This blog started two years ago with the purpose of looking at issues of computation interacting with being (ourselves, so to speak). That is, we have expertise which has been honed through myriads of years and which has been extended through generations by memes and which is still not sufficient to cover a whole lot of problems (yes, the infamous world hunger, getting a project done on time, and more) that is not capable of handling computing (and truth) without some significant changes (and, it's more than just handling hogwash).
Oh, yes, there are plenty of worldviews with answers already determined even though our experiences can indicate (except to those best-and-brightest who are completely entralled with their own mind's eye) that underdetermination is really our most frequent state (and we learn to make guesses to fill gaps - albeit this can be fun, too).
So, the original issues being addressed were general, such as things in themselves, tribal dynamics, temporal influences, the sirens of abstraction, those who know it all. There may have been a leaning toward engineering in the beginning as the focus for discussion, but finance/economics soon raised its head as of interest to the theme.
As it turns out, both engineering and economics have been unending founts of examples that can be used for motivation and illustration. The 787 controversies of the fall of 2007 created the need for a look at those issues, and that caused an engineering focus for awhile. In fact, the first post, beyond the Seeds, was looking at abstraction's appeal which has a very strong pull.
Just, look at the mess of the economy due to faulty mathematics.
That economics could offer such a wide range of topics related to truth engineering became apparent as engineering does work for the most part (are we not besieged on all sides by products demonstrating engineering prowess?).
We will show that it's the manager mindset that get things screwed up. Over the past couple of years, plenty of the discussion about the looming problems of the economy was right on. It was obvious that things were awry due to fundamental issues and, now we might add, that many of these were not resolved in the crash.
The past few days has the WSJ exclaiming that Goldman Sachs is making money hands over fists. Well, didn't they get a bailout too? Fold themselves under a wing of a government shelter for protection (ain't that so sweet?)?
You see, GS represents that part of the economy that is hardly useful (though, leeches do have an acknowledged medical use) except for its abilities to do the major sucking out of the pockets. Who is looking at their stuff in detail?
Well, will the new day handle these issues or will we just go back to the normal idiocy of a game run by fat cats that consumes lots of resources in maintaining itself and that, for the most part, is not necessary - yet, seems to be taken as some extreme example of the virtues of capitalism?
Oh, of course, casino capitalism.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
09/08/2009 -- System risks are still there.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more way to cope. Take, for instance, truth maintenance which is NP, yet that is no deterrent for the effort covered by the blog. Why? Ah, we're getting to that.
09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Showing posts with label Lean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lean. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Lean and truth
It's review time again, being Thanksgiving, which is a secular American holiday.
As noted in the banner, posts here concern 'being' (small t) and its importance; basically, trends, such as Lean, have removed being out of the modern mindset which may explain a whole lot of trouble.
But, let's start our analysis with Lean, as there will be more culprits. For those who don't know, Lean is an initiative that removes waste from a process, thereby reducing cost. It can help improve quality, too.
But, Lean deals with processes, not being. Process foci lead to protocols. As said before, protocols deal with averages. The world of being is not average, anywhere. Or, we could say that being is everywhere dense. Yet, we have been allowed to stumble along with our averages.
Until, that is, we see things like the 787 project and the current economic mess. These two have problems with similar etiologies.
The questions need to be analyzed and addressed under a Truth Engineering framework. That is our work for the coming year.
Remarks:
09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.
Modified: 09/02/2009
As noted in the banner, posts here concern 'being' (small t) and its importance; basically, trends, such as Lean, have removed being out of the modern mindset which may explain a whole lot of trouble.
But, let's start our analysis with Lean, as there will be more culprits. For those who don't know, Lean is an initiative that removes waste from a process, thereby reducing cost. It can help improve quality, too.
But, Lean deals with processes, not being. Process foci lead to protocols. As said before, protocols deal with averages. The world of being is not average, anywhere. Or, we could say that being is everywhere dense. Yet, we have been allowed to stumble along with our averages.
Until, that is, we see things like the 787 project and the current economic mess. These two have problems with similar etiologies.
The questions need to be analyzed and addressed under a Truth Engineering framework. That is our work for the coming year.
Remarks:
09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.
Modified: 09/02/2009
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Process and Protocol
Lately, the posts have dealt with a couple of types (engineering and financial), but there was some discussion earlier of the medical types.
Much of the success to date, assuming that what we call by 'success' really is such (bunches of discussion of wholistic (intended) issues need examination [such as, one pocket being lined to the max while oodles of others starve cannot be called success except facetiously]; too, environmental degradation needs to be brought into equations that are going to spout about success), deals with finding best practices. It's the notion that process rules.
One consequence of that is that people are made into commodities (even securitized, thereby degraded). Well, from some warped views, people are only pawns anyway, so what's the issue?
Related to process will be the protocol dealing both with the formation and execution of rules and with interchange with the environment (i/o, if you would).
So, process rules in this day. The individual is shorted, except for the few who use the modern situations, opportunistically, to line their pockets to the max.
We see that now even in the medical realm, a process has taken hold.
Yet, let's divert a minute and use a baseball metaphor briefly. What chances are there that some process can take any individual, put them at the plate, let them run the protocol, and then give us someone like the Babe? Fairly close to zilch, wouldn't you say?
So, the basic question is: what predominates, the protocol or the person? Before you answer, please note that the disparities that we see economically are partly do to how this question is answered. Too, some types of deviations caused by the failures of protocol are ignored, that is, are considered non-value (oh, please, let's talk value) added.
Thankfully for many, we see that the person side is important. I wouldn't want even the best nurse practitioner following some protocol and doing surgery. Not on me, unless it's minor, and I can both observe and participate (think of those who have had the luxury of doing their own appendectomy).
Lean, if there is a failing to this (there are more, that are political and social), is protocol-oriented. That the concepts from this thing are applied (mis-applied) ought to give us some pause. The problem is that the current cultural framework hasn't allowed the proper discussion. Well, time will afford the opportunity.
Remarks:
09/04/2009 -- Markets work, since they handle undecidable issues bottom up. That approach will always outperform the top down, along almost all axes. Too, there are people who worry about how we can help the human/labor/consumer found the economy fairly.
09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.
Modified: 08/24/2011
Much of the success to date, assuming that what we call by 'success' really is such (bunches of discussion of wholistic (intended) issues need examination [such as, one pocket being lined to the max while oodles of others starve cannot be called success except facetiously]; too, environmental degradation needs to be brought into equations that are going to spout about success), deals with finding best practices. It's the notion that process rules.
One consequence of that is that people are made into commodities (even securitized, thereby degraded). Well, from some warped views, people are only pawns anyway, so what's the issue?
Related to process will be the protocol dealing both with the formation and execution of rules and with interchange with the environment (i/o, if you would).
So, process rules in this day. The individual is shorted, except for the few who use the modern situations, opportunistically, to line their pockets to the max.
We see that now even in the medical realm, a process has taken hold.
Yet, let's divert a minute and use a baseball metaphor briefly. What chances are there that some process can take any individual, put them at the plate, let them run the protocol, and then give us someone like the Babe? Fairly close to zilch, wouldn't you say?
So, the basic question is: what predominates, the protocol or the person? Before you answer, please note that the disparities that we see economically are partly do to how this question is answered. Too, some types of deviations caused by the failures of protocol are ignored, that is, are considered non-value (oh, please, let's talk value) added.
Thankfully for many, we see that the person side is important. I wouldn't want even the best nurse practitioner following some protocol and doing surgery. Not on me, unless it's minor, and I can both observe and participate (think of those who have had the luxury of doing their own appendectomy).
Lean, if there is a failing to this (there are more, that are political and social), is protocol-oriented. That the concepts from this thing are applied (mis-applied) ought to give us some pause. The problem is that the current cultural framework hasn't allowed the proper discussion. Well, time will afford the opportunity.
Remarks:
09/04/2009 -- Markets work, since they handle undecidable issues bottom up. That approach will always outperform the top down, along almost all axes. Too, there are people who worry about how we can help the human/labor/consumer found the economy fairly.
09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.
Modified: 08/24/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)