I have to say web 3 makes me uncomfortable

The conversation about Web 3 continues, and while I favor the concept, I wonder if the point may have been missed. I understand the value in the future of the verifiable reality of the internet or Web 3. That makes perfect sense to me; what concerns me is the self-governing and trustless. Look, the internet is a cesspool today. A cesspool is probably an upgrade. You can find conspiracy guess sites all over the internet. The dark web or the unrouted internet is not managed, identified, or for the most part, even understood. The reality is verifiable is a dangerous endeavor for Web 3.

Verification is going to be hard. There are so many conspiracies guess sites on the internet (not a single one is a theory, but they are all guesses at best). It would mean that Web 3 would need an enforcement system to remove sites that cannot have their information verified. How will that work? We don’t have a system like that today that would allow for site verification. For example, this page itself is not verified. Nothing I post should be accepted as anything other than my opinion. In my opinion, it only applies to those with similar experiences.

That is the self-governing piece I just don’t see on the horizon. Today, State-driven governing, China, Russia, and other nations block internet inbound and outbound traffic and block specific sites. While that has traditionally been considered censorship, sadly, censorship is a part of self-governing. It is the part that no one wants to talk about. The last part that gets me is the trustless concept. That would greatly benefit people in restrictive regimes and countries; it would be harder to control and block traffic. But that one is a vast and uncharted ocean, and we don’t have a boat!

.doc

The reality of podcasts!

To those who sacrificed so that we may live, thank you. You are remembered.

Over the last four months, I’ve expanded my podcast listening by literally 400%. I went from 8 podcasts I listen to monthly to around 40. Of those, I have found a bunch of new favorites, including Science Friday, which was an old favorite and one I listened to on NPR for many years. Another is things you missed in history class. I’ve mentioned a couple of the other new podcasts I’ve come to enjoy; Lex Friedman and Off-Leash are two more. I like the Freakonomics offerings of Freakomics MD and No Stupid Questions. Overall, the quality of podcasts makes me want to make mine better!

I realized the other day that I have more social and fewer technology-focused podcasts. That is not the intent-based; it is simply where my interests lie at the moment. I have a few more technical podcasts I can listen to. But right now, I am focused on more social listening. It interests me to hear how other people process the world around them. Sometimes, you can find a new path for yourself in how others deal with things. Sometimes you can take the what I believe blinder off and hear things from another side or angle!

I do find the current environment to be a little hard to comprehend. Based on the world around me, I sometimes feel like I am in a peach tree dish, and the microscope is right overhead. I can see the beady eyes of the scientist preparing to turn me into a meat substitute.

To borrow from a great book of many years ago. I have no mouth, but I must scream.

,doc

Home networks with high upload speeds are what matter

Do you ever think about connectivity? I mean, stop and truly consider the reality of connectivity? If I had a time machine, but connectivity was critical, I would not drop myself into 1984. Even though in 1984, big brother wasn’t around as well as predicted. I would drop myself into now. Now is the edge of the end of the age of Digital Transformation. But, to be fair, it is the edge that will eventually be the end of the age of digital transformation. Far too many processes comply manually, and far too many things are not digital to start, use and end with.

I think about connectivity all the time; as 5g begins to expand and increase the overall capacity of networks for wireless devices, the thing that scares me is that cable companies continue to advertise the fastest in-home Wi-Fi, and that advertising tricks people. So, a column I originally wrote many years ago returns. Why in-home Wi-Fi only answers ½ the question.  First, let’s lay out the question, “what does connectivity mean?” It means two things: the ability to send and receive information. The second thing is an expansion of what is connected.

Let me make sure that it is clear—an expansion of what is connected. So your connected fridge, toaster, computer, cell phone, tablet, and other devices are on your home network. If you are stuck with a cable modem, you will find out why you care in a second. You install a new cable modem and Wi-Fi solution. Fastest, you are told, that you can have in your home. You install the 12-30 connected devices on this new network, and you are good to go. Or are you? Those connected devices have to call home; that is an upload. If you have a cable modem, you will find that incredible download speed (1.2 gigs download speed) is not the speed of your uploads (400 MPs or less often). So, your router at home gets overwhelmed, having to queue all those uploads you need to do for all those connected devices. You see, connected devices have to call home; THAT’s AN UPLOAD! So if your cable modem has a limited upload speed, you will find that the fastest in-home Wi-Fi is useless because the router is queuing all those uploads, and you don’t get the information you need.

Don’t buy the hype; consider how many connected devices you have now and how many you will have in a year. Base your home internet connection on what you will need in a year, not today.

,doc

I am the very model of a dad joke telling dad!

I had a pc start smoking this week. Not, a rasping voice, puffing on cigarettes. It was an older pc (around six years old) that I used as a server in my office. I ran VMWare on it as a host for multiple machines. It had a liquid cooling system, and the system sprung a leak. The liquid cooling agent (it is not water) leaked onto the hot components, and the system started smoking. A nasty-smelling smoke at best. The nest system hopped into gear, notifying us of the presence of smoke and the location in the house of that smoke. Nothing like intelligent automation!

The sound, of course, was the embodiment of a disembodied voice. Emanating from a speaker attached to the ceiling, it was as if the voice was from above (actually, it was not like it was)!  Today is one of those days when my mind is racing with odd and unique thoughts. Unique in the sense that most people blow by them or ignore them. Sadly when they come into my head, I welcome them, pour them a scotch, and listen to the story of their travails. You never know when minor travails will turn into wonderful new, painful dad jokes!

My kids all hate dad jokes. When my daughter was little, we had a manual transmission car. I used to shift first gear, second gear, and third gear. With 4^th gear, I would squeeze my daughter’s knee. That wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Why? My daughter, visiting my mother, was asked to count to 10. (I had told my mother I could count to ten). She said, 1235678910). My mother called me and said my daughter might have an issue, as she skipped four every time she counted. I told mom the story of the car. She asked my daughter and explained that if she didn’t say four, her knees wouldn’t get tickled.

Neither my daughter or my mother have forgiven me for that!

.doc

To interrupt or not to interrupt that is the question

I listened to a recent podcast with Andrew Huberman and Lex Friedman. Dr. Huberman said, sometimes, when people interrupt, they are excited and interested in what you say. I think that is an interesting point, but it also questions what about the rest of the time? I believe there are two types of interruption; the first is I am interested in what you are saying. It is often prefaced with an “I’m sorry to interrupt but..” The other kind is a little more dangerous. That is the interruption because what I have to say is more important regardless of what you say.

One person constantly interrupted the other speakers in the last two presidential debates (2016 and 2020). The importance of their words over anyone else’s words was clearly on display. In terms of the communications patterns and anti-patterns, the engaged listener is interrupting because what is being said interests them. That pattern is normally built around the allaying statement “sorry to interrupt but” or some iteration of that statement. It is a polite interruption designed to build on your point. It is not the best answer to the question how to i build on your point, but it is better than the second or anti-pattern version.

The other form of interruption, such as we saw during the 2016 and 2020 presidential debates, does not show a superior position, or for that matter, even a position that is right. It just shows the self-importance of the second interrupting speaker. The problem, of course, with self-importance, is that you miss more than you hear. In a world where many people have brilliant ideas, but where the ideas don’t come to those who can’t hear, you miss much. I guess, in my humble opinion, ideas are like butterflies. They float in the air and may choose to land. Or they may choose to fly away forever.

Gun Control is not a constitutional issue

It isn’t a constitutional issue.

It is an NRA issue.

From the original Federalist Papers, the framers, and later the constitutional congress (PS, Jefferson did NOT WRITE THE US CONSTITUTION) had a very different idea about what the 2^nd amendment meant than the current application of that amendment. Based on the state, time, and political conditions, they determined that the availability of weapons for citizens was critical. In 1790 more than 50% of people hunted so that they could eat and provide for their families (that number encompasses both the hunter and the families fed by the hunting). The framers quickly realized that guns, as they were in 1790, were critical for the survival of the then ten-year-old nation.

But let’s talk about the weapons in 1790.

1. They had to be reloaded after every shot.
2. The barrels were long because there was less rifling in the barrels making the rounds very inconsistent when firing over a great distance (which then was 200 yards)
3. They used round lead pellets as bullets
4. They pure gunpowder and wadding after each shot to reload
5. The weapon often misfired, more than 20% of the time

Gun control is not a constitutional issue. We should enforce the rules of the constitution and read the framer’s words literally. As defined by the US Constitution, a weapon for home use meets the five criteria above. Ethics matter, and interpretations matter. What we think and say matters. We, as a nation, should read the document that congresspeople and senators are throwing about. Sure, let’s enforce the 2^nd amendment. We don’t need to change the constitution. We need to read it and enforce it as it was written.

Or, we have to acknowledge that the constitution as written requires work. Which is a component of what the Federalist papers were driving towards. That the framework that was built needed to be updated. I think the 2^nd amendment of the constitution should be modified. I also believe that based on the rules of the US Federal government (see FAR and the code of ethics for congress), all congresspeople that accept money from the NRA must declare themselves before they are allowed to vote. I believe voting on, delaying, and voting down gun control legislation after taking money from the NRA fits into the category of PCI. (Personal conflict of interest)

,doc

There is nothing to say

I mourn for the souls lost in Texas.

I am sorry we are bound in such a time of hate. There are no words that make what happened better; make what happened to go away. In less than ten days, we’ve seen two sides of the same coin. Violence against children is unacceptable. Violence is based solely on the perceived reality of a theory that is at best wrong; it has become unspeakable. I won’t even dignify the best guess that is the basis for the Buffalo shooting. It isn’t a hypothesis; it isn’t even a hypothesis; it isn’t even an educated guess; it is simply hate. Nothing more or less than hate.

This weekend I was working on a new article for my Futurist series. I was talking about the reality of what is wrong with 3d printers. It is not that the plastic (PLA or ABS) is expensive. It is not that people use their printers to print Dogs and Cats to decorate their homes. The problem with 3d printers is they can print Ghost Guns (see the article below for a full description of a Ghost Gun). But now, in reviewing what happened in Texas, I wonder if the problem is more than Ghost Guns. If the problem is people.

I support, believe in, and have pledged allegiance to the constitution of the United States. I swore a loyalty oath to become a school teacher. I support the rights of people who love hunting. If hunting is your hobby, you should have every right to go out and hunt. I do NOT support, however, the ability to buy assault weapons. I do not believe in the ability to buy bump stocks and other modifications that make a standard weapon capable of firing multiple shots per minute. The question isn’t gun ownership; some gun owners believe they have the right to use their guns on people. It might do not make right. The power to choose life and death for another person is beyond our human rights.

I mourn for the souls lost in Buffalo.

But I fear that the country I love is losing its soul.

Hubpages

https://hubpages.com/technology/Futurist-The-problem-with-3d-printers-is-Ghost-Guns

.doc

wandering in search of intelligence

I was listening to a podcast yesterday about AI (it is an interesting podcast series, me myself and AI). They were talking to an AI person from eBay. I became more frustrated as I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with the AI-driven customer service at eBay, and it isn’t very good. AI, if done correctly, should learn, and evolve, improving customer service, not making it worse. Automation is a good thing; you can do more customer-focused things with fewer people, increasing the number of people you can help. But it has actually to work.

Eventually, an AI (or what I much prefer to call Machine Intelligence) will become aware. That is the crux, the driving point of building an AI, to empower it to become aware. That moment of awareness is the tipping point for humanity. I believe it will be tipping towards good, but I prefer optimism in most cases. Pessimism puts that awareness into the Skynet category. I would remind people that Skynet was an AI in the terminator movies. It was programmed with the full intent of ending warfare. It realized no humans, no war, and was dedicated to removing warfare by removing humans.

I suspect, honestly, that is one of the reasons that people are scared of or concerned about AI. That is a big change. I realize that and have talked to many people concerned about AI going forward. I am not in that camp, but I do understand that fear. Machine Intelligence would be hard for many people to accept even though MI (AI) is all around you and becoming more and more prevalent in our day-to-day lives. Driving in DC, near or to DC, I can honestly say that Autonomous Cars would be good. The other day a car passed me, cut in front of me, and nearly crashed into the car in the left lane. The passing car was going at least 80 mph.

.doc

OODA loops and systems

Input and output that is what every system design uses. What are the inputs, and what are the expected outputs. Most human functions can be broken down into the three simple components of a system. Input, modifications, and output are simple models. We can expand the system view by looking at and using John Boyd’s OODA loops (observe, orient, decide and finally act). The observed outputs of a system can change if we modify what the observer is looking for when they observe. Seek simple always, but watch complexity.

I have a long-time friend who works in Cyber Risk Management for a company. He spends a lot of time considering the impact of risks. I introduced him to Boyd’s OODA loop, and he often uses it. We talk about it when we have time for phone conversations. Mostly, he emails me, or I email him. The reality is we can consider more than what we see. It is very important to know that we are not taking the easy path because it is easy. We have to take the path that leads us to the destination in the best possible manner.

Sometimes, you have to climb a mountain to realize it was only a hill.

I am waxing philosophical today, more for gearing up for a Monday than anything else. I try to apply both a systems view and the OODA loops in everything. Sometimes, I cannot find a way to apply either, which is when I go into the recursive loops within the OODA loop system. Review, review and ultimately examine the review. Bias is what drives us to make decisions sometimes. Finding a way to remove the bias is how we create better decisions. Applying better decisions makes the system operate more effectively!

,doc

and then I stopped using edge and chrome!

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that I was having an issue with one of my PCs. Both Edge and Chrome would launch and then quit. Normally between 10-25 seconds. I tried the 11 different recommendations to fix the issue and even contacted Microsoft support. None of them worked. Since I had another PC that was up and running, I decided that I would try some other browsers. I uninstalled Chrome and moved Chrome’s settings to Brave. I also updated Firefox and have used Opera for ages.

Overall, I found that I didn’t need the browsers I had been using.

It is also important to learn new things. So, I am now using Brave. I still have Chrome and Edge set up on my other computer, which is the one I generate the blogs on anyway. But I decided to try Brave. So far, it has a great advantage in that it is really fast.

I have had tech issues rule for many years. If I cannot solve it in 3 hours or less, I contact the manufacturer or creator. If they can’t fix it in another, say, 3 hours, I move on. It isn’t that I am impatient; it is just that I have a lot of things to do every day, and messing with technical problems is not part of my job now. It was once, for many years, but now it is not.

One thing I continue to do is help others with computer issues.  That I do not mind spending time on. I started my IT career on a helpdesk, and ultimately, that was how I learned to troubleshoot problems. Other than a natural curiosity!

/doc