Good Points

https://medium.com/make-work-better/w-edwards-demings-red-beads-experiment-dea18bfc2aba

Callousness

I've been thinking about the murder of that healthcare CEO... a lot of people have, and while I don't think I'm adding anything new it still feels like it needs to be said.

Some people seem appalled by the jokes and memes and general celebration of what is basically a murder.

While I'm sure his friends and family are devastated, and the callousness of the general public is hurtful, there's obviously more to it than that.

It is, in many ways, people just demonstrating the callousness they have felt - over and over again - from a system that makes it clear that they don't give a shit how the average person suffers.

I have wondered, sometimes, about what goes through the minds of the 1%. How they can make decisions that you would think any human being would find appalling. Are they even human? Do they not have a heart?

Sure, self-interest is something everyone feels... and it's understandable people are reluctant to ignore a 'threat' to their self interest. 

But how, for example, did the people behind the decisions in tobacco companies who fought tooth and nail to deny their products caused cancer live with themselves? 

We are talking about people's lives here... and yet making money was more important.

The same for the oil companies. I don't know if they truly believe their cherry picked evidence that oil usage doesn't affect the climate, or if they just think that with their money they'll be fine... and don't care about anyone else. 

Is it callousness and cruelty? Self delusion? Do they think they're good people? Or are they so cynical that they don't care?

Over and over again, we have multiple examples. Disney fighting to deny compensation to a man who lost his wife.

Even older stories - of the Radium Girls. 

Of companies that - again - fought tooth and nail against safety requirements. Someone might lose a hand or a leg due to unsafe practices, but they'd rather say 'tough luck' and fight against them than show even a modicum of care for the employees who make their products.

Most of the time, it's some faceless and unknown 'they'. The old white man in a board room, wearing a suit, talking up about how great he is and complaining about whatever threatens his ability to buy a seventh yacht.

This CEO apparently was related to Anthem's decision to limit paying for anesthesia.

anesthesia.

Everyone knows someone who had a surgery go longer than expected. Surgeons don't always know what they will find when they open someone up, and complications are not unusual.

The idea that someone could go under for surgery and come out of it with an insane amount of debt just because the procedure took longer than expected?

Horrifying

Or worse, that they would try to reduce the anesthesia sooner than they should and someone would suffer, in pain, because of it.

Was there nobody in the room who saw the problem here?

Did... noone have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of someone going under the knife?

Do they not think they'll ever need surgery themselves? Or not worry about any  unexpected expenses if they do?

Again - are they even human?

So somebody actually put a face to one of those unnamed decision makers, and took a shot at him.

Killed him, even.

And since I don't know this guy, since all I know is that he is part of that horrible system, it is really hard not to think 'good riddance'.

Fuck those guys.

There are, of course, a lot of problems here. The issues are larger than just one CEO - they're systemic.

And while some people are fed up to the point that they just want to see it all burn to the ground (there was an interesting article about Trump, saying his supporters are basically the ones that just want to tear it all down), I've for the most part felt that that's a mistake.

For a couple of reasons... first, that tearing down the system tends to hurt the average person more than those insulated boardroom assholes. 'Too big to fail' angers people because that's part of how these guys continue to do what they do. 

Second - the source of the problem doesn't go away no matter how satisfying it might be chop of the nobles heads with a guillotine. Generally we're just replacing one group of callous and heartless rich people with another, and it's just a matter of time before the same issues occur. (Like we're seeing today.)

I understand the frustration that led people to support Trump, and my real issue with him is that he's not going to actually address any of that. 

He's even more callous and heartless than most. We already saw it, with how he handled covid. He didn't care at all about how many people were actually dying, and only cared for how the numbers looked

“I like the numbers being where they are.”

He said in March of 2020. Because the optics were more important than coming up with the best way of handling a cruise ship with infected passengers.

I've said before, I think the Bible basically is telling us to 'be a good shepherd' and keep the health of our citizens at the forefront of our decision making, because doing so will steer you right.

When someone had blatantly shown they don't have that guiding light, it's pretty much guaranteed that their decisions will go wrong.

The Democrats were not all that great of a choice, sure. But I thought, if they won, that it might be possible to fix some of this shit from within the system.

Now it's hard to believe any of that is possible, and I'm dreading the upcoming train wreck as he continues to make callous and cruel decisions that will hurt the very people who voted for him.

But enough about that. Let's go back to this CEO... and the reaction of the general public.

For the stranger I don't know, but who I'm sure was a human just like myself, and for his friends and family who cared, I am sorry.

But for yet another wealthy man who is part of such a callous and cruel system - good riddance. 

It doesn't feel like any of them care unless they suffer the consequences of their decisions, and I can't say I'd be upset if it happened to more of you.

 

Now THAT is a Good Book Quote

"Idealists are frustrating. Infuriating as they are inflexible. They hold impossibly naïve positions, and equivocate, and split hairs, and get lost in pointless hypotheticals—often as the world burns down around them. And much as they’d like to believe otherwise, they’re anything but perfect. If anything, they’re more susceptible to despair and discouragement than the rest of us. It’s that detachment from reality that makes people like me necessary in a crisis. The pragmatists, the mathematical monsters, the coldhearted bastards who believe good ends justify almost any means. The necessary evils. But if you take that as a license to smother the people who resist, who dare to hope, who wholeheartedly uphold the conviction that we don’t have to become monsters to destroy monsters, and genuinely, perhaps even stupidly, believe that things can be better? When the crisis is over and the smoke fades, evil is all you’re left with."

  -- Matt, Double Blind Book 2

Nice Unscientific Breakdown of Employee Types

https://www.tumblr.com/balioc/768319203871719424?source=share

I guess I'm a blend of Craftsman and Normie? Maybe a slight tinge of Fanatic... 

On Cocoons and the Building Thereof

A couple of posts ago I referred to the book Hope for the Flowers, and mentioned that instinctive sense that this is something that will help me become who I want to be. 

It got me thinking about where I am now, and why my current position doesn't fit that description.

The journey of self discovery  is never ending, and I've learned a few things about myself since I changed careers (again) and got a Master's in Computer Science.

1) I like solving puzzles. This is good and bad, in that I've been able to really dig into the weeds on parts of our application and now know those parts better than team members who have been there a lot longer. It's part of why they like me so much. But it's bad... because for the most part the offshore team has the manpower and resources to do intensive work on things (like writing scripts to automate some of our tasks, or building dashboards to capture key information, or figuring out how and why the app works the way it does and trying to illustrate it with a diagram) whereas our onshore team - my team - is small and all too often dealing with whatever the issue of the day is. 

I have a list of self-identified projects I'd like to work on for things that would make our jobs easier, but all too often I am getting pulled into this meeting or that, or getting asked to put together the information needed for an ask on one of our tickets, or some other thing, and I rarely get uninterrupted time to focus on any of those things.

I think - I know I can handle other tasks. I've been in leadership positions before. I can do the endless meetings and powerpoint presentations and plan and manage people and discuss KPI's and whatever... but I think I actually like just quietly working on some puzzle or another. 

As I learn more about infosec and cyber security, I realize that there are parts of it that aren't actually that appealing to me. I get the whole CIA concept, and the need to quantify business risks and make the business case for some course of action or mitigation, and although I'm confident I am capable of doing so, I don't think I actually want to deal with any of that.

Instead, I think I would really enjoy doing something like reverse engineering malware or something. Perhaps learning more about how to look through Splunk logs to identify malicious activity and track down the cause. Unfortunately, tbh I am mentally exhausted at the end of the work day and don't really have the energy to teach myself what I would need to know for yet another career change, and I think it's unlikely someone will hire me with the understanding that I would have to learn quite a lot about the field before I could be productive. (I think I would kick ass at it once I get past the learning period, but whatever.)

But puzzle solving in and of itself isn't enough. If that was all I needed, my current job would work well enough. This leads me to the next point:

2) I want to have a positive impact. 

It's not that I'm not having a positive impact in my current position. I actually kind of like pointing something out or asking a question, and knowing that I have potentially saved hours of misguided efforts. Like 'hey, this source connector needs to have an IP and port address to work, and it goes through a jump server to get to it's destination. Have we submitted the request to set up that passage through the jump server? If so what's the port number we're using?'

(Note: I am trying not to go into too much technical detail, not just to save the sanity of non-techie people, but also because mentioning specific software can give away too much information to potential hackers.)

And that's all well and good, and rewarding, but ultimately the job itself is... okay I guess. It's mostly putting money in the corporate pockets, honestly. Our app does sometimes impact the end user (i.e. a normal person who is a customer of our client), and I do want to make sure they don't have any issues. Like a website taking too long to load, or having inaccurate information regarding their usage. 

It just doesn't seem as important as pushing back the encroachment of hackers who potentially make using the internet so risky that nobody would trust it. Or identifying nation/state actors trying to do some shadowy activity. We seem to have a budding cyber war already occurring outside the awareness of the average person, and I want to have some say in how that goes.

Which is somewhat related to another point...

3) I appear to have a good amount of potential for a variety of different things. 

That seems very vague and perhaps a bit self-congratulatory, so let me explain a bit more.

Throughout my life, the one adjective people regularly use to describe me is 'intelligent'.

This seems like rather boring and non-descriptive when I think about it. Like... okay, I guess I'm smart, but so what? I pick things up quickly, I learn fast, I can solve more complicated puzzles.

Great. Makes my life easier. It's part of why I do well in classroom environments, and generally make whoever hires me happy. 

It's also a trait I never really chose. Like having brown hair or hazel eyes. 

"You have brown hair."

"You are intelligent."

Why do people act like the second statement is so much better than the first? 

Granted, intelligence is part of why I'm good at puzzle solving. But then why is puzzle solving any more valued or important than someone being good at drawing? Or good at handling emergencies in an ER?

If I were to get down to it, intelligence is more an indicator at how fast you can learn something, and how deep you can go when you master a field. And it can be applied to almost any field of interest, but you still have to put in the work to learn and master that field.

In other words - intelligence might make you reach a certain point of mastery in computer science faster than someone else, or do the same for civil engineering, or physics, or any number of fields... but you still have to put in the work, and you don't really have the time to master everything. 

So it's more like it gives you more options, and you can perhaps go a bit further than others in whatever area you focus on. (It can also lead to jealousy and pushback. I know in my first platoon, as a young butterbar lieutenant, one of my NCO's said a fellow officer was less than supportive because he felt like I could 'just pick up a manual and memorize it'. Which seems a bit exaggerated from my perspective. I generally think holistically and have to figure out where to place that information in the greater whole before I can really remember it, and I'm terrible at remembering exact quotes and phrases. But sure. Close enough.)

But to get back to the main point - intelligence can help you succeed at almost anything.

Which is why even though I have been doing well at my current job, it feels like only a fraction of what I'm capable of. (There was a reason 'be all that you can be' appealed to me back in the day. I was sad to discover that that's a lot harder to achieve than it seems.)

Those instincts saying that this is something that will help? It's generally because there's a position that seems challenging.

The right type of challenging, too. Something right at the edge between 'not really challenging, and therefore won't help you grow' and 'so overwhelmingly challenging that it's too much, and you will fail.'

Something that pushes you past your comfort level, but isn't setting you up for failure by being impossible to achieve.

There might be more to it than this, but my dog is asking to go out and I don't have anything more to add for now.

Addendum

The last post reminded me of something I've heard about before, but tends to slip my mind. 

Mainly that international organized crime is a growing threat, though it's hard to get specific details. Russia is sometimes called a mafia state, for example, and that is saying something specific about how Putin governs. 

It reminds me of something I thought, back when I was on an organized crime kick and reading up on it. 

See, the members tended to have a worldview where they looked down on the typical law abiding citizen. They will spend a lot of time and energy coming up with crooked ways to make money. 

But aside from their possible influence in adding expiration dates to milk, they're pretty much parasites. 

Think about it. 

If all the people they prey upon disappeared, who would be growing food or building cars?

All the things they enjoy depend on the people they look down upon. 

Take it the other way, and think about what would happen if all the people who think like them disappeared. 

There might be some unpredictable second or third order effects (i.e. resisting a despotic government generally means using black market ties, which means crime. I got on that organized crime kick because it seemed to fit with counterterrorism after all) but for the most part humanity would be fine. 

Perhaps even more than fine, especially if they're going around collecting kompromat so they can manipulate powerful people. 

Death Threats

On the one hand, I understand how scary this is to individuals. 

On the other hand, the consequences of intimidation to this degree are pretty horrible, and I don't know that there's any way it'll get better besides refusing to let them intimidate you. 

I guess I'll just say they all have to make the choice they can live with, but I think I'd rather they just outright resigned. If that has happened enough masse, maybe we wouldn't be stuck in our current situation.

The Madness Begins

He isn't even in office yet, but the chaos of his first term is already appearing. 

He or one of his staff proposes some crazy thing (often illegal if done as originally reported), there's pushback, then they either flip flop entirely or say it's actually something else that's borderline legal, and it just never really ends. 

I will probably wait until there's more actual action and details before saying much about the possible court martial of military generals supposedly because of Afghanistan. I initially thought the issues with that were pretty obvious, but in retrospect the average American probably doesn't actually know. 

Let's see what actually winds up happening first, though. 

I did find myself thinking a bit more about that 'Kingdom of Heaven' concept, though more in the context of an old favorite - the story Hope for the Flowers. 

If I had to explain why I take issue with the 'chriatians' supporting Trump, it's that they are engaging in the fight to get to the top of the caterpillar pillar - whereas I think God actually wants us to learn how to become butterflies. 

I wonder, sometimes. What a society that enables that would be like. 

In the story, they mention that spinning the cocoon is instinctual. There's not a clear guide telling you what to do, or how it would help. 

I think I've felt that before. That instinctive sense that this is something that will help me become who I want to be. 

Alas, they rarely have worked out. I get why, in a sense. It's hard to tell a large bureaucratic organization that they should let you do something unusual or different. Especially if you can't give a clear argument for how it will benefit them. 

At the same time, it's so frustrating. 

And I know that I'm not the only one who has experienced that. 

I wonder, if everyone is given the resources to follow those instincts - what would happen? 

Would people only go for the 'cool' things, and we'd have a scarcity of people doing the boring and tedious but necessary tasks? Or will that scarcity lead to better pay, so more people choose them? Or will it spur more automation? Or maybe people can take short stints doing them... 

How much of the competition for those 'cool' jobs is associated with the desire for financial stability or public recognition anyway? I've never liked the suggestion that people in power deliberately want the average American to feel financially insecure. I don't believe that sort of motivation makes for good employees, but that's the sort of thing I'm sure the billionaires wouldn't listen to me on. 

A society that makes it easier for people to follow their instincts, to pursue their goals in life and develop their interests and skills. 

It's a shame we seem to have gotten farther and farther away from that over the years. 

Addendum

 Yesterday I talked a little about why I feel so upset about Trump's electoral win. 

There's a lot more I could say, especially on the role of civic law vs heavenly law, but I actually want to tie what I said back to an earlier post. The one about the endgame in chess.

See - Trump and his supporters gained power through cynical lying and manipulation. And while that obviously has given them control over all three branches of government, I would still argue that it is like  building a house on sand. 

First - there are numerous Americans who voted for someone they thought would 'Make America Great Again'.

That means the Trump administration has to deliver success. Real improvement in the quality of the average American's life. 

Scapegoats and fingerpointing might work for a bit, but it will only last so long. There are some very real and sincere doubts about how this whole deportation thing is going to work. Are they rounding up all the agricultural workers who harvest our food? In which case... won't food prices rise? Or will Trump make some sort of deal to overlook agricultural workers, in which case he'll have to hide his inability to deliver on his promises.

Like - there are reasons most politicians didn't say the things Trump said. He's managed to get people to overlook his inability to actually accomplish much of anything by shifting the blame and various other techniques. I have no idea how long that can last, though. He did deliver on the Supreme Court... and now the Supreme Court is seriously discredited and legal precedents are all in question, but I'm sure his people think they can deal with all of that given enough time.

Which leads to the second problem - you will reach for the same tools that helped you succeed in the first place.

Opposition and disagreement will be handled with the same cynical lying and manipulation. After all, it 'worked'. Right?

Label everyone who opposes you 'antifa' or 'liberal', say they're the reason why you aren't able to deliver that fantastical utopia you promised, divide and conquer...

Basically, you wind up going down the exact same path every other autocratic dictator does. I'm sure they all think they could have done great things, 'if only'. If only they weren't betrayed by people who disagreed with them. If only they had more power. If only they could round up everyone who got in their way and punish them.

It's that exact same tendency, though, that is the reason why they keep running into obstacle after obstacle. They create enemies where they don't have to, they constantly have to keep up the lying and manipulation, and as soon as they make a mistake or let the mask slip everything they built will wash away like sand.

That's the endgame.

It may get delayed, one such leader might maintain control until the day they die, and only one of their successors faces the consequences, but it's just a temporary reprieve.

You can not build anything worthwhile and lasting through lies and deceit.

There is no 'but they started it!'

And if your argument is 'but then we'll lose'... then maybe you should lose. Better to lose than to win in such a way that you betray everything you ever stood for.

Further Musings Roughly Related to Election 2024

 I am still coming to terms with the results of the election, and what it means.

The core of the issue, I think, is what this says about my fellow Americans - and not in an abstract sense. It's friends, acquaintances, and even family.

I don't generally say this out loud, as there's no point to it - but every time someone expresses support for Trump my opinion of them plummets.

I normally refrain from inflammatory remarks, because the people who don't already share my opinion of Trump are just going to roll their eyes and not listen... and the ones who do, already know. 

I also haven't thrown out terms like 'traitor', because it has a legal definition and needs proven in a court of law.

But there's another definition that I think fits - 

One who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty.

The false electors, the claims that Pence could change the results of the election - I keep bringing up Jan 6 because even though there are a lot of other things we could say about Trump's first term, this one is pretty cut and dry. 

He betrayed his oath of office in order to try to change the results of the election.

So when I see someone displaying a Trump sign, or hear someone say they supported him, what I really hear is:

Traitors are fine

(So long as I like their politics)

Recriminations are still flying about, and people have all posed their own explanations for that, but none of them feel very satisfying.

I think partly because the relationships between leader and led are not that clear. Are my fellow Americans gullible dupes, led astray by cynical liars? Did they fail to do their due diligence, and actually research the candidates? Are they really okay with everything Trump stands for, and this just reveals who they really are? Was it outside interference - Russia, Fox News, or some other candidate to blame? Was it an inability to evaluate sources? A lack of critical thinking?

Do they just not understand how serious Jan 6 was? And think this is just like 'normal' politics?

Obviously, the answers vary - even for each Trump supporter.

Where this leads me, at the moment, is to something that seems unrelated and pretty far out there. At first, at least.

Let's start with 'Americans were led astray by cynical liars.'

They're like shady car mechanics who take advantage of people's ignorance. I get that many Americans don't have the time or interest to do thorough research into the issues. That with full time jobs, families to raise, dinner to put on the table - you're lucky if they can spare any attention for the news of the day. And a long post about why mail in voting is more secure than an electronic booth (it's related to this), or why fake electors are so concerning, or what the Posse Comitatus Act is and why the president can't just order federal troops to do certain things.

These things are long, dry, and not something you can easily fit into a single meme. Most political experts know at least some of it, or have access to people who do, which means that when they exploit that ignorance they are generally doing so in bad faith.

They know better. And they don't care.

How to handle that is something we have been struggling with for a while now, and Trump's win has truly set us back.

Not in the sense of 'Democrats lost out'. This isn't about partisan differences. It's about America as a whole, and his win has set us back in numerous ways.

Not least because there will be even more power hungry and immoral copycats who see his success and think that's a strategy worth emulating.

A generation of ambitious individuals who think that cynical lying, false promises, and blatant emotional manipulation of people's worst traits are the key to getting what they want.

Which is why I want to focus more on that aspect. On those potential copycats who see what Trump has done and are thinking about doing the same.

Or rather, I want to focus more on the enablers and strategists who come up with these plans.

Because if their goal is simply getting into a position of power, then (at least right now) it looks like they succeeded.

But the how impacts how successful they will be, and starting off with a start like that sabotages all your future efforts.

That's the part I wanted to talk about, though even though I can see what I am trying to say, putting it in words is a challenge. I keep falling back on some of that Catholic upbringing, and start talking in religious terms.

So let's go with that.

Let's talk about the Kingdom of Heaven. Let's talk about "a process, a course of events, whereby God begins to govern or to act as king or Lord, an action, therefore, by which God manifests his being-God in the world of men."

It's spoken of like a utopia, a perfect place that is unlike this cruel, cold, and careless world. Many people of faith long for it, and justify all sorts of things in order to try to make it manifest faster.

And I think Trump's election puts any such thing even further out of reach.

That's quite a contrast to his christian supporters, many of whom think his electoral victory is somehow a 'victory for God' instead of a huge setback.

So I figured I'd explain my thoughts a bit.

God, as far as I can tell, does not want mindless minions.

If I look at the history of religion, what I think he wants is something more like 'mindful people knowingly and willingly choosing good.'

If we look at how a child grows into an adult - when they are young, the parent establishes the rules and enforces them. The child often doesn't know or understand why they matter, and do as their told (or face punishment).

But as they grow and mature, the child turns into a teenager and starts testing their boundaries. Starts figuring out which rules actually are good and which ones aren't relevant. They sometimes make bad decisions, but in the process they gain experience and start internalizing their own rules.

Then, when they make decisions, they are doing it because of their own internalized rule... and not 'because Mom/Dad said so'. Nor is it 'because I will go to jail if I do it.'

Getting to that point means tolerating exploration, experimentation, and letting people figure things out for themselves... but they pay off is that you don't need to have some external force constantly enforcing behavior.

People choose to do so willingly. Because they've decided it's a good idea.

The thing I dislike about these so-called 'christian nationalists' is that, just like al Qaeda and other fundamentalists, they are trying to take away that choice.

Instead of letting people learn for themselves and internalize their own moral code, they keep trying to treat people like toddlers who don't know what's good for themselves. They think they have to enforce 'God's will' - which really seems like their own interpretation of what God wants, since I think if God cared more about enforcing rules than respecting choice that He would be far more direct about things.

I've said it before, and I know it goes against most of the thinking for people like that, but their emphasis on this shows a tremendous lack of faith.

They clearly don't believe God's will can manifest unless they force it on everyone else.

But that's enough about that.

This concept, btw, is associated a bit with the idea of what truly gives people confidence.

Because true confidence doesn't come  from 'never facing any sort of obstacle or problem'.

It comes from knowing that you have the skills and resources to handle any obstacle or problem.

The second requires far more work. It means building up those skills and resources. It means teaching people, helping them grow, letting them build experience - even experience that isn't always positive.

I bring that up, because if I were to envision a 'Kingdom of Heaven' it would be one where people are knowledgeable, experienced, and skilled... to the point where they are not tempted by demagogues and power hungry manipulators. Where fear and hatred have no power.

Where they know what that path leads to, can recognize it when they see it, and reject it.

If we had more people who could do that, then it wouldn't matter what cynical lies and misinformation are spread on the internet. In fact, it would backfire and cause people to reject them for it.

And from that perspective - the Kingdom of Heaven is long, long, loooooooong way away.

 

Election 2024 - Further Thoughts

 A heavy feeling is weighing on me as the ramifications of another Trump presidency sink in.

I had really hoped we'd be able to avoid this. I didn't want to see how he would further warp the America I know and love.

I've had numerous ideas for posts over the past couple of days - some more angry, some more thoughtful, some more focused on the details of the election and some more focused on larger historical trends.

I've also debated writing much of anything.

I've been posting less these days, and that's partly because it just feels like an exercise in screaming into the void.

No, that's not quite right. The big issues, the ones that permeate this era (like growing income inequality or the threat of climate change), are like the blue lighting in a movie. The effects are everywhere, but your eyes soon adapt and your attention is more drawn to the immediate action.

Talking about them generally is just repeating what the people who care already know. The issue is with the people who don't care...

And I highly doubt they're reading my blog here on the internet. So what difference does it make if I write twenty posts on the problems with letting income inequality continue to grow? 

I had thought something similar about Trump, tbh. Sure... he had his base, and they were never going to accept anything negative about their idol. And that base apparently included some wealthy people I would have hoped knew better (the wife of a Supreme Court justice really didn't see any problem with January 6?!?!?! That level of ignorance is pretty horrifying in someone who you'd expect to pick up by osmosis (if nothing else) some basic understanding of the Constitution.)

But I had thought most of the Americans who were more objective would have understood just what a threat to democracy Trump poses.

I mean - I get that most people do not have the time or energy for it. Nor the interest. Being able to explain what the reading of the states votes were on Jan 6, why Pence couldn't change the results, why the fake electors were a problem, and how all of that combined to undermine the Constitution is not something I would expect the average voter to understand.

But I expected.... Idk. Something like the wisdom of crowds. Like how you might not know enough to repair your car, but you have a buddy who does and you get their advice. 

The arguments that Trump and his allies made were in such bad faith that anyone with any sort of knowledge of the issue knew they were lying liars who lie.

Just like Trump's claims that mail in voting was less secure (and his claims about voting fraud in general).

These are issues that are too nuanced to fit in a handy meme. That yes, there is sometimes voting fraud. It generally gets caught because states have procedures in place (like checking voting rolls against death certificates, which can take time)... and that such fraud is rare and not nearly in large enough quantities to change the results of an election.

It's basically the difference between winning by 100 or winning by 99 votes.

But it's much easier for Trump and his allies to shout from the rooftops about voter fraud, and allege that the election was stolen - and in the process undermine trust and faith in our elections, and prep his supporters to support more drastic action if he loses. (and yes, it is amazing how quickly they dropped all those arguments as soon as Trump legitimately won. Not questioning the results any more, are we?)

It's disgusting.

It's sickening.

And he just got elected president, again.

His allies are already muttering about changing the limit on two terms in office - just like Putin did in Russia to allow himself to remain in control.

I really hope that effort goes nowhere, but we're already at this stage and nothing seems to be more than a speed bump in his steamrolling over democracy... so who knows?

I do wonder how much he'll pay attention to public opinion this time around. Does he think he still needs to win another election, and therefore he needs to be careful? Or does he think that this time is it, and will the mask come off? ('He' can also refer to all the people around him, especially as he's aging.)

That'll be something to watch, because what he was elected to do is not what he and his supporters want to do.

It reminds me of something I heard long ago, I think about the English civil war? Supporters of 'the king' claimed they were standing up for the king... even when it actually want against what the king explicitly said he wanted.

They supported 'the king', which is really an image of what they image a king is, that was only loosely related to the specific individual who was actually the king.

I know that's a complicated one, sorry. Let's just say - people voted for 'Donald Trump', the loud mouthed billionaire that they think will take on the entrenched interests that have dismissed the average American's concerns and led us to this state. 

One where hard work doesn't lead to prosperity, but instead to constant stress as you live paycheck-to-paycheck, one car accident or health problem away from bankruptcy or worse. 

There's a lot more to it than that, and different people express the sentiment in different ways - and blame different people for it. But that's the core of the problem, really.

And rent and housing prices continue to rise, and instead of addressing that there are people on Twitter deciding that no... people really just don't need that much space and can just move in to lesser apartments or share costs with other people. 

As if disposable income doesn't make a huge difference in how much people spend, and when 90% of your check is allocated to food, housing, car payments and student loans there's not much left over to boost the economy with other purchases. Seriously - you can fight for a larger slice of an 8 inch pie, or you can work to turn that 8 inch pie into a 10 inch pie. One of these options is better than the other.

Anyways, I got off track again. 

The point was that the Donald Trump that won the election is not necessarily the actual, real Donald Trump. 

And the mandate he and his supporters are claiming may not be a mandate for what they actually are planning.

Then again, I did not expect Trump to win like this so what do I know? 

Unfortunately, it looks like we'll all be finding out.

Election 2024

One of the articles discussing Trump's win caught my eye, because it was pointing out how many Americans voted for things like an increase in minimum wage or ensuring abortion remained legal - and yet (although it's hard to say how many of those voters did this) also voted for Trump, who stands for the exact opposite of all that. 

It got me thinking about how, amongst his supporters at least, the image they have of him seems to bear no relation to reality. 

I was even talking to a lady today who was on disability and hoped he'd make it better. 

... 

Hoped Trump would make disability better. 

She also brought up how Trump donated his salary. 

Anyways, it got me thinking about how perception and image works. And it reminds me of when he first became president. 

Back then I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and one story I recall - which got a lot of press at the time - was how he went to Carrier in Indianapolis and got them to save jobs. 

Here's an article discussing what actually came of that. 

It was little things like that which made me decide that he was a con artist, promising things he couldn't deliver.

I know that marketing, misinformation, disinformation, etc are powerful forces. More powerful than I want to believe.

Yet I still thought that, as Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

And I especially thought, after all the time we've had to see him in action, that others could also see that.

Sure, I've seen some of the practically blasphemous memes shared on social media. I personally find them disgusting. I mean, Jesus was all about 'love your neighbor' and learning to be more forgiving and compassionate. And the good Samaritan was partly a story about someone who back then would have been considered a foreigner or outsider. 

You might even say - an immigrant. 

And Trump is very much the opposite of that. 

Even aside from his breaking his oath of office and taking a wrecking ball to the American ship of state, he preaches hate and fear and brings out the worst in everyone. 

I don't know what they're smoking to adulate him so much. 

Anyways, I think that is perhaps part of the problem. 

He has developed an image at complete odds with the reality. 

Now, he's old and not really in the best of health so maybe he won't be as much of a wrecking ball... But he's also destroyed a lot of guardrails and surrounded himself with some pretty terrible enablers. 

But it does seem like many people voted for that image rather than the reality. 

I don't know if, when, or how they'll realize that but it'll probably be a mess when they do. 

Hopefully it'll be before he swings that wrecking ball too many times. 

Let's Talk About Work From Home

The thing about working in tech is that we're almost always remote logging into the servers we use, so a lot of it is remote in the first place. 

Obviously that doesn't account for interacting with your team, and especially when you're new and learning it helps to have someone co-located, however... 

On my first team, we had someone living in the next state over who was full remote. I never actually saw her in person. 

When I changed projects within the company, most of my team lived 12 hours away in Texas. 

One lived in New Jersey, and was also fully remote. A couple of others were in Georgia. 

For my current team, most are in Texas. 

There used to be a couple of people that worked in different teams of the same project who lived where I do, but two have left and I rarely ever saw the third. 

The point is - I pretty much work remote, whether I am physically in the office or physically at home. 

I spend much of my time on remote calls with my team or other people we work with... Even when I am at the office. 

Let me add a few more details, too. 

The local office consolidated into one building, let go some people, and is entirely flex seating. 

I have no desk that I can configure how I want and keep it. I mean, there's few enough people there that I probably could and nobody would mess with it, but it's not really 'mine'. 

Second, our client sent us their own laptop to work on. 

In other words, I have two work laptops. One for my company, and one for the company we support. 

And all those flex seats are only configured for one laptop. 

When I work at the office, I have to bring a charging cable for at least one of those laptops. I have to bring a headset. Since I don't want to keep switching which laptop is on the docking station and which isn't, I also have to bring another mouse and keyboard. 

Oh yeah, and I've been using an ergonomic keyboard for years now. 

In other words, it's a real pain. And when I do so, it's just so I can sit at a desk...

And remotely call my colleagues in Texas.

Or remotely log into one of our servers.

And maybe chat a bit with people from other teams, supporting other clients. Or eat some of the snacks and goodies in the break room.

A few other things -

I am good at my job.

I have received a couple of bonuses already, and a raise outside the normal period for raises.

I have solved problems that have stumped our team for quite some time.

I have been able to figure out what was the root cause for an issue multiple times.

And my boss (in Texas) has absolutely no idea if I am in the office or not. Not unless someone on site (HR cough cough)

Notices and says something.

And I guess what I am getting at is this.

I, like many, have been pressured to come to the office at least three times a week.

And it is entirely possible I will be fired from my job because I don't want to do a pointlessly performative action simply because they say so.

A part of me knows this is stupid, and I probably should just suck it up and go in. But going through that hassle, just to do exactly the same things I do at home - with absolutely no benefit - bothers me.

And I guess, when you come down to it, it's a bit of a test -

Does the company want people who blindly follow even the stupidest of policies?

Or do they want someone good at their job?

(And if anyone wants to hire a DevOps engineer to work remotely, I might be in the market sometime in the future.)

Election 2024 and Arrogance

I've been thinking about elite arrogance.

No, not the Democrats and recriminations on how they lost to the worst possible candidate.

Nor Republicans, or the billionares who might be smart in some ways... but are pretty foolish in other ways. Elon Musk being the poster child for that at the moment.

Rather, seeing millions of Americans make what I think is a horrible choice, I've been thinking about some of my earlier opinions of democracy.

As a young college student studying political science and joining ROTC (and eventually getting commissioned in the Army) I believed in America. I still do...

Or rather, the potential we have. We're definitely not perfect, especially if you know American history, but there have always been elitists who think democracy itself is a foolish idea.

The Founding Fathers had concered about direct democracy. It's why we have the electoral college. And, tbh, when you see fads and fear sweep through the population it's hard not to understand why. And yet -

And yet, I truly believe that the alternatives are worse.

I'm going to digress for a bit, so bear with me.

Years ago I came across a program that focused on the end game in chess. I'm not really a chess player and haven't touched a chess board since then, but I found it an interesting puzzle. It basically gave you a game alread in progress and asked you to figure out how to get to checkmate in a certain number of moves. 

The endgame isn't just when the king is in checkmate. When you position the pieces so that the king is threatened, the king and all his forces loses a lot of options. They have to prioritize getting the king to safety first, which means that you can direct their movement.

They have to move the king a square to avoid your threat, or move another piece to block you, or whatever, and if you set up your pieces right you can force a series of moves that puts their king into checkmate.

Avoiding that is impossible after a certain point, and the only way it could have been prevented was to go back several moves to before the options got locked in.

I think about that sometimes, because I think it reflects a certain truth about the choices we make. That going down certain paths, that making certain choices, locks you into a path that results in checkmate. Avoiding that requires making the right choice before you're stuck on the path. (Though in real life, are you ever truly stuck?)

This is where I come back to elite arrogance.

Because the decision that leads to checkmate might not seem like a bad idea right away. It might even seem like a good one - for a time. There are moves you can make, and the number varies, but the next apparent response leads to the next, all of which eventually put you in checkmate. (If you're still alive. People may never really live long enough to see the consequences, too.)

Now that I am trying to put this into words, it's hard for me to explain the failed path I see. It's more like a sense than anything else. But I'll try to make it clear.

It starts with someone in a position of power who has a subordinate challenge them. It can feel like a personal attack, a threat, and if they act on that feeling than they will try to end that threat. 

Often with some sort of power play that punishes them. Because 'how dare you!'

And in the process, a couple of things can happen. 

 1) Other people see this and get scared, so they stop speaking their minds.

 2) If it's perceived as an unfair overreaction, it can cause other people to oppose you even more. Also, if the person punished wasn't actually trying to attack you and thought they were just giving their honest opinion, you've probably turned them into a real enemy.

 3) It makes people more cautious, especially if you are punishing someone for showing initiative. Others start thinking 'I'd better ask him/her first'

This has consequences.

It means people won't tell you the things you need to hear.

It means you might create enemies you didn't have to, and get bogged down in power struggles that prevent you from accomplishing much of anything.

It means that things don't get done unless you micromanage, especially if you insist it always has to be done the way you want. And at a certain level of power, it is impossible for one person to do everything. Instead of having trusted subordinates who are able to make decisions and accomplish things together, you are the center and the hub and if you're overwhelmed then whatever you drop doesn't get taken care of.

The alternatives involve a lot of work, especially in the beginning. (But once you get past the initial stages, it can actually take less work. Like the One Minute Manager. You have people to delegate things to and only have to get involved for specific things.)

It means listening to other people's opinions. Truly listening. You don't have to always do what they're suggesting, but simply hearing them out and explaining yourself will go a long way to build trust and acceptance.

You don't even have to lie in order to manipulate them! (Really, that's a sign of weakness and failure, and yet somehow some strategists think they're being clever by doing so.)

Of course, that means that sometimes you have to spend a LOT of time hearing multiple people complain, and sometimes it's for petty reasons and sometimes they all repeat the same thing and you can't just dismiss them because you're tired of having the same conversation over and over again. If they weren't part of those previous conversations, they don't know that. 

It can be pretty tiring, and I understand why some people don't want to deal with it. (They probably shoudn't be in a leadership position if they can't handle that, but... leadership positions often come with money and influence. People rarely seem to give that up even if they're not well suited to it.)

It means being careful in how you handle issues. Tempting as it is to just go off on someone who is making your life difficult, see point 2 above. You need to respond in a way that is fair and consistent and doesn't play favorites.

You also need to invest time in your subordinates. In building that leadership pipeline. In teaching them how to think. In setting expectations, checking in to see if they have what they need in order to meet those expectations, getting rid of obstacles, and most of all guiding them to the point where they can do the job just as well as you can. That's how you get enough people to handle the work that would overwhelm you alone.

Oh, and often times you will have to negotiate some of the craziest interpersonal drama, because people are people. 

It's a lot of fucking work! Or rather, it is if you're doing it right.

Some people lack the maturity for that, or are afraid to admit they were wrong because they see it as showing weakness, or any number of things.

All of this, btw, exacerbates and can play a role in one of the topics I bring up a lot - groupthink.

That unwillingness to hear unwanted opinions? That's part of how you get a bunch of folks ignoring warnings about O-rings and get the Challenger explosion.

I'm not sure if it's groupthink, but you could say that's also what led to that rich guy dying in a submarine accident.

This is also how you wind up like Elon Musk, surrounded by 'yes-men' that encourage him to do some of the most idiotic things (and waste millions of dollars in the process).

To bring this discussion back to democracy - elections are a way to hear the voice of the people. It's hard to tell exactly what that voice is saying, despite all the polling and interviewing. Sometimes it's just a voice shouting 'FIX IT!'

Sometimes it's not what we want to hear. Sometimes people are flat out wrong. But dismissing their concerns leads to checkmate. They're telling you something important. Maybe not the exact thing they're claiming it is, since the root cause can be something else entirely. Still, deciding that 'people are morons and they're too dumb to manage themselves' means you've stopped listening and you're on the path to losing.

This, for me, is especially hard at the moment. It is tempting to just throw my hands up in the air, decide people are too stupid to bother with, and figure out some way of just quietly living away from it all. At least until climate disruption and civic unrest wind up killing me. (I don't expect to be the protagonist of an apocalyptic story.)

But I think, ultimately, that this is a sign that we didn't do the work. I don't just mean educating people about civics, or teaching them how to research and evaluate sources, or emphasizing just why Jan 6th was like taking a wrecking ball to the American ship of state.

It also refers to the elite, who live in their bubbles. I can't say for sure, but it seems they've learned to dismiss the voices of everyone pointing out things they really need to know and address. 

That we need voices explaining all over again why letting income inequality grow is a terrible idea - for their own self interest, too.

Why separating church and state is a good idea, and that doing so is not a threat to their faith.

How having an educated population with enough financial security to be able to leave a job that doesn't suit them is a good thing, and making higher education affordable benefits everyone too.

Why having a healthy workforce is also a good thing. Seriously, why is that even a question? If you don't like the idea of universal healthcare, then find an alternative that actually works.

Why racism is idiotic, because apparently some of us need a refresher.

Why autocracy is bad, and we don't actually want to wind up like Russia under Putin. Not even the billionaires.

Things I thought had been well established as common American beliefs are apparently not, otherwise we wouldn't have rich people spending money to undo all of that. 

Edited to add: Oh yeah, and why science is a good thing! And that truth is important. 

Why is truthiness a thing? Whatever happened to 'truth, justice, and the American way'? 

Election 2024

I am thinking about this article here -

https://quillette.com/2024/11/06/the-revenge-of-the-silent-male-voter-trump-vance-musk/

I mean, yes, I think choosing someone who openly doesn't care about the Constitution is a bad idea. We know he's buddy buddy with Putin. We know Putin changed the term limits so he's basically dictator for life. We know Trump has expressed similar interests multiple times, and that Colorado clown even suggested it in her statement yesterday. 

If he doesn't do something like that, we only have to survive 4 years. I suspect changing it will be one of his priorities, and that if he thinks he can run yet again he might moderate himself. As much as he ever does. 

Assuming he doesn't die of old age and poor health and leave us with Vance. 

Anyways, I honestly don't know how so many Americans are okay with someone who has repeatedly shown he won't deliver on his unrealistic promises, but whatever. 

This article is interesting, though. Because it captures some emotional feelings I've heard indicators for. 

I mean, I do think there's toxic masculinity. I know plenty of men who are caring husbands, loving fathers, etc. And yet I've also heard the reports of the loneliness of men. Of how some (the toxic ones) can't really express any emotion other than anger, turn everything into some sort of pissing contest, try to do that 'Alpha male' bs that just makes them annoying assholes. (The number of times I've seen a decently good looking guy, only for them to open their mouth and reveal a terrible personality...  Well, nobody cares about that).

Anyways. Trump is like the epitome of toxic masculinity. 

But I can understand how young men might feel constrained. I mean, hell. I was in the Army, which is 90% men. And even though I found it kind of sad and ridiculous how scared many are of appearing even the slightest bit homosexual or feminine (really... It's so strange that 'manliness' often is an act performed by the least 'manly', if you think courage is a 'manly' trait. The soldier rocking a pink beanie cap shows more courage and 'manliness' than most, because he obviously doesn't give a shit about that nonsense)

Ahem. I digress. Even though it's sort of painful to see that crap, and I have been glad I'm a woman who doesn't have to deal with it, I do know it's part of that whole 'prove yourself' thing. 

Plus friendly competition can be fun. (Especially when you blow stuff up. Like an ex talking about the potato gun he and his friends built when younger.)

Like, if I go to a combat zone can I hold my own? Not give in to fear? 

And so, perhaps, at least one small part of the problem is that they don't see positive examples. Men who show them how to be men, and how to prove themselves, without looking like 'wusses' and also without being assholes. 

Like the special ops guys. The ones who carry themselves with confidence and have nothing to prove - and therefore can be some of the calmest and quietest people in a room. 

This has meandered long enough, and I don't know that there's any real conclusion to draw from it. Except, maybe, that we need to show that it truly is better to not be an 'alpha male' asshole. 

Election 2024

So this is where we are. 

I honestly thought we were better than this...

I don't really know what else to say. I'm just so disappointed in my fellow Americans. 

Election 2024

I feel like if I'm going to condemn how some of the rich and powerful act like fools, I ought to also share when they do something positive. Like here -

https://fortune.com/2024/10/29/ceos-america-largest-companies-voting-for-harris-not-trump-leadership-elections-politics/

Jan 6th should have been the nail in Trump's political coffin, and frankly every report of some billionaire contributing to him just makes them look bad.

So here's the opposite. 

This also reminds me of the latest fuss about newspaper endorsements and here's the thing -

I have never changed my mind on who to vote for based on one of these, so perhaps it's true that a newspaper (like, oh, let's just say the Washington Post) shouldn't bother. However... 

That's the sort of argument that should be made in a normal election year. Or even at the very beginning of the campaign, and clearly and publicly saying there won't be one. 

Saying so now? Just days before election day? 

Rank cowardice at best, another thumb on the scale for Trump at worst. 

Yeah, those newspapers deserve all the grief they're getting for that decision. 

If you're worried about Trump and his petty vindictive ness, now is the time to speak out. 

After all, the consequences will be worse if he somehow manages to pull this off (I still don't see how he's got the support, despite the polling). 

Oh, and even if he fails you know he and his people are yet again going to claim the election was stolen. Showing Kamala truly does have support makes it more difficult to convince people that she didn't. 

Seeing How Far the Rot Has Spread

Trump truly has become a litmus test... 

And all the rich fools supporting him, all the newspapers either endorsing him or refusing to endorse anyone, are showing us how far the rot has spread. 

This election should have been a no brainer, and the fact that it isn't is truly disturbing. 

I really wonder what is going through those fools heads. Is it simple greed? Do they truly not understand what makes America great? Is it racism? 

Honestly, I'm less shocked by Trump than by all the institutions and billionaires that are failing the easiest test ever. 

Junk Food Politician

When writing about Jan 6th, I realized that Trump and his ilk were basically taking advantage of people's ignorance about how the political system works. 

At the time I was thinking about the safe harbor deadline, how states certify election results, and various other dull and dry things that the people around Trump must have known, and therefore all the BS about Pence being able to change the results had to have been the worst sort of cynical manipulation... 

And realized how consistently he and his do this. 

Like the tariff discussion at the start of the presidential debate. 

If you were a business selling a widget in the US for $10, and Trump slapped a tariff on the product costing you $1, it does not take a lot of work to realize you can just consider that an additional cost of manufacturing and start selling your widget for $11. Thereby passing the costs on to the consumer and ultimately raising prices in the US. 

And yet he, bold as you please, claimed he'd add tariffs and that no American would have to suffer for it. 

Sounds a lot like 'Mexico will pay for the wall', and all I can think is that his supporters must like the way he lies. 

I will save the long winded and wonky details for all the ways they take advantage of people's ignorance and just say this -

They're junk food politicians. 

Enshittification

It really does seem like online services are just getting worse and worse. 

People have talked plenty about Google, and Microsoft, and social media... And I don't know if it strictly fits the category but my latest exam is Amazon. 

I ordered something that was too small, but when I went looking into a way of exchanging or replacing it with a larger size, I went down a rabbit hole of links that didn't allow me to select that at all. 

I could return it, or replace it with the exact same thing, but could not replace it with the exact same thing but larger. 

I have to wonder if the same holds true for clothes? 

Then I went looking for some place I could mention the issue. Instead it was link after link sending me back to the process I already tried, and apparently there's no form where I could mention that. Anywhere. 

Guess customer service is a joke now 

Bubbles

http://web.archive.org/web/20240815200317/https://www.thecut.com/article/what-its-like-personal-assistant-billionaire.html

An explanation for the previous post

My previous post is just so I had a link to share on social media, because it definitely hits the character limits

Jan 6

I want to discuss why Jan 6 was so bad, because it doesn't really fit in a short meme or picture. Unfortunately that means this will get kind of long, but if you're curious here we go.

The heart of our Constitution is that who rules is decided by elections. 

There's other things about the separation of power (people often look at the president, but laws are passed by Congress so when the House or Senate is controlled by the other party they're often quite limited) and various checks and balances, and there are things like the electoral college that complicate it, but for the most part elections are what truly matters. 

And that means accepting the results of an election. 

If you didn't get the result you wanted, you campaign harder and try to persuade more people in the next one. (The alternative of actually fighting out quickly gets bloody and ugly, so this benefits everyone).

For 200+ years, for the most part it worked. Sure the second president stayed up all night before leaving office appointing the midnight judges, but he still left office. 

And then came the election of 2020.

Now, I'd like you to think about how you would expect a president to act if they honestly think there was enough voter fraud to change the results. 

Not Trump or Biden. Imagine your  favorite or even imaginary ideal president. 

Most, I suspect, think they would collect the evidence and go to court. 

Here's the first thing - Trump and his allies lost over 60 cases alleging fraud. And if you look at the court cases (which I have) a funny thing happened. 

See, lawyers can get disbarred and be unable to do their job if their caught lying, so quite a few of those court cases were about absolutely NOTHING like what they claimed in the press and on social media. 

It's all stuff you can look up yourself if you want. 

It wasn't because of some grand conspiracy either. Judges tend to be conservative, and the idea that 60 of them all colluded is pretty ridiculous. 

I don't care what videos you find online saying different. Anybody can make a video and claim it's showing something it's not. 

It needs to be evidence that holds up in court. 

All of which means Biden won in 2020.

Trump. Lost. 

And then came Jan 6.

Now, first of all... Would anyone have even been there that day of Trump and his allies hadn't been lying (for months) about the results? 

I think not. 

Even more importantly, we have known for centuries how important it is to have faith in our elections. 

It's why the Electoral Count Act of 1887 was written. 

It's why there are Dec 8 is the safe harbor deadline.

I will try not to bore people with the details, but basically any disputes or questions about the election are supposed to be resolved well before the pretty much ceremonial counting of the electoral college votes. 

Especially as technology has gotten better. Used to be they needed a lot more time to count the votes (it still isn't actually something that happens the night of, experts just can predict the result because of you've counted 7000 out of 10000 votes and have a pretty good idea of how the remaining areas vote, if enough votes go to a certain candidate they can predict the final winner. It's still faster now than back then, unless someone disputes the results and calls for a recount by hand ).

They also had to travel by horse or train to get to Washington, which is part of why Jan 6 is months after the actual election day. 

But I digress. 

The states certify the elections, and are supposed to do it before Dec 8.

Jan 6 is just pomp and ceremony.

Normally. 

In 2020, however, Trump made the absolutely ludicrous claim that Pence, who oversaw the ceremonial count, could change the results. 

They also sent a bunch of fake electors NOT designated by the states to represent them, to try to pretend they could change them. (Court cases against the fake electors are still in progress).

I know most people don't know all this xrt and boring stuff... I'm also just giving the highlights here. 

That brings me to Donald Trump. 

He swore an oath of office to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'

It's honestly not to different from the oath I swore when I was commissioned as an officer in the Army 

I do not know how pretending a vice president can change the results, lying about the results, and sending fake electors to try and cast doubt on those alerts, can be anything but an attack on that very Constitution. 

I would leave it to the courts to determine whether it's treason, sedition, rebellion, or whatever else you want to call it. That all depends on the legal system and evidence. 

I can tell you, though, that he broke his oath of office. 

If the Construction was a bridge, he took a giant sledge hammer to it. 

And he's still doing it. 

I do not know how any veteran can vote for him and not break their own oaths. 

I was shocked that his impeachment wasn't bipartisan, and am frankly disgusted with the entire Republican party for caring more about political power than defending the Constitution. 

I am glad that quite a few of my friends and neighbors also see it, and that many principled conservatives were horrified enough to leave the party. 

And yet that oathbreaker is still the Republican nominee for 2024.

Musings On Jan 6th

 The discussions on social media about the debate reminded me, yet again, how upset I am that so many people ignore Jan 6th.

I truly believe it should have ended Donald Trump's career, and find it absolutely disgusting that he is instead the Republican candidate for president.

It feels like everyone really ought to know why that is, already, and so I don't really care to try to argue or explain it any more.

And I've been wondering if that's really the right idea.

So here goes.

A peaceful transition of power is important. The violence that comes when two sides go to war hurts pretty much everyone.

Historically - well, in Roman times it eventually seemed like anyone who had a loyal cadre of troops was a good candidate to become Ceasar. Sure, they sometimes 'adopted' a talented general or found other ways to change rulers, but all often it came down to fighting.

A hereditary monarchy, although very problematic for reasons I'll touch on shortly, reduced that. 

It clearly laid out who should inherit, and so fighting broke out when a) a particular candidate was a terrible ruler (which wasn't that uncommon, because it seems like it only takes a generation or two before whatever talent led someone to be considered great wasn't passed to their descendents. Or maybe it's that they didn't have the inclination or temperament, and would rather go raise corgis or something... but alas, you're the heir and you have to rule regardless. Which I think generally is when you get some great advisor or courtier to do all the hard work of actually governing while the monarch farts off somewhere) or b) no clear heir is left or c) the heir is considered too young or weak and/or some other aristocrat thinks they have a chance and starts something.

And then we get democracy.

Most Americans at least superficially acknowledge that a meritocracy is better than a hereditary aristocracy.

I say 'superficially', because we don't really have a true meritocracy, but it's hard for people who have worked hard and succeeded under this system to accept that. It's much easier to blame others for being 'lazy', or just jealous, or whatever excuse allows them to believe that everything is fine the way it is (really) and that no changes really need to be made. It's a bit arrogant and shallow but it's all too human, as we've repeatedly seen throughout history.

A meritocracy would not have so many legacy students in our 'elite' colleges. Nor would it allow so many systemic disadvantages for those not lucky enough to be born with parents who can help pay for college, or any other number of things that people have pointed out repeatedly. 

Anyways, democracy has it's issues, but the peaceful transition of power is not one of the disadvantages. And although 'winning an election' is not the same skill as 'governing a nation', the ability to run a campaign ensures at least some modicum of skill. Or at least that there are people around the candidate with skill.

It also helps prevent the ossification and stagnation that comes when entrenched powers block off everyone else's chances to rise through their own efforts. (This normally is tied to historical experience with aristocrats, with Napolean and the way the French Revolution cleared out incompetents and allowed more competent people to rise... but those are not solely the province of their system. Again, it's all too human for people in power to try to secure that power... and in the process lead to that ossification and rigidity that often precedes the decline and fall of a nation.)

Democracy forces the government to be responsive, because if you don't you'll lose elections. You're supposed to be able to change the system from within, so that you don't need a violent revolution to overthrow it from without.

Anyways. Getting back to the peaceful transition of power... a lot of that relies on both sides accepting the results of the election, and agreeing that if they lose an election the solution is to run a better campaign in the next one.

Choosing not to is a bit like when some asshole decides to drive on the shoulder of a highway to get past a jam. They might think they're some sort of brilliant out-of-the-box thinker, but if everyone does it the highway just gets clogged even more, and it's hard for emergency vehicles to get through and actually clear the cause of the jam.

In other words, it's the short-sighted thinking that says 'if I refuse to accept the election and fight, I can gain power' and doesn't care that it will kick off a new normal where every election is contested and fighting becomes the way the person in charge changes. (They may not see it right away, or even in their lifetime, but it happens nonetheless. Which is why it is supposed to be univesally condemned as a disqualifier for ruling. At least, in a society where there are better options available.)

Before I go too much further, I did want to touch on why so many Republicans seem willing to throw democracy aside, and are acting as though they can't just try again in the next election.

To be honest, I'm not really sure how many feel this way. I hesitated to say 'Republican', but under Trump this is truly what the party has become... and it has to do with race.

See, it's been a while since I've seen articles about the 'browning of America', but the demographic trends haven't really changed. We're reaching a point where white Americans are not going to be the clear majority. They're still the largest of all the different races, but if enough non-whites work together they can outnumber them.

And the difference is even more stark when you look at the children:

In 2021, 36.3 million children were White (49.4%); 18.9 million were Hispanic (25.7%); 10.1 million were Black (13.8%); 4 million were Asian (5.4%); 596,000 were America Indian/Alaska Native (0.8%); and 158,000 were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (0.2%).

To a certain sort of person, that's terrifying. They're scared, frankly. I mean, I'm a bit annoyed about how we have to worry about their insecurity and all that, but I get that that's what it is.

Even if they're not outright racist, there's still some unconscious bias that can affect attitudes. Like that study that showed how support for welfare and other such policies changed when people were reminded of those demographic trends. (I suspect it's an us vs them mentality or something. That instead of thinking 'these will help all of us' they start thinking 'these will go to those other people'. As if we aren't all Americans living together in the same country.)

To some of them, if they don't do anything drastic now, they feel like they won't have the chance to do so later.

(I would heap more contempt on them for letting their fears rule them so shamefully, but it doesn't really serve any purpose beyond venting so I'll move on.)

Democracy only works when both sides agree to let elections determine who rules, and we now have far too many people who aren't willing to do that.

But it's (poorly) hidden, so that people can pretend that's not the case. All Trump's lies about the 2020 election allow people to continue to support him and claim that they're the real patriots.

If Trump actually cared about the Constitution, and America, he would never have made those claims unless he had proof. Proof that he could back up in court. (His complaints about the courts being against him are not supported by anyone who actually researches the issue and just feed the lies, undermining the legal system and legitimacy of the current government in the process. It's very frustrating to see people latch on to the stupidest claims online in order to continue to believe in him. Even more so as he goes on and on about election fraud, when a) the fraud has never been on a scale large enough to change an election and b) quite a bit of it is Republicans who get caught. Because there are systems in place to catch that sort of thing. Checks, for example, to see if a voter died before election day and couldn't have actually voted.)

But let's leave aside the way his constant lies undermine trust in the system. Let's look more directly at January 6th.

It doesn't actually matter thatTrump once used the term "peacefully", saying, 

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

And not just because he used the word 'fight' twenty times, and as wikipedia sums up he also

He called upon his supporters to "fight much harder" against "bad people"; told the crowd that "you are allowed to go by very different rules"; said that his supporters were "not going to take it any longer"; framed the moment as the last stand; suggested that Pence and other Republican officials put themselves in danger by accepting Biden's victory; and told the crowd he would march with them to the Capitol (but was prevented from doing so by his security detail)

Why? Because none of those people would have even been there if he hadn't stirred up questions about the election.

We have had Congress count the electoral college votes for over 200 years, and we've even had the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) and similar legislation meant to ensure disputes are resolved well before then. (Apparently the details can be confusing, but I think the intent is clear. You're not supposed to be guessing at who won the electoral college votes when they're counting the votes on 6 Jan. Disputes should have been resolved by the states themselves well before then.)

Furthermore, he made the claim that Pence could have actually changed the results, and pressured his Vice President to reject the results.

I'm not even getting into the fake electors, or him pressuring someone to 'find' enough votes to change the results.

I think anyone who actually pays attention would come to the same conclusion - Trump deliberately created a situation where his supporters attacked our democratic processes.

He should have been impeached, he should have been brought to justice, and if Republicans had any patriotism or any principles that would have been bipartisan.

We all know it was not.

Instead, I watched as people waffled, and that lying piece of shit who shouldn't ever be trusted with power was somehow made the Republican candidate for president.

I don't like hearing how vehement I've become, but I am honestly just disgusted at the entire state of affairs.

I'm disgusted with the entire Republican party.

I'm disgusted with the media that was able to harp on Biden's bad debate for weeks and yet doesn't say shit about the candidate who betrayed his oath of office and attacked the foundations of our nation.

And I'm disgusted that far too many people keep giving him a pass.

And while I'm sure there are some of his supporters who will get violent when he loses the 2024 election, I would rather deal with that now then deal with the inevitable violence that would come if power hungry idiots think he's showing them a successful way to gain power.

Understaffing and Making Do

Sharing because it's an interesting tale about how chronic understaffing makes an organization (in this case a hospital) less resilient. 

I feel like we're living through a time where you get consequences of systemic decisions like this are becoming more and more impossible to ignore. 

AI, Art, and Some Musings

 I saw this post the other day discussing ways to prompt Midjourney (which I guess is one of those AI art generators?) to make more creative or distinct art, and it's been sitting in the back of my head a bit.

And then I stumbled across this post, in which a guy created a site called One Million Checkboxes, which I guess people were using to select and deselect to create art?

Anyways, he discovered some young programmers who were doing some interesting things with his site, and I suppose the connecting feature of these two disparate posts is they they both buck the conventional wisdom a bit.

Or rather, I have seen quite a lot of criticism and concern about using AI to generate art, but the post on how to adjust Midjourney seemed less like 'the AI does what a real person can do (poorly), and will destroy the ability of artists to make a living' and more like 'here's another way people can create things, but it still requires human involvement in choosing the right prompts and settings to get something you want.' Really, the post made it seem like this is just another way to create art. One that doesn't require you to have good hand-eye coordination and the ability to draw in fine detail, but distinct and different from other forms of art.

One Million Checkboxes was similar, in that of course the average user may be annoyed and frustrated that someone was taking over the area they were trying to create some sort of design in....

And again, there was the concern about bots (as the kids apparently programmed bots to do what they did). But the guy who built the site was just impressed as heck with what the kids pulled off. 

Which, tbf, does sound impressive.

So a shift in perspective, in both cases.

Though it doesn't mean that the original perspective is wrong, per se. 

Which got me thinking about art, and AI (or really machine learning. It's not what I would call AI, even if everyone else does), and what sort of guidelines I'd use for it.

See... I think computing/machine learning/etc can be complementary to human ingenuity, but you can't really let them run without human involvement.

Mostly because computers and programming and machine learning are very much a 'garbage in, garbage out' kind of process.

Computers are absolutely excellent at doing things we frail mortals are terrible at.

Like doing the exact same thing, one million times, in the exact same way. In two seconds or less.

Computers will follow step by step instructions, exactly the way they are programmed to.

If you want to make a calculation, as long as you program it correctly the program will run it perfectly every time. (Ignoring, if you will, that apparently cosmic rays can sometimes flip bits, and I'm sure there are other things that can introduce corruption. If you were able to do billions of calculations before some corruption happen, it's not significant enough to derail this discussion.)

And I love them for that, because I would abolutely hate having to do that myself. I, a human, if asked to perform the task a million times, will absolutely screw some of them up.

Maybe I was distracted by something, or had a bad day, or whatever... I would miss a step, or make a mistake in multiplication, or whatever.

On the flip side... the computer only does what it's programmed to do. It has no way of telling whether it's wrong. It's not going to run a calculation and say 'Oh, that can't be right. I was expecting something in the vicinity of 300 billion and this is off by ten orders of magnitude. Maybe I made a mistake.'

Your machine learning isn't going to say 'this must be junk data, and it's corrupting my results.'

Or maybe it can, if someone builds a dataset to train it on and comes up with some sort of criteria for assessing good and bad data.

Which is kind of the point.

You still need someone to do that. To figure out what datasets you need to use to train it on. To figure out what the criteria for a good result is. 

You need human involvement.

Which is something I've thought for a long time, actually.

In tech, well... given enough time and resources we can automate quite a bit. We are, in fact, overwhelmed with tools all meant to automate things and make our jobs easier... and we write our own script to do the same.

I had someone ask me once, if I was worried about automation taking over my job.

And no, no I am not.

Because all those tools? All those things designed to make our jobs easier?

They still need human involvement.

The app changes, they upgrade a server, and they have to update the tool to the new server. Or the requirements change. Or the app is now serving more and more customers and it needs scaled up to manage the workload.

All of these sorts of things require people who understand the system well enough to know how to update and modify it.

And... in some ways, all these tools really just add another layer of obfuscation. 

It's all great when it works, but the minute something doesn't? The minute you need someone to figure out why it's not working?

You need an actual, living person who understands the tool well enough to figure it out.

I am reminded, again, of what my father said a long time ago. 

That you will either use what you learn so much you memorize it, or not use it again and forget... and the important things are knowing how to think and knowing how to look things up.

To use a completely different metaphor to say the same thing - we don't need people who know how to start a car and drive. (Those are the users, for which we build automation)

We need people who know how to track down the source of the strange sound when we brake, or figure out why the car isn't starting when we turn the key.

Mechanics are not needed any less no matter how much auto technology has changed... and, in fact, the more complex and sophisticated the automobile the more important mechanics are when things go wrong.

I wound up focusing more on the automation part and less on the 'art' part, but I do think humanity and computing are complementary.

We decide what we want to create, what we want to see, what we consider good and bad... and then we build the tools and automation that can be used to help us do the actual work.

Work Performance and the Milit6

Saw this interesting post that took off when some manager tried telling an employee that people who rig parachutes had to give 100% or people would die, and it sparked a discussion on what exactly the work requirements are for riggers. 

I read it mostly because I remember having a lot of riggers in my class at Airborne school, and I already knew that they had to be prepared to jump with any of the parachutes they rig. 

The additional points about how they are required to take breaks (as it is known the quality degrades after a certain amount of time), about not wanting them rigging parachutes if they're sick or otherwise compromised, and of course that there's quality control in place so that you're not dependent on one person always getting it perfect are... 

Actually pretty basic common sense. 

And yet ... 

Things that are fairly obvious in a job where people die if you get it wrong, are somehow not understood or accepted by business leaders today. 

Maybe it's the lack of true leadership experience? 

I don't really know the cause, but I am sometimes actually grateful for the things I learned about leadership from my time in the army. 

Somewhat related, I was talking to someone about that a few weeks ago and remembered a few other points I feel are often forgotten. 

Namely that, as a leader, the first question for when my people fail at something is 'did I set them up for success?'

Did I give them the training they needed? Were my expectations clear? Did they h6the resources to do the job? If it required coordination with another team or department, were there issues I needed to resolve? 

Sure, people are diverse and you might have some slackers or troublemakers, but in my experience over 90% of any issues can be resolved if you make sure you set them up for success. 

And if you did all that and they still aren't cutting it? You have the documentation you need to say they're a poor performer. (For that specific job, at least. People have different talents and some are not suited for the task at hand. It doesn't mean they're lazy or a bad employee, they're just not in the right spot).

I heard a famous coach say something similar, and I wish I remembered who it was and where.

Anyways, thinking of that reminded me of yet another issue with the 'whale' fallacy that seems to have grown big in tech.

Which is that really, if you think 10% of your people are 'whales' who do 90% of the work, then you need to figure out what you are doing that's blocking the other 90%.

Because there's nothing innately special about your 'whales'. 

On Tech

This post is... More vehement than I would be, with examples not quite in my area of expertise, but captures a sentiment I feel. 

Actually, it reminds me of an old basketball movie - Hoosiers. 

Which was naturally a rather popular thing to show a bunch of high schoolers in Indiana. Anyways, the coach that took that small Indiana team to state champions made a big deal about focusing on the basics. 

Sure, it looks cool when you can do a fancy slam dunk and hang from the hoop. 

But how's your ability to pass the ball? To dribble? How well do you and your team mates know the plays? 

Can you trust that if defense is blocking you and you call a play, that you can pass the ball to the right person and that they'll be there, ready for it? 

Teamwork is not magic. 

All my military experience just emphasizes this, so let me say it again. 

Teamwork is not magic. 

It's practice, and working with each other and practice and trusting each other and practice.

Anyways, I'm so very glad I switched to tech after having a career elsewhere, because I would hate to have been thrown into this sort of environment without knowing that it's actually pretty awful, and not 'just the way things are.'

Not that it's been that bad for me personally, but then again (because of prior experience) I'm pretty decent at figuring things out despite it all.

I've actually been doing pretty well at fixing some problems lately, one almost by accident. 

That doesn't change the basic point. Because talent and decision making are teachable and traits that any decent organization would develop in their people. It's practically the heart of creating a leadership pipeline. 

And there are plenty of people who can be smart and talented if given the right support. (The more of which, the better, because no organization should rely on just a few geniuses.)