Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Data entry, one of the lower-paid professions, is prone to errors, and some can be fatal.

During the aftermath of the recent Hurricane Ida, a person close to me needed an essential service. By “essential” I mean if the service did not arrive, someone would die.

I repeatedly called the service provider. Finally, a person called back noting a possible error. Some digging into a database while on the phone showed that the address of the person close to me was incorrectly entered into the customer database. Instead of “West Smith Rd” or “W Smith Rd,” the entry was “West W Smith Rd.” Well, “West W Smith Rd” did not exist, hence, the account of the person close to me did not exist, hence, no services would be delivered, hence…fatality.

I was fortunate to be speaking to a competent and conscientious person who fixed the database, made several internal calls, and delivered the essential services just in time.

Such a data entry error is often called “fat fingering” the database with the thought that a finger wandered from one key to another on the keyboard and entered the wrong character. This is an honest error that occurs often. People perform data entry; people are fallible, and the mistake is understandable.

What is not understandable is that a company that delivers essential services would not have several automated and manual tests to catch and correct data entry errors. A simple automated test would compare the address entered to other databases. If the address does not exist anywhere else, have a person check the entry. The same goes for phone numbers, the spelling of names, etc. That is one simple test, there are many others available.

Fat fingering the database costs people jobs, income, health care, essential services, etc. and lives. There are techniques available to catch and correct the inevitable human error. Please, please use these techniques with your databases. Lives may be at stake.

by Dwayne Phillips

A phrase to add to every assignment or action item or anything that goes on a “to do” list.

Years ago, author and consultant Jerry Weinberg gave an assignment to attendees of his writing seminar. It was something like:

1. Think of what you should write today.
2. Write that.
3. Do that tomorrow, too.

The third step is the key. It keeps me doing what it is I should be doing. There are many variations to this, but all of them shine when the third step is included. For examples:

1. Think of a person you should encourage today.
2. Encourage that person,
3. Do that tomorrow, too.

and…

1. Find a mental exercise that improves your fill-in-the-blank.
2. Do that mental exercise.
3. Do that tomorrow, too.

and…

1. Find a person you should hug today.
2. Hug that person.
3. Do that tomorrow, too.

and…well, we could go on. Please go on. …and do that tomorrow, too.

by Dwayne Phillips

I find it unfortunate, but no-cost learning doesn’t exist. I guess this goes back to the concept of if it is worth something, it is worth something.

No-cost learning? Boy, I sure do want that!

Free online courses have a price tag of $0. They do, however, require time, energy, and other resources that don’t cost dollars.

I have to find these courses. I have to choose which one to take. Hmmm, there went an hour of searching and thinking and choosing. That cost something in time and thought. Then I work through the course. Oooops, there was that word, “work.” Work costs me something, otherwise I wouldn’t call it “work.”

I gain. I now know more than I did before. Good for me. The effort was “worth it.” And oooops, there was that word “effort.” Effort is not free. It costs me something. More costs in this no-cost learning. Hmmm.

I guess that if the learning is worth something, it is worth something. The expense I pay in time, effort, thought, choice, (gosh this list is getting long) is worth what I learn. And what I learn is worth more than what I expend, otherwise I wouldn’t do it.

No-cost learning? Yes, I want that. I have never seen it.

Dwayne Phillips

We can tell when we have affected another person by observing their energy.

One of the better questions to ask when trying to convince or teach or somehow affect another person is, “When do they gain energy?”

Consider:

At what point does the other person change their posture? That is the energy. That is the topic that is important to them.

When do they:

• raise their voice
• sit up straight
• bolt up
• stand up
• stop breathing
• look over their glasses
• widen their eyes
• change the expression on their face
• this list goes on and one.

All these actions require energy. If the action occurs, the other person experienced a jolt of energy. I have affected them in some way. I now know what they want to discuss, what they want, what they will work towards.

How do I notice that energy? By noticing. By observing. By putting some of my energy into the effort.

Some folks are much better at this noticing that me. I have to try harder, but I can do it. I find that most persons can as well.

by Dwayne Phillips

If I cannot think of three things wrong with my latest great idea, I am not thinking enough.

Great ideas. I get lots of ’em. Great successes? Not so many.

And why not? Because most of my “great ideas” have problems, many problems. If I spent a little time trying to find those problems, well, life would be easier.

Patience. Sit and consider the great idea. What are at least three things wrong with this? Nothing? Really? Consider:

1 People: Who are the people involved in this great idea? The producers? The consumers? The investors? Why would any of these people not like this great idea? How might it hurt them? How might it reduce their standing in the community? Enough questions. Surely I can find a problem or three in here.

2 Process: How are we going to make this idea into reality? Do I need to invent a method? Why doesn’t a method already exist?

3 Product: What is the final product of this great idea? Can it exist? Do we need to invent several technologies to make it?

Well, enough questions about the abstract. Apply some of them to my latest greatest idea. Take at least five minutes or five days to think. Sometimes the thinking reveals a few more latest great ideas. Sometimes it shows that, well, it wasn’t such a great idea after all.

by Dwayne Phillips

Reduced complexity optimizes for simplicity. Increased complexity optimizes for simplicity in another form. Which simplicity is “best” is a matter of situation.

Apple has recently moved to their own “Apple Silicon” processors. In general terms, Apple switched from Intel’s processors to ARM’s processors. ARM processors are a form of RISC. Intel processors are a form of CISC.

RISC: Reduced Instruction Set Computer.

CISC: Complex Instruction Set Computer.

RISC means there are fewer instructions that the computer must be able to execute. Hence, the computer is simpler and performs tasks faster. The computer programmer, however, must “figure out” how to accomplish any given task.

CISC means there are more instructions that the computer must be able to execute. Hence, the computer is more complex and performs tasks slower. The computer programmer, however, doesn’t have to “figure out” as much to accomplish any given task.

In one case, the machine itself is simpler. In the other case, the programmer’s task is simpler. We have more simplicity in both cases.

Which of the two “simplicities” is better? That is a matter of the situation at hand. This means someone chooses. Do we choose after thought or simply fall into the choice (another simpler, yikes!)?

by Dwayne Phillips

Every generation has a default question that hearkens backwards. These can be quite irritating, but return the evolutionary thinker to earth. And that is needed.

Way back in the 1990s, the world was crawling out of one generation of computing into another. No matter what great new thing there was, there was one question asked, “Is it DOS compatible?”

(For those too young to have been there, DOS is Disk Operating System. It is what turned Bill Gates into Bill Gate$ and turned Microsoft into Micro$soft. People wanted to be back in the 1980s when it was the 1990s.)

Nowadays, the question is, “Does it have a USB port?” This means, “Can I connect my thumb drive to it? Can I plug my smartphone in it to recharge? Can I do what I have been doing the last few years?”

Those backwards-looking questions are quite irritating for the forward-leaning thinkers of the world. Those questions, however, are necessary. Those questions are this week’s version of, “Hey, earth calling. Your idea has to work here—where we are now. Will it?”

Aargh. Yes, the idea has to work with those folks who accomplish work. Well, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe the idea can make life a little easier for a few folks I select. I can make a solution that works for my mother and no one else or for my grandson and no one else. Those things are nice and valuable to a few.

And those things mean nothing to 98.6% of everyone. Does it have a USB port? If it doesn’t, 98.6% of folks don’t care about it.

By Dwayne Phillips

Restoring trust in something called a shared reality won’t be easy. Or will it be so simple that it won’t be easy? Here is a suggestion.

“We’ve lost a shared reality.”

I heard this in a recent presentation. I’m afraid I lost the reference, so I cannot give due credit to the researcher who said this. Some searching shows that several persons over the past several years have stated this in one form or another. I suppose it falls under common knowledge, common sense, or urban myth.

I take this to mean that we have lost trust in the things we read. “The Washington Post reports…” “The New York Times has broken a story that…” “Apple News has a story that…” So? Who cares? Those sources are suspect. So is the Centers for Disease Control, the World Bank, the BBC, and anyone or anything else we mention.

Why? Because they have made their famous mistakes. They have published things that were wrong. They have blatantly lied and been exposed at times. They have lost the trust of the public.

The Weather Channel says it is sunny and hot outside. I walk outside and confirm it. Facts. Easy to confirm. “Hottest July ever.” Well, huh, I can neither confirm nor deny that. Trusted source? There are none of those.

What do we do? Here is a suggestion. I find it simple, but since I am not in the journalism business where salaries are paid by advertising dollars, so I have my doubts about it. Here it is:

Report the news on the news; put editorial on the editorials.

People would know what are facts. People would turn to editorials for interpretations and speculations.

Grab any “news” story from almost any source. It is full of editorial and opinion. What were the facts? Who did what, when, where, and how. The “why” is on the editorial, not in the news.

I find this simple. There must be something else happening for something so simple to restore something so important to be stopped. I don’t know what that something else is.

by Dwayne Phillips

We decide that, “We will stop this and never do it again.” That holds until we discover “this” and “it” are necessary.

I flew to California recently. On the flight, instead of giving us a bag of pretzels, they gave us a clear plastic bad that had a small clear plastic bottle of water with a cookie wrapped in plastic and pretzels wrapped in plastic.

Before the year of the virus, such packaging and distribution would have been vilified as a horrible use of petroleum (fossil fuels) and landfill. Now, however, these sanitary wrappings are wonderful life savers—a necessity.

Go back two years. “Times have changed. This world has changed. Attitudes have changed.” Landfills are full of petroleum-based plastics. Stop it. No more. We have refillable water bottles that are not made of fossil fuels (we use lots of fossil fuels to make them, but never mind).

The past year we have nothing but plastic bottles and bags holding water and cookies and face masks and hand sanitizer. Goodness, did you ever think you would see so much hand sanitizer everywhere? And then there was all that plastic wrap around all those mountains of toilet paper.

Funny how we’ve changed what we consider good and evil and necessary. We are an odd lot.

by Dwayne Phillips

If you want something in return for something, state that contract first.

Person A: Guess what? blah blah blah.

Person B: Oh my goodness.

Person A: You can’t tell anyone what I just told you.

Person B: Why not?

Person A: Because.

Person B: You should have stated the non-disclosure agreement before telling me blah blah blah.

Person A: Well, you can’t tell anyone what I just told you.

Person B: I didn’t give you permission to tell me something that put me in a predicament.

Person A: Well, you can’t betray my trust.

Person B: What trust? You just told me something that you shouldn’t have told me.

Person A: Well, I need you to help me here.

Person B: You should have asked for help first.

Person A: Silence.

Person B: I will do what I think is best with this blah blah blah. That may not be what you think is best.