Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

The number crunchers now rule the world. How did that happen?

Many years ago I was a number cruncher. I did then what people still call “digital signal processing.” We took analog signals, magically made them numbers in computers via gadgets called analog-to-digital converters or A/D converters, and happily applied digital approximations of mathematics. Wow. That was great fun. And, to a large extent, it all worked.

We used supercomputers (which were far advanced but are now puny compared to an iPhone), programmed in FORTRAN (another story in technology management for another day), and it all worked well. We wanted x87 co-processors in our PCs. These were special number-crunching processors that boosted the performance of the x86 CPUs. They were the predecessors of today’s GPUs, which perform the same function.

Then there were “the other guys.” “They” processed text. They considered how to teach a computer to understand subject-verb-object. They created lists of unique words. They did “stemming” and other things that linguists and English majors understood. Those things might be interesting to some persons, but really? We were crunching numbers.

What would real programmers want to do, CRUNCH or parse?

One day I woke to find that the text processors were crunching numbers. Let’s apply machine learning to text processing. Machine learning was the term the newspapers used for pattern recognition and machine intelligence (PAMI) and all types of supervised and unsupervised learning and long equations that were digital approximations of mathematics—wait, we are using the same terms used earlier. These machine learning algorithms turned text into digital approximations of linear algebra. Matrix multiply. “DO LOOPS” (an ancient term sometimes quoted by old FORTRAN programmers) and all that. The levels of the loops were deep, but they were just loops and IF and THEN and ELSE. The same thing us old “number crunchers” did.

All of a sudden, those linguists and English majors wanted to talk to “us” not “them.” And, some of “them” wanted to become “us.”

Time and technology march on. Now we are all crunching numbers to a greater extent than ever before. MegaFLOPS has become some greek-prefix-FLOPS that I’ve never heard before. Enough ranting for an old man.

Now, where can I find one of those new Nvidia GPUs that has an air conditioner built in to keep the computer from bursting into flames so I can pop it into my mega PC and crunch some numbers?

by Dwayne Phillips

If someone asks a question in English, please answer in English. Please avoid some other private language.

In recent conversations, I asked, “Your research, how far ahead in time are you working? Your work may become reality in 1, 5, 10 years?” The answer was, “TRL 4.” (see this for a translation) Deep sigh.

I asked in English. Please reply in English. Oh, we don’t talk in those terms. We talk in our own private language that only we understand. If you don’t understand us, you are not worthy of us.

Perhaps I react too harshly. These are smart, caring people who mean well. They are using a language that is near and dear to them. It is not, however, the language that I used to start the conversation. Sadly, this occurs in many fields of endeavor.

It is not easy to discuss matters that are unique to a field in plain English. Each field has its own vocabulary. Sometimes that is writ of habeas corpus, electrocardiogram, IMSI and TMSI, or domain name service. There are English-language explanations for these. Let’s try to use them. Please.

by Dwayne Phillips

Back in 1990, I was part of this cloud computing and remote work—in a manner of speaking.

Cloud computing has enabled remote work—as we know it today. I guess the last five words are the key—as we know it today. Some of us have done this type of work for decades.

Back in 1990, I wrote magazine articles for several publications. The most frequent magazine was C/C++ Users Journal. This was so long ago that people talked about the C programming language. It wasn’t until later that we tossed in “C++.”

Yes, in 1990, there was a form of electronic communication. The ARPANET had led to email and bulletin board services for some of us. I was not one of us at the time. I wrote proposals on the computer, printed them, and mailed them to magazine publishers via the US Mail using envelopes and stamps and all that. The magazine publishers replied via the same US Mail.

After a few articles were published, a publisher might call me on the telephone. We would talk about future articles and series of articles. I would write the articles and mail the paper and the floppy disks to the publishers.

I was working remotely with people I never met. Our relationship was in the cloud of uncertainty and suspense. It worked. I met a few of the publishers with whom I worked at conferences. That was a great joy. It was rare. Perhaps the rarity increased the joy.

Around 1995, Windows 95 arrived. It was the first Microsoft Windows that really worked for everyone. Also arriving was America OnLine (AOL) with its free CDs that gave free but limited accounts. AOL had email and such. Magazine publishers created websites with editorial guidelines, publication schedules, and requests for articles. We communicated via a cloud of networks that I really didn’t understand. It worked. We were remotely working with one another. Gone were the envelopes and stamps.

I guess times have changed with advances in technology. We don’t use external cameras, microphones, and speakers. I have half-a-dozen external plastic microphones in a cardboard box at the bottom of a pile in a closet somewhere. Everything is built in and “just works” in a manner of speaking.

Still, let’s not forget that this is old stuff for many of us.

by Dwayne Phillips

Perhaps this is the complaint of an old man, but all the Zoomer Teams meetings just aren’t getting it done.

The title of this post is an old expression from an old time. We used to talk with people on the telephone. That worked to a point, but we couldn’t “picture” the person. We needed to see them.

Okay, technology fixed that. We have computers and communications. We have $5 video cameras and $5 microphones and speakers. We “see” one another. We can put a face to a name.

Well, that works a bit. It is “better than nothing.” Let’s be candid, it doesn’t work.

These distance everything everythings we are doing don’t work. We don’t have the time to notice the little things and build pictures in our minds that bring us closer to reality. Time and physical proximity allow us to ask questions and discuss matters that seemingly don’t matter.

• What is that pen you always carry?
• Why do you put a pencil behind your ear?
• You roll your foot around while typing, does it hurt?
• You bring your lunch in paper wrappers instead of Tupperware, is there a reason?

Stupid little notices and questions and conversations. These help us put a face to a name. These help us understand why someone turns red when I use a phrase from my childhood. These help us work through the misunderstandings that are common in working daily with others. These add to a pleasant and productive workplace. These help us sleep at night.

Once I know someone pretty well, I can have Zoomer Teams meetings and “get by.” New people? No, I can’t put a face to a name. Perhaps I am too old for this. Perhaps I have something in all this meandering.

by Dwayne Phillips

I only want to pay for what I use. Caution. While that sounds fine at first, there are implications. Technology has enabled us to go in that perilous direction.

I only want to pay for what I use. I have this cable TV package (Yes, I am one of those old folks who has not “cut the cord.”) that has several hundred channels. I don’t watch most of them—ever. Why must I pay for those channels I don’t watch? Just charge me for the channels I watch!

Life might be grand if my wish was true. Right? Maybe not.

Car makers are now offering use of features in their vehicles on a subscription basis. “Subscription” is a way of saying “Only pay for what you use.” Want that rear window defroster to work? $10 a month, please. Want that radio to receive AM and FM? $10 a month, please. Want satellite radio? $20 a month, please. Want electric locks on the doors to work? Same answer.

Buy a full-featured call, but the car maker remotely turns on and off just the things I want and am willing to purchase on a subscription basis. That sure will be complicated for the car maker, right? Wrong. Technology has enabled it all. The maker is connected to my car. The maker has computers that track my wants and purchases.

Television at home? Same thing. All the streaming services have computers. They can track what I want to watch and sell or rent me just about anything at just about any time.

There are days when I want hundreds of things at my disposal and I can use what I wish without having to pay yet another bill. Some theme parks charge one price to enter and ride any ride you want without other charges. I guess we call the “all inclusive.” That is nice—sometimes.

But I just want to pay for what I use.

Fine. I can. I may not, however, like the size of my bill. There is no free lunch.

And as managers of work and leaders of people (yes, we come to that) “other duties as assigned” is not covered by piece purchase. We have lived for generations with hiring a person to come to work, do their primary duties, and then do everything else that comes up. If we truly go to piece purchase, that will mean that we hire persons to do one thing and be paid for that one thing. Something else unforeseen arrives? Well, we have to negotiate the salary for doing that because we want to only pay for what we want.

by Dwayne Phillips

Any topic and just about any situation. Please provide three pages that contain a thousand words and several figures.

Right or wrong, we reach a point in life and history that we need information on this or that. What format? Try the title of this post. On three pieces of standard-size paper (not a Tweet or whatever else we use this week), provide a thousand words and several figures. Standard font on standard paper is about 500 words per piece of paper. Hence, two pages of words and one page of figures will do.

Old fashioned? Perhaps. Effective? Yes. This still works pretty well.

This blog post fails its recommendation. Again, this is just a quick note asking for something. Tell me about:

• Cloud computing
• Crypto currency
• Salary cap and free agency in professional sports
• The situation in the Black Sea and how it affects diet and life in the regions south of there
• Evidence that supports and discredits the theory of man-made climate change

Cover with three pages, a thousand words, plus figures. Some topics make this more difficult than others. Regardless, thank you for your efforts to expand or condense the report.

by Dwayne Phillips

This solution didn’t scale, so we stopped using it when it hit its limit. Perhaps the actual explanation is that we lost interest in this solution, so we stopped using it when we became tire of it.

There are many occasions when a new system works when it is new. Everyone is excited. The new system does things the old system did not do for us. This is great. Let’s all use it.

Months or days or hours later, fizzle replaces sizzle.

Scale: that is the answer. The new solution didn’t scale. It worked as a pilot project or an initial release (the term people like nowadays is MVP or Minimum Viable Product). When more and more people put in more and more data and had more and more demands, the new solution simply couldn’t handle the heavier load. It was nice, but not sufficient.

Another answer: we lost interest. It seems that we really didn’t need the new solution. We probably didn’t need the old solution much, either. It seems that we didn’t have a problem that needed a solution. When we quit using both the new and old solutions, no one complained to us. Hmmm. What were we doing?

New solution? Old solution? This is an example of “solution probleming.” That is the opposite of problem solving. In solution probleming, someone finds a solution or technique or an implementation to a new idea. This is great fun. There must be a problem somewhere that this solution solves, right? Huh?

Sometimes solution probleming works great wonders. See, e.g., the smart phone. Most of the time—fizzle.

“The new solution didn’t scale” is a good explanation. It is the type of explanation that brings small nods of sufficient agreement at meetings where important nod-ders meet. No one is fired and no one is criticized.

Next?

by Dwayne Phillips

When my work is done, my day is done. That is what I want. Really? Caution. That leads down a perilous path.

I work from home most of the time. This pandemic and such and other factors mean that I don’t have an office in the building. I can go to the building now and then and sit in a “hotel seat.” Still, I have to punch the clock. I am supposed to be online and available for set hours of the day. Boring. I do my work, my day is done. Let’s get real.

Caution: that used to be called piece work.

When I was a kid, my neighbor ran his own business. He would pay kids to put ad papers in the doors of homeowners. We would run and run and run for hours in the hot Texas summer putting pieces of paper in doors. We were paid a penny per piece of paper. We were not paid by the hour. When we delivered our stack of 500 pieces of paper, we were paid $5.

Piece work: review a document, provide comments, write a report. The day is done. Be paid just for that one piece of work. What happens when there are no more documents to review, comments to provide, or reports to write? No pay.

Maybe I would like piece work. Maybe my paycheck would be much smaller. I wouldn’t like that.

Complicated? Yes. It is complicated for an employer to track all the pieces of work given to all the persons and pay them just for the pieces of work completed. Technology, however, has enabled employers to track all that and pay just the right amount.

Consider restaurants. Computers can track customers, money coming in, and number of waiters waiting. Not enough money coming in? You, you, and you go home. Your shift ended early. Your work is done. We won’t pay you as much money today as you expected. Complicated? Yes. Technology, however, enables this and some restaurant companies are using these systems now and have been for several years.

Piece work can be perilous. Take caution in wishing for it.

by Dwayne Phillips

Vin Scully died last week. He retired almost six years ago. I wrote about him in September 2016. Here is a repeat of that.

I won’t hear my old neighbor’s voice anymore. Vin Scully retires.

It was 40-something years ago. I was a kid playing in the back yard in southern California. I played to the music of Vin Scully describing Dodger baseball games.

I never saw our neighbor—Mr. Garcia. He had erected some sort of bamboo curtain along the fence so that we couldn’t see him as he toiled on this and that in his backyard. I always heard him. He had his AM radio blasting the Dodgers games six months a year. His radio was too loud as you could hear it several backyards away. No one complained about the noise because it wasn’t noise. It was Vin Scully.

Vin Scully was the sound of baseball. This was the 1970s, and America’s youth—all of it— played baseball. Vin Scully floated through the neighborhood.

As a kid, I thought all baseball announcers sounded like Vin Scully. It was one of the terrible disappointments of the transition from youth to adult that I learned how Vin Scully was the exception to the rule. How did the rest of America grow up without his voice?

Our neighbor, Mr. Garcia, treated the neighborhood to Vin Scully. Our neighbors shared the sound of a distant neighbor chatting at a baseball game. Vin Scully was our neighborhood even though he was at Chavez Ravine some hundred miles away.

Vin Scully retired. The world will be a little less neighborly.

…and Vin Scully has died. The world is a little less neighborly. That is a shame.

by Dwayne Phillips

It is important to use the right or correct word and avoid using the wrong word.

This is an old fundamental in writing and speaking. Why am I writing about this? Because I continue to encounter professionals who make this error often.

What is the right word and the wrong word? Consider cooking a potato. Put a raw potato into a pot containing water. Heat the pot of water containing the potato. The water bubbles and the potato cooks. Did we fry the potato or boil the potato? Which is the right word—fry or boil? Well, the accepted right word is boil. That is what happens to a potato when it sits in boiling water.

Quality assurance and quality control are not the same words and they don’t mean the same thing. One is the right word in some situations and the wrong word in other situations.

Function and attribute are not the same words and they don’t mean the same thing. One is the right word in some situations and the wrong word in other situations.

Analyze and test are not the same words and they don’t mean the same thing. One is the right word in some situations and the wrong word in other situations.

This could continue for days with more examples.

There are days when I am tired and I grab the first word that spills from my brain. If I have the energy, I stop myself. I look up the word (the Internet is a big help here) to ensure what spilled from my brain is the right or wrong word. Fatigue is a difficult foe. Please do what is needed to use the right word.