own typing. The new tools enabled that. Expectations changed, and so did jobs. Secretaries became Office Coordinator, Executive Assistant, Office Manager, and Administrative Professional, or something or other.

Now we have software that can “write” short, basic memos, emails, etc. Why pay a person to do that when software does it at a lower cost?

Well, there are many reasons to pay a person to do that. Still, some persons don’t agree with those reasons, so they replace persons with software.

AI didn’t replace the person—the boss replaced the person.

That sounds mean to blame the boss. Let’s blame some thing, especially some thing that we already don’t like, like “AI.”