Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Sometimes you just lower your head against a wall and push as hard as you can.

Let’s begin this little blog post by noting that I attended LSU—not MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford or any of those places known for producing really smart people. At LSU, we may not be able to spell L-S-U, but we can whip you in football and baseball and a few other things.

One thing we did learn how to spell at LSU is B-F-I, which is short for brute force and ignorance. This brings me to the tale of how I solved an unsolvable problem in super computing and digital signal processing when I didn’t have the credentials (still don’t) for either of those fields.

Another organization, a.k.a., the rich kids, owned a super duper computer on which they were past the leading edge in digital signal processing. The organization I was in, a.k.a., beggars can’t be choosy, owned a super computer, sort of, that cost half of what the rich kids had. The rich kids wrote software that did things us beggars wanted to do. All we had to do was make their software run on our computer to produce the same results to ten significant digits.

I was the lead of the beggars team. I couldn’t spell digital signal processing, but could manage to spell D-S-P (I am still in this situation and still can’t get a job in DSP because beggars can’t be choosy but the rich kids who own those DSP companies can be and still are choosy). The rich kids’ software wasn’t producing the same answers on the beggars’ computer as it did on the rich kids’ computer. The precision wandered off somewhere.

We brought in all manner of assistance. We even brought in the folks who wrote the compilers on the super computers to find the problem. All these folks (who were all paid twice my salary) had all sorts of sophisticated methods of attacking the problem. I, being from L-S-U and only knowing B-F-I, sat in a corner and attacked the problem using the only thing I knew how to do: I ran the software one statement at a time on both computers and compared the answers. I didn’t use any of the super debuggers and other super software tools the smart kids knew how to use. I just stepped through the software one brute-force step at a time.

Three days later, I found it; I found the place where the answers deviated. I solved the problem on the beggars’ computer and we had the same answers to ten significant digits as the rich kids did. For this triumph of brute force and ignorance, I was given what we called a large, round cash award. A large round number, i.e., zero. But that is another story.

Still, sometimes you do the simplest thing one step at a time repeatedly while the rich kids and smart kids use their rich and smart tools. Sometimes that works. Put your head down and push.

by Dwayne Phillips

This is a question we should constantly ask. Try the simplest thing to be, to do, to have.

Several years ago, I posed a question to participants at a conference session I was facilitating. The design problem was about storing information from a business. I wanted a design of a system that would store a year’s worth of information from a business I described.

One team of designers worked for one of the world’s largest commercial database companies (I won’t give the name). They designed an elegant system from their experience in information management systems. The other design teams had similar results.

Most were surprised when I suggested a card table. A basic card table would hold all the paper generated by the business in one year. Many “but, but, but…” questions came. I showed them how the simple card table would meet all the requirements I stated. One person in the room added that a spot on the floor would meet the requirements. Aha! Even simpler!

How simple can we be? Do we need a database? Can a spreadsheet do as well? Can a word processor do as well? Can a clipboard, pencil, and ten sheets of paper do as well? How about ripping the pages out of a calendar and taping them to the wall? But, but, but…

Of course we can use things that are more complex and have a greater ability to expand to greater horizons and all that. Is that necessary? Is that really necessary? Will this problem be here in ten years and fill all those horizons?

In my experience, the answer is no. The problem will go away and a different problem will arise. That grand solution won’t be used. Simple. Inexpensive. Quick. Move on.

At least consider the simple.

by Dwayne Phillips

This is a tried and true method of gathering requirements and specifying systems. Imagine you had a thousand assistants.

There are various methods of gathering requirements and specifying systems. A basic one is to imagine a thousands assistants awaiting your request. If you had a thousand assistants, what would you have them doing?

“Oh,” is how the reply usually begins, “I would tell them to…” And so one flows the requirements and specification.

A system, usually involving a computer and software, is a simulation of a machine. A machine is a device that does what a thousand assistants would do. Hence, a thousand assistants tell us what the computer and software should do.

This is a simple method. I have used it dozens of times. There is something about it that helps people relax, think, and tell system builders what they want. Don’t try so hard. Try something simple.

by Dwayne Phillips

Given histories on the Internet, the good news is that I can find the correct date and event. The bad news is, I no longer have the excuse that, “Maybe I didn’t remember correctly.” That is just lazy.

I am making notes of my life for my children and grandchildren. The sort of, “Did you know I once lived in that place for a few years?”

The easy way to make historical notes is to depend on my memory and just type words. If I put the wrong place and the wrong date, so be it.

The more difficult way to make historical notes is to find the correct place and date on the Internet. That correct information is out there.

In the last several decades, a few Presidents have been caught using the easy way with their past and their boasts. “I remember as a kid these terrible shameful things happening. As President, we will be different.” That is the start of story. The end of the story is that a reporter or two will investigate the history, i.e., look it up online, and find that the President sort of exaggerated as politicians are prone to do. The events of their past never occurred. Ouch. It is tougher to brag about yourself when you can’t just make up history.

Well, even for folks just trying to record some places and dates to bore their grand kids, there is the easy way and there is the more difficult and accurate way. Five minutes of research online brings about the more accurate way. Rats. It was so much fun just to make it up and brag a bit about my past that really didn’t occur. That’s one of the pitfalls of having grandchildren who are so smart and resourceful.

by Dwayne Phillips

Some advice on kids’ sports. This is really good advice. As usual, someone else gave it to me.

Major league baseball is concluding yet another season. The Little League baseball national and international tournaments just concluded (putting all those kids’ games on national TV live was a horrible mistake). What’s one to do with another?

Less than a tenth of one percent of kids playing ball make it to “the big leagues.” Yet, parents conduct the sports as if their kid is in that tiny group.

I played softball and baseball from second grade through high school. I was pretty good sometimes and not really good at all most of the time. While doing this, I played with several fellows who later played football in the NFL. None of my friends made it to major league baseball, but the NFL has its tiny share of kids as well.

Those kids who made it to the NFL were not like the rest of us kids. There were stars playing with me as a kid who never made it past high school. I saw college sports teams where no one made it to the next level.

It just doesn’t happen.

The advice I learned as a parent was, encourage your kids to play enough ball while growing up so that they won’t be embarrassed to join in at the company picnic. If the folks at the company picnic have a game of pick up basketball, my kids would join in and have fun and while not starring in any way, would participate and have fun. Same goes with company picnic softball, soccer, volleyball, Frisbee, and even tether ball (the all-American backyard game).

Help your kids play enough ball to enjoy the company picnic.

Help your kids sing enough to enjoy the company picnic.

Help your kids draw and paint enough to enjoy the company picnic.

The same goes for sewing, quilting, cooking, dancing, and a much longer list than I can recall at this time.

by Dwayne Phillips

Sometimes, the one thing needed for a person to do something new and frightening is simply permission.

Here is how to write a book:

• Write the first page
• Write the next page
• Write the next page
• Continue that
• Write the last page
• Stop

Simple? Yes. Works? Absolutely, I have done this about a dozen times. You start. When you reach the end, you stop.

But what about…? Yes, we can ask dozens of those “what about” questions. And yes, we should probably answer them if we expect anyone to successfully write a book (whatever “successfully” means).

Still, for some persons, this is all the instructions they need. They have a book in them and all the resources needed to put the words on paper. What they lack is permission. No one has ever told them that they have a book in them and all the resources needed to put the words on paper. Once they hear that, once they have permission, they will write the book no matter how simplistic the instructions.

This is writing a book. I know something about writing a book. There are many other endeavors for which I just shrug my shoulders. Start a business? Invent a new medicine? Retire? It doesn’t matter. What many people need is permission. They will figure out the rest.

Give permission. We can do this.

by Dwayne Phillips

We can have too many people in the room to discuss something. We can also become locked in an inner circle where no one else understands what we are doing. There should be a balance.

There are too many people in the room: Twenty people (pick a number) is too many. There are too many ideas. There are too many side conversations. We need focus. Let’s just have four people (pick a number) present who understand others and can represent the desires and thoughts of others. We can reduce many of the distractions and “get somewhere.”

Only the inner circle understands: A small (pick the size) select group meets and meets and meets again. This small select group arrives at an understanding of the situation and what to do next. Great. Now the small select group tells everyone else what to do. No one else understands what the small select group understands. Nothing works.

Okay, neither edge case works well in all cases. What do we do now? Surely there is some compromise or consensus or something on how we do things well. Huh?

Here is one method: each person in the small select group spends a week explaining to one person. The number of people who understand has now doubled. Repeat this every week. The first week, four people understand; then eight; then sixteen, and after four weeks 32 people understand. A little slow, but it probably works.

Here is one method: the all-knowing supreme leader holds calls a hundred people into one room at one time. The all-knowing supreme leader masterfully explains the concept held by the small select group. In an hour, a hundred people all understand. A little hopeful, but it probably works.

Of course there are other methods, and some of them might work. Still, the more important step is to understand the problem of the inner circle and the problem of too many people in the room. We can do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

It is easy to use vocabulary that is popular at this moment. It is a bit more difficult to explain the situation in plain English. That exercise, however, is often well worth the effort.

Here is some popular vocabulary in the endeavor of software development:

• DevSecOps
• Kubernetes
• Git
• Aggregation
• Anonymization
• and so on

It’s nice to toss out one or two of these per sentence. It’s a shorthand. Say one word that is short of 1,000 more words. All good.

Then there is, “Please explain what you mean when you use that word.”

Gosh, what are you, stupid? Don’t you recognize the currently popular vocabulary currently used by the currently recognized experts? Why if you were in the know, you would know.

Perhaps I am a bit slow. Still, I would appreciate someone explaining all these things in plain words commonly found in the English dictionary. Sure, that is difficult, but it shows a fundamental understanding of what is happening, and a fundamental understanding is usually worth the effort.

Many years ago, a much younger version of myself asked a person developing software if his group used Design Reviews. He wrinkled his brow at the question. We walked down the hallway to a room. “We all sit in here,” he started. “When we are about to work on something new, we stand at this white board. Someone draws a few figures with boxes and arrows. We talk about the figures and redraw them until we all seem to understand and agree that we have a pretty good notion of how things will work and how to build them.”

Ah. Plain English. They didn’t know the then-popular vocabulary, but they knew what they were doing. Yes, they succeeded.

We can all do better. Let’s skip the popular vocabulary and speak English. Please.

by Dwayne Phillips

The most important computer processor ever made was the Intel 8087 (well, a little exaggeration). Spend more money on hardware or more money on smarts? The decision is still with us.

It was 1980. Intel had just released the 8086 CPU—a computer on a chip that worked on 16 bits at a time. WOW! Great for powerful computing, so long as you only used integers (fixed point as we called it). Want to use real numbers? (floating point) Well, buy the 8087 co-processor. It only cost a couple hundred more dollars. Uh, well that increased the cost of the computer 10% or 20% or something.

Ten years later, I was writing software in the C programming language to process images. It was the kind of things that Photoshop did. There were several companies producing co-processing boards to pop into the IBM PC and the clones of the time. The co-processing boards cost several thousand dollars, but if you wanted to really do amazing things, you spent the money.

Well, I didn’t have the money and I wanted to really do amazing things. Solution? I figured real hard and used integers to do everything. I took great pride in telling people that my software removed the need for these extra processing boards. And this all worked. It actually did.

Spend money on hardware? Spend money on brain power? The question never leaves us. We are still trying to decide if we use super-large language models or think a while and use smaller language models. Do we have the hardware to do what we want? Can we afford that? Maybe we should just think more. Same questions.

The answer? Oh, I am sure someone has modeled this question and can show curves of hardware and time and brainpower and all that. They have the universal answer. Did they run simulations on state-of-the-art hardware or think about it a lot? Oh, same questions.

by Dwayne Phillips

We have computing power a thousand magnitudes greater than what took us to the moon and back. And we use it to play checkers.

Sitting here in the coffee shop writing these blog posts, I look across the room and note someone playing checkers on their new Windows 11 computer. Also on their screen are a dozen open apps meant to do something “more worthwhile.”

The person’s computer is a thousand orders of magnitude greater than the computers that took us to the moon and back. The same is true for my computer that I am using as a typewriter.

What are we doing? We have all this computational power and yet we play checkers and type words. Surely there is something better we can do with this. Perhaps playing checkers is a worthwhile endeavor as it uses the mind and untangles the gazillion combinations that a game of checkers brings. Perhaps typing words explaining how typing words is a worthwhile endeavor as it communicates to the world how worthwhile are worthwhile endeavors.

Alas, we are an odd lot. Still, we seem to do some good things for others. That is a worthwhile endeavor.