Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

A review of percent may surprise some. Sorry about that. Use this information cautiously.

I recently read a contract that purported to calculate 50% of 50%. That struck me as odd, so given too much time on my hands, I thought about it a while.

Warning: thinking about basic things for a while can reveal information that makes people mad at you.

Going back to the word problems we used to do back when we scratched on the walls of caves with rocks… the word “of” translated to “multiply something.” For example, “a tenth of the cost” meant we multiplied 0.1 and the cost.

Let’s go back to 50% of 50%. That translates to multiplying 50% and 50%. The answer is 2,500 percent squared. No, wait a minute. Half of 50% is 25%. Everyone knows that. What is is this 2,500 stuff?

I go back to the basics (here is where people become mad at me). 50% is not a half. 50% is a half (0.5 for us decimal point folks) times 100%. That’s how we go from 0.5 to 50%.

This leads us to things like:

• 25% is not a quarter, it is a quarter times 100%.
• 10% is not a tenth, it is a tenth times 100%.
• 75% is not three quarters, it is three quarters times 100%.

But everyone knows that 50% is a half, 25% is a quarter, and so on. I told you this would make people mad at you. And everyone knows that 50% of 50% is 25% or a quarter. So, Mr. smarty pants (as my mother would tell me), stop all this.

This is often what happens when I think about basic things. It seems like folks today don’t like to consider basic things. I guess I was always in the 1% of the 1% in the strange-folks list. ooops, 1% of 1% is 1 percent squared which has no meaning which…

by Dwayne Phillips

The persons who are in this place at this time to decide this thing are usually in the wrong place and time and deciding the wrong thing.

Let’s decide. We are the deciders. We are in the deciding position because at some time and place in the past we showed how well we decide.

The trouble is, that time is past. Does being so smart in another time and place make us smart in this time and place? Probably not, but what else are we to do?

It seems like this should all be easier, but it isn’t. One way around this is to make the decisions smaller so that when we are wrong, we won’t be big wrong, just small wrong.

by Dwayne Phillips

Events occur in a set order, unless they don’t. Thought is encouraged.

The title is from a nursery rhyme (origin unknown by me). The third event is a baby in a baby carriage.

Events occur in a set order. Breakfast-lunch-dinner. Entree then desert. Eat breakfast, then brush your teeth (or is that one backwards?).

The troublesome reality is that events usually don’t come the the order prescribed by some folks. In building systems, we have:

1. Requirements
2. Design
3. Build
4. Test
5. Deploy

Wouldn’t that be nice? Well, actually, we can do things in this order and have a nice solution. Then again, we can have a better solution if… Now comes the thinking. Let’s do steps 1. through 5., pause, think, and do steps 1. through 5., several more times.

Of course we do step 1., start step 2., go back to 1., try a little of step 3., go back to 2., and so on. Work a little, learn a little, work a little, learn a little, or is the “learn a little” just a natural part of working?

In my experience, I find that things go better in one way or another if I plan for learning. Of course, I don’t want to learn too much or I will never reach some end. Then again, is learning the end?

The more I think about this, the more I want to stop and take a nap. There we go:

1. Think
2. Nap
3. Work
4. Think
5. Eat
6. Nap
7. Work

Did I get that order right? Let me think about that one.

by Dwayne Phillips

Today’s practice of delivering software and systems emphasizes continuous delivery. Today’s practice, however, fails at this. Technology is not the problem.

CI/CD is continuous integration and continuous delivery (or deployment). Work everyday. As each little increment of capability is finished, deliver it. Perhaps we deliver every day and perhaps several times every day.

Such is what we claim. In practice, we … well we sort of act contrary to what we claim.

Why do we act like hypocrites? Fear. We want to appear perfect and complete and whole. A trouble with delivering a little bit at a time is that the little bits are just that—little bits. They are not whole. They are not as good as we can imagine. If we had a little more time, i.e., a few weeks or months, we can deliver a complete system that knocks your socks off.

When you see my little increment each day, you won’t like it. And then you won’t like me and that is what I fear the most—rejection.

Now we come to candor. Let’s tell folks what they are receiving and how they are receiving it—one little bit at a time. Let’s ask folks what they think so far, and let’s be ready to listen to what they say.

Lots of folks will ask, “Is this it? Where’s the rest of it?”

Back to candor. We only promised a little at a time. In addition—and this addition is important—we promised to let them comment and we promised to listen.

People will ask, “When ya’ gonna’ do this or that?”

Well, we never thought of “this or that.” We had other plans. We learned that folks want “this or that” not what we planned. We have to change our plan. Rats. We hate not being in control. That’s another reason why we act contrary to what we claim. Our pride keeps us on our path, not on what folks actually want.

We entered this system-building field to focus on technology and not all those touchy feely things like fear, rejection, pride, and listening to ideas, hopes, and wishes of “them.”

by Dwayne Phillips

Most job interviews center on one question, “What do you know?” Here’s a suggestion for a new central question, “Can you learn?”

I don’t like job interviews. The folks interviewing me are usually quite pleasant. They want to know what I know. The central question is, “What do you know?”

That question is asked in many different ways including:

• Can you color in the lines?
• How many colors have you used in a coloring book?
• Describe a situation in which you led a team of folks trying to color a coloring book.

In order to answer all the questions in a good manner, you have to already work at the place. That place is unique as all places of employment are unique. They use a specific set of tools in a specific manner to do a specific thing. If you are specific to the third power, that indicates that you already work in that place.

Since all work places are unique, new employees have to learn the specific, specificity, specificness of that place. Huh? Oh, new employees have to learn. Every single new employee has to learn.

Hence, my suggestion for a central question, “Can you learn?”

The job interview now is about learning if the applicant can learn. This requires new questions. Describe an invented workplace; describe invented things, and determine if the applicant learned all this.

This is different. Hence, it is difficult (at first). Try it.

by Dwayne Phillips

In the past month or two, many have bemoaned the appearance of software that can write essays for students. I have yet to read concerns about software that teachers can use to write essay assignments.

ChatGPT is ruining the world. Well, at least some folks think it is ruining their world. The software writes essays. Students won’t write their essays any more. How will teachers know if the students are “doing their own work?”

First, ChatGPT doesn’t write essays. Give it a prompt like, “Write an essay about the drafting of the Declaration of Independence,” and the software will access the the world’s memory banks (we used to say things like “memory bank”) and mimic what is found. Not too exciting when you think of it.

Second, I have read many essays and posts by teachers at many levels of education bemoaning this software. What is a teacher to do? How will the teacher know if the student “did their own work?” Well, if a teacher cannot tell… Never mind that.

Finally, what I have not read is a single post or essay about how the teachers will use such software. Will the teacher be creating their own assignment or using ChatGPT. “Write a one-sentence assignment for college freshmen writers in English 102.” Ooooh, aaaaaah. Wait. Is that okay? Wait.

Why aren’t any of the teachers questioning their fellow teachers?

Perhaps we could ask that last question of ChatGPT. Well, maybe we don’t want to hear any answers.

by Dwayne Phillips

I like to speak in front of audiences. I like to take the podium and talk. Sometimes, however, I don’t take the podium. Sometimes, I need another person to stand in the way and say, “No, not today.”

I recently attended a memorial service for someone who died. Close family members stood at the podium and said a few words. I guess the words were “few” as I didn’t understand any of them. The speaker was overcome with grief and mumbled and didn’t make much sense.

The speaker’s performance was understandable. They were overwhelmed with grief during a terrible day of their life. The thing was, everyone present knew the person was overwhelmed with grief. Overwhelming grief was a theme of the day.

This happened to me several decades ago after my father was killed in an auto accident. I wanted to take the podium and say a few words. Someone stopped me. I cannot remember who that was, but I have always been grateful for that intervention.

Funerals and grief are not the only circumstances in which I shouldn’t take the podium. Someone does something I don’t like. I am fuming. I shouldn’t take the podium. Someone else, who is not fuming, should. It is there place to stop me. It is my place to realize my emotional and mental state and recognize the good deed the other person is doing.

Stop. Consider the situation. Consider my state of mind. Sometimes I don’t take the podium.

by Dwayne Phillips

This one is finished. Time for the next one. It too will finish, and another one will come after it.

Many years ago as a much younger man, I spoke with a much older and wiser man. He was about to leave an assignment and begin another assignment. He had learned the phrase that is the title of this post. “When you are on the plane and it is taking off, you say, ‘Next slide, please.'”

“Next slide, please,” is what a speaker would say to an assistant while presenting materials to an audience. These were actual, physical slides—not just another electronic or virtual slide in PowerPoint.

This one is finished. It doesn’t matter if “this one” is a two-year assignment, a mid-term exam in college, or a meal with dishes waiting to be washed. It is time for the next one. Move on.

Some slides (experiences) are thrilling while some are dull. There is a long list of opposites that I could write. Nonetheless, learn—always optional and chosen too infrequently—and move on. Regardless of the value, perceived or otherwise, let go of that prior slide. It is finished.

Besides, I’ve already presented that slide. Let’s do something new.

by Dwayne Phillips

We know the answers. We have the information. Can we access it? More importantly, can you access it?

We have the data silo. Some call it the data stovepipe. Some call it the sandbox. Others call it job (in)security.

Enough of the metaphors and cliches. We have the information. I can find it. You, however, cannot find it because I stored it on the computer network in a place you cannot access. Then there is other information. You can find it. I, however, cannot find it because it is stored on the computer network in a place I cannot access.

Isn’t this great fun? I’ve got a secret. You’ve got a secret. Someone is wasting a lot of time while someone else is grinning with knowledge, power, and foolish pride.

While we adults enjoy childish games, someone suffers. Someone doesn’t receive the right medicine or enough food or a phone call of comfort. Someone pays taxes that are wasted. Someone suffers.

We can all do better. Let’s all do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

I see amazing solutions and advances in technology everyday. Are all these, however, solving worthwhile problems?

I recently read about how persons at Nvidia created a system that modifies a live video so that the eyeballs of the person on camera point to the camera. This happens while the real eyeballs are glancing away at notes and things.

This is an amazing technical achievement.

They have modified video in real time so that a small portion of the video feed is “corrected” to a specific target. Again, an amazing technical achievement.

Is that a worthwhile problem?

The system will be quite useful to some persons. Their live video feeds will look better. Those watching the video feeds will feel more comfortable with the speaker and may listen better and… the list of possible benefits goes on.

Still, is that a worthwhile problem?

Will anyone sleep better tonight because they feel safer? Will anyone function better because their disability is reduced? Will anyone be nourished instead of hungry?

Am I being too naive?

I hope that good, smart people work on worthwhile problems.