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'.