tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709720003938903762023-11-15T10:09:06.562-06:00Café DavidCafé David contains moderately coherent ramblings on everything from customer service to philosophy from The David.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-31484780765200284872017-08-14T21:38:00.000-05:002017-08-14T21:44:06.623-05:00CharlottesvilleOn Saturday, at 1:45pm local time, an act of domestic terrorism occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia. A young woman was killed, many others were injured.<br />
<br />
It has now been more than 48 hours since that happened, and I'm still trying to figure out how to respond. This isn't going to be a post with answers, or insights. This is simply a case of me trying to figure out what to do.<br />
<br />
Condemnation of the attacker is obvious. Violence and murder are completely unacceptable crimes. The attacker needs to be dealt with according to the law, as any other criminal who commits acts of terror.<br />
<br />
It's the responses I see from many about how to respond to the Neo-Nazis that trouble me.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
I'll pause while most people navigate away, write their condemnation of me, or simply explode.</blockquote>
<br />
Of course, if you know me, you know that I completely condemn racism. The Nazi ideology is repugnant to me. But so is violence, and that's where I have so much trouble with the responses I see, and indeed, with the initial response I had.<br />
<br />
Yesterday, one of the trending hashtags on my Twitter feed was #PunchNazis. Many people I admire and respect were tweeting positive comments about how Jason Kessler was chased and tackled. Some resurrected the video of Richard Spencer getting assaulted.<br />
<br />
The thing that's worse is that there is a part of me that wanted to agree. When I hear about Neo-Nazi rallys, or see sound bites from white supremacists, or even read about the constant attempts to disenfranchise minorities, the temptation to advocate a violent response is there. Part of me truly believes that the world would be a better place without the David Dukes, Richard Spencers, and Jason Kesslers. I'm honestly wishing someone dead.<br />
<br />
And that makes me no better than a Nazi. If my solution is to do violence to them because they believe abhorrent things, my solution isn't a solution.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, I realize that violence against Nazis will have a number of effects. Fear that they too may be assaulted and killed will keep many from expressing their beliefs openly (and yes, punches can kill). Knowing they might be hounded out of their towns will make them more reticent to say things we don't want them to say. Lynchings and burning swastikas on their lawns will drive them into hiding.<br />
<br />
But violence won't solve Nazism. If it did, we wouldn't be here. In some ways, violence against them will just serve their cause. It will create martyrs and reinforce their persecution complexes.<br />
<br />
Worse, violence against Nazis hurts us. We can't be a society that condones violence as a response, no matter how repugnant the bile that someone spews. We can have laws that define and criminalize hate speech. We can engage in peaceful counter protest. And we can absolutely defend ourselves if violence is attempted against us. But a fist in the face doesn't cure a Nazi. It just infects us with a bit of Nazism.<br />
<br />
I don't know what does cure Nazism, but I do believe we've come a long way since the 1930's. The level of condemnation and the counter protests alone demonstrate that. But we do need more answers so that our generation might be the last that has to face this sort of threat.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-71012498934472130792017-03-11T08:12:00.000-06:002017-03-18T12:08:55.214-05:00Making Corporate Training EasyIn the course of my career, I've had to develop and deliver a lot of training. Whether it was instructing new salespeople on how to use the till when I was in retail, teaching evaluators the ways to assess a customer contact in the world of call quality, or educating users on the software I support, I've always sought to make the training as easy to understand as possible. The academic approaches I was taught in college focussed a lot on the need for clarity and simplicity in instructional design, and honestly it seems pretty much axiomatic that clear and easy training would facilitate the learning process.<br />
<br />
Lately, I've begun to doubt that assumption. Over the last few years, Derek Muller of Veritasium has posted a number of videos about his work in the area of learning and video design. He discusses Khan Academy and, in the context of his own research, questions their effectiveness: <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eVtCO84MDj8" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
You can and should watch the video. But the key point here was that transfer of training was actually greater when the videos weren't quite as "clear, concise or easy to understand".<br />
<br />
Now, when I saw the video, I didn't generalize it beyond the specifics of science education. But Derek's more recent videos have made me reassess that failure. On his Veritasium channel, he recently posted "The Science of Thinking".<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UBVV8pch1dM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
Again, you really should watch the video. Here he talks about the two systems of thinking. Having read Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", that wasn't really news to me. But then, on his second channel, Derek talked about some of the challenge this presents to him as a content creator. <br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gstcvew6FVM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
That was when the lightbulb went off. I've had a great deal of challenge with transfer of training. Is part of the problem due to the clarity of my training? Do I need to seed it with a little confusion?<br />
<br />
This is something I'm going to need to explore.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-7044440162464717762016-11-12T22:25:00.003-06:002016-11-12T22:25:51.438-06:00Dissecting the US ElectionSo, I'm going to tell you the <b>one thing</b> that allowed Donald Trump to win the 2016 US Presidential election.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eK2CC_oHy6E/WCfdqSSYW-I/AAAAAAAADQc/7g2wUTtcNVM5nOr0rCz_S8v75xsGrY6zQCK4B/s1600/canstockphoto19036317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eK2CC_oHy6E/WCfdqSSYW-I/AAAAAAAADQc/7g2wUTtcNVM5nOr0rCz_S8v75xsGrY6zQCK4B/s400/canstockphoto19036317.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<!-- HTML Credit Code for Can Stock Photo -->
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image Credit: <a href="http://www.canstockphoto.com/">(c) Can Stock Photo / solarseven</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Don't worry, I know how absurd that statement was. But in the last few days I've read and watched so many analysis pieces that try to make sense of what just happened by looking for a primary cause. And while they might find a cause that they personally like or believe, there isn't a primary cause. There are dozens of causes. Any attempt to distill the those causes down to even a small few is doomed to failure.<br />
Furthermore, while it's possible to say certain specific groups of voters voted for a candidate because of X, that only deals with that specific group of voters. Other voters voted the the very same candidate for very different reasons. In some cases those reasons may actually have been diametrically opposed to the reasons that drove he first group.<br />
(Note: when I say specific groups of voters, I do not mean ethnic groups or genders or even party members. Every one of those 'groups' is so broad as to be useless for any real analysis. I don't have a proper operational definition for my specific groups, but they are sub-sub-subsets, with many extra 'subs')<br />
So having said that, what's the point of this article? Mostly it's my attempt to identify, explore, and perhaps categorize as many of those causes as I can. I don't plan to rank them, or to assign more than a broad level of impact to them (i.e. major vs minor). Basically, I'm writing this for me, and inflicting it on anyone unlucky enough to stumble across it. However, I would say that, if things are to improve (and not just in US Elections) we can't try to fix one thing. Any real progress will come from multiple vectors and will be more likely to involve incremental change (although I propose some dramatic change below).<br />
<hr align="center" size="2" width="50%" />
Before we move on, I'm going to make a number of statements that should impact how you read and assess this article:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>I'm Canadian, and for all our similarities, Canadians don't approach government exactly the same way as Americans. We have different values and my values impact my thinking. </li>
<li>I'm a human being, so I'm horribly biased. My biases impact my thinking no matter how hard I try to be objective. </li>
<li>Key bias: I did not want Donald Trump to win the election. </li>
<li>While I do have a degree in Psychology, with a minor in Political Studies, I'm no expert in either field. I don't practice in either field. I'm just a layperson trying to figure things out. </li>
<li>This is a blog post. Despite its ridiculous length, there are 78520372341 things that occurred to me I didn't have time to mention, clarify, explore. </li>
<li>In a couple of places I have come up with a number by mashing the number pad. </li>
<li>I'm no genius, so there are also an order of magnitude more things I missed, misunderstood, or that I just didn't think of,</li>
</ol>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="50%" />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: x-large;">The Primary Point of Failure in Democracy</span><br />
<div>
Surprisingly, I'm not going to mention the Electoral College here (but don't worry, I'll get to it).<br />
Perhaps the biggest flaw in democracy is that it allows people to vote. In a representative democracy, the assumption is that people will vote for representatives who will enact laws and policies that benefit the voters. Underlying that assumption is another assumption that people will vote logically, or rationally. Unfortunately, people are rarely logical or rational; both in every day decisions, but even more so in the area of politics.<br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">Emotional Voting</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1MY5oBGP0B0/WCefdcM551I/AAAAAAAADPc/Wn11NbT8NTUfgTJXaroQl8xu5sEyXo9UwCK4B/s1600/canstockphoto11708263.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Child cowering in fear of a shadowy form" border="0" height="270" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1MY5oBGP0B0/WCefdcM551I/AAAAAAAADPc/Wn11NbT8NTUfgTJXaroQl8xu5sEyXo9UwCK4B/s320/canstockphoto11708263.jpg" title="Fear" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<!-- HTML Credit Code for Can Stock Photo -->
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image Credit: <a href="http://www.canstockphoto.com/">(c) Can Stock Photo / HaywireMedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I think it's undeniable that emotions were one of the most major impacts to the election. Whether out of fear or anger or in hope and joy, people voted based on feelings. Sadly, I think fear and anger were the predominant feelings.<br />
<br />
<b>Fear</b></div>
<div>
For years, both of the major parties have tried to instill fear in the US populace. They differ only in what the voter is supposed to fear. Fear short circuits most of our ability to think rationally. It activates much more primitive behaviour sets, driving us to either flee or fight. Neither reaction is generally driven by logic.<br />
<b></b><br />
<div>
<b><b><br /></b></b></div>
<b>
Anger</b></div>
<div>
Anger appeared in this election in so many ways. Anger directed at the past and present actions of the candidates. Anger directed at the actions of the government. Anger drawn from the systemic problems that afflict groups and individuals. Anger at a world that isn't the world the voter wants.<br />
Often the anger was directly stoked by the fear mongering of the parties. But I believe that just as much was endemic. It seem trite to talk about the impact of technological change, but I do truly believe the pace of change has accelerated. <br />
Anger is a common reaction to change, because of the pain of the loss of what was, the fear of the new, and work involved to incorporate the new world. But when the change is constant, we are in a constant state of loss, and often have to start incorporating a new world before we could even come to terms with last new thing.<br />
Regardless of the source, anger is just as bad at short-circuiting rationality. It can lead us to make choices that are not only bad, but actively self-destructive.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>Hate</b></div>
<div>
Okay, before my fellow geeks jump on me for allusions to the first trilogy, I honestly do have to talk about hate. Of course I'm not saying I didn't intentionally order the emotions to imply an ultimate result.<br />
I think it's fair to say that I've actively observed nine presidential elections (I'm afraid it was only in my teens that I started to pay attention to politics.) It has only been in the last three that I truly got the sense that any sizable group truly hated a candidate. In the first two of those three, I blithely ascribed that hate to a particular motivation. While I'm still sure that my ascription was valid, I now believe it was woefully limited. <br />
We increasingly demonize those who disagree with us. There is an innate human tendency to react negatively when someone believes something other than what we believe. Alternative viewpoints mean that we might be wrong. But lately, it seems that we react to that challenge far more negatively than is appropriate. My personal theory is that this is because being wrong has moved from being mildly embarrassing to a tragedy of epic proportions. We vilify people for errors that should not draw more than a wry grin.<br />
Regardless of the reasons for the hate, it undeniably impacted this election. Once people start to hate something or someone, there is little likelihood of that changing, barring an event on the order of divine intervention.<br />
<br />
<b>Hope</b></div>
<div>
As much play as the negative emotions played a part, emotions like hope also had an impact. Many people saw their own dreams realized in the platform and promises of a particular candidate. Hope for jobs, hope for progress, hope for a better tomorrow.Hope is a beautiful thing, but it can lead us astray. Rather than go into that in detail, I'll direct you to Hannah Hart's (@harto) vlogbrother video on the topic: The Trouble with Wishful Thinking<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/slc_erhkHdo" width="480"></iframe><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">Humans are Bad Decision Makers</span><br />
Even outside of emotions (an absurd and impossible precondition), human beings are not great at making decisions. We rarely make decisions by thinking through the options logically and choosing the best one. There are a number of reasons for that.<br />
<br /></div>
<b>Cognitive biases</b><br />
<div>
I could probably write fifty articles on the different cognitive biases that skew our thinking in illogical ways. Whether it's the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_effect" target="_blank">Ambiguity Effect</a> (which definitely impacts voting) to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia" target="_blank">Apophenia</a> (which I also believe impacts voting), or even the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic" target="_blank">Availability Heuristic</a> (which, given the media bubbles that I'll talk about below also impacted voting). And I didn't even leave the "A's".</div>
<div>
Regardless, these cognitive biases affect all of us. We are not the logical and rational thinkers that Democracy requires.<br />
<br /></div>
<b>Infinity</b><br />
<div>
One of the reasons we have the biases we do is that they help us make decisions quickly. We couldn't function if we had to fully analyze every decision we make each day. For those of us lucky enough to live in relative affluence, just deciding on breakfast would take until lunch if we thought through every option each time (although perhaps we'd be healthier).</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D5Yp3Ri7Duo/WCe43-4RqUI/AAAAAAAADPs/8X3AAcWjyEodnImhss53Kvid8UjPBnzzQCK4B/s1600/canstockphoto29475937.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D5Yp3Ri7Duo/WCe43-4RqUI/AAAAAAAADPs/8X3AAcWjyEodnImhss53Kvid8UjPBnzzQCK4B/s320/canstockphoto29475937.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<!-- HTML Credit Code for Can Stock Photo -->
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image Credit: <a href="http://www.canstockphoto.com/">(c) Can Stock Photo / kgtoh</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
When you look at what we are asking our politicians to do, the number of factors we need to consider are definitely on the second half of the chessboard. To logically and rationally decide who will best represent us, we need to decide on questions in almost every sphere of human endeavor. I like to think of myself as a reasonably well educated person, but honestly I don't feel remotely qualified to vote. I don't have the time required to truly assess each candidate's position on every issue, much less the expertise. Nor do I have the time to fully vet the experts that those candidates rely on. The best I can do is guess at a specific set of issues and approaches that form my sine qua non and see which candidate comes closest.<br />
<br />
<b>Bubbles, Echo Chambers and Silos, Oh My!</b><br />
I don't want to spend a lot of time on the Bubble/Echo Chamber phenomenon as it also is discussed more effectively elsewhere. The problem is that I do believe it has been steadily increasing both polarization and demonization.<br />
We all live in informational bubbles. Truth is what is presented to us in that bubble. Lately that has reached the point that we don't even experience the same realities. Have ten random voters describe today's America, and I bet you'd find at least five very different pictures (and I fear it would be ten). I suspect, stripped of any place names, you might not recognize what country was being described.<br />
The informational bubble has always existed to some extent, whether it was based on what church you attended, which newspapers or periodicals to which one subscribed, which news anchor one preferred, or even where you lived, Similarly, we have always tended to surround ourselves with like minded people. We like people who think like us, and who tell us we are right. As much as we want to believe that opposites attract, it has always been truer that birds of a feather flock together.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jn5bT0_aHew/WCfMT8n6h0I/AAAAAAAADQM/FeUeTQ5_XWMOFl6FVw_KHdtetf484yFYgCK4B/s1600/canstockphoto11720102.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="People clustered into niche groups" border="0" height="342" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jn5bT0_aHew/WCfMT8n6h0I/AAAAAAAADQM/FeUeTQ5_XWMOFl6FVw_KHdtetf484yFYgCK4B/s400/canstockphoto11720102.jpg" title="Niches" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<!-- HTML Credit Code for Can Stock Photo -->
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image Credit: <a href="http://www.canstockphoto.com/">(c) Can Stock Photo / iqoncept</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
However the problem has intensified. The digital world, in offering us so much more access to information and so many more ways to connect, has actually driven us into silos. As a cable cutter, the information I receive and the feedback I get is especially filtered:<br />
<ul>
<li>Algorithms feed me news based on what articles I've already read.</li>
<li>The people I follow are people who say things I agree with (and those that follow me likely agree with much of what I say).</li>
<ul>
<li>Sadly, I have unfollowed people because they've said things I don't like. I'm not saying that's always wrong, but I can't say I've always soberly considered whether what they're saying is truly objectionable or just something that I don't want to hear.</li>
</ul>
<li>The videos I see are also generally based on the channels I've chosen to follow, and the videos I've watched.</li>
<ul>
<li>Even worse, I can tell YouTube to stop recommending videos based on videos I disliked.</li>
</ul>
<li>Most of my other online sources of information are also ones I've selected.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is a good answer here. I like to think I'm open minded. I'm certainly always willing to admit I'm wrong (which, based on how often I'm wrong is a darn good thing.) </div>
<div>
I do know that we are not going to be challenged on what we believe if we don't get outside the echo chambers that just bounce our beliefs back at us. But where do we go? In the digital world, if we try to express our views in a different silo, the chances of meaningful discussion seem slim. Even the process of simply trying to understand what that silo believes and why, can bury us under waves of scorn, vituperation and even threats.</div>
<div>
I think one place that used to be a source of that sort of external input was the workplace. However, most workplaces these days discourage political discussions (validly seeking to avoid the sort of invective and abuse described above). </div>
<div>
I believe, like most problems in our past, there is a solution. I think people from a multitude of silos will begin to resent the walls that isolate them, and I look forward to the creative solutions that they come up with to help break down those walls. I wish I had that sort of creativity.<br />
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">Lies</span><br />
Sadly, when it comes to politics, it seems everyone lies. People who believe the lies choose to vote for the candidate who uttered them.<br />
So these days, digital technology has given us better tools to detect lies. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter. Independent groups provided evidence that both candidates had lied, the only upshot of which was arguments about who lied more. I honestly (pun intended) have no idea what to say about that.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">"Isms"</span><br />
To try to shorten an already long post, and allow a bit of time to cover the system itself, I'm going to bullet out a bunch of the reasons people chose to vote for a candidate (hopefully further illustrating the problems with people choosing others to represent them.)<br />
<ul>
<li>Racism</li>
<li>Sexism</li>
<ul>
<li>Gender was used by both sides (having a hard time being objective on this one)</li>
</ul>
<li>Homophobia</li>
<li>Religion/Atheism</li>
<ul>
<li>I know, lumping them together seems odd.</li>
</ul>
<li>Looks</li>
<ul>
<li>Both candidates were mocked for their appearance</li>
</ul>
<li>Grammar</li>
<li>Party affiliation</li>
<ul>
<li>I know it's often true in Canada, but I truly don't understand the "My Party, right or wrong" thinking.</li>
</ul>
<li>Protest voting</li>
<li>Some people just want to watch the world burn</li>
<ul>
<li>Yes, I'm differentiating that from the protest voting. I think there's a difference.</li>
</ul>
<li>90238547 other reasons</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">Evil Democracy</span><br />
<div>
So democracy needs logical rational voters, and as illustrated above, people can't fill that role. What's the solution?</div>
<div>
Unfortunately, there isn't a solution. All I can do is side with Churchill:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…</blockquote>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="50%" />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: x-large;">A Broken System</span><br />
<div>
Don't worry. While this could be ten times as long as what I've already written, I'm not going to go into significant detail on these points. First, I'm sure you can find much more cogent discussions of them in other spaces, and secondly, I'm talking about another countries government, so my Canadian biases are really showing.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">The Electoral College</span></div>
</div>
<div>
I doubt anyone is surprised that I'm starting here. While the system makes a bit more sense in the 'Division of Powers' environment, it's time to seriously revisit how it works. Any system that makes only a few states important, and could result in a president that a significant majority voted against really needs to be reconsidered. If you want more detail, check out CGP Grey's videos (you should really look him up on YouTube rather than watching in the frames below):</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="135" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OUS9mM8Xbbw" width="240"></iframe><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="135" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7wC42HgLA4k" width="240"></iframe><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="135" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zcZTTB10_Vo" width="240"></iframe><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="135" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G3wLQz-LgrM" width="240"></iframe><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">State Set Voting Rules</span><br />
I really believe that the US needs to set Federal rules for voting in national elections. The differences in each state create confusion, and require a ridiculous amount of effort to clarify. They also lead to significant inequality. <br />
I recognize that my Canadian biases are showing here. They're going to show even more clearly in my next point.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">The Two Party System</span><br />
Yep. A Canadian arguing for a multi-party system. Next thing you know the sun will rise in the east, and water will be wet.<br />
Humour aside, I do think the only way a viable third party could reasonably arise in the US would be a centrist party formed out of 'left' leaning Republicans and 'right' leaning Democrats, driven to such drastic measures by the polarization of the existing parties. However, I don't believe that such a party would break the two party system. Rather it would simply marginalize one of the other parties and replace it. Without some more significant change in the structure of the US government, and the voting methodology, the two party system is likely to persist. Yet it doesn't seem to be meeting the needs. What are people to do when both candidates seem like a bad idea to them (and yes, I recognize that a majority of voters were able to decide which they thought was worse, but is that really the way to go?)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;">Election Funding Rules</span><br />
I know everyone is going to talk about how the underfunded candidate won. Regardless, they need to curb campaign spending. Their elected officials spend more time raising money than anything else. Setting better limits on donations and spending would likely also increase trust in the officials themselves (and yes, I also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Soul Cake Duck).<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" size="2" width="50%" />
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: x-large;">A Final Thought</span><br />
<div>
The only thing I haven't mentioned here is one of the most speculative items. I do see Donald Trumps election reflecting a more general trend in the world. We have seen a few other 'extreme' political events. The Brexit vote and the election of Rodrigo Duterte immediately come to mind. I leave this till the end, and even there hesitate to mention it, because it is likely just me falling victim to Apophenia. But are we possibly seeing some sort of global risky shift in politics?</div>
<br /></div>
</div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-40601015882524730152016-05-15T11:08:00.001-05:002016-05-15T11:08:18.301-05:00KivaJust a quick note. If you are looking for a good way to make the world a better place, consider making a microloan on <a href="https://www.kiva.org/" target="_blank">Kiva.org</a>.<br />
<br />
You may have seen articles that imply microloans aren't as powerful as their advocates have claimed. Those articles are likely right. But you'll probably find, if you read them, that the dispute is one of degree rather than a true repudiation of microloans. Microloans are not a poverty panacea. Many recipients of microloans do still live in poverty. Overall, studies seem to indicate minimal overall benefits from microloans (<a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/" target="_blank">FiveThirtyEight</a> has a good <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/microloans-dont-solve-poverty/" target="_blank">article </a>summarizing the results of studies in the area.)<br />
<br />
I would posit two reasons to make microloans on Kiva, despite the above study:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Unlike investment based microloans, Kiva loans are made at 0% interest.</li>
<li>While I might not eradicate poverty, even for the person to whom I am making the loan, the chance is worth the cost.</li>
</ol>
<div>
There are a dozen other reasons why I like this approach, but I'll let the reader decide his or her personal reasons why it's a worthwhile approach. And if the reader decides it's not a worthwhile approach, the reader is wrong.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Remember, the David is always right (for given values of 'always' and 'right').</div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-73362374804648686412013-12-09T16:40:00.004-06:002013-12-09T16:40:55.366-06:00EffectivenessFor the last couple of weeks, I've been head down, fully focused, on a specific testing deliverable. I've been starting extra early to get time when my testing doesn't impact anyone else, as well as to compensate for the impact to my efficiency that working with only one monitor has caused.<br />
<br />
And I felt quite internally rewarded when I finished early and was able to pick up some of my peers work to help them complete their tests. As a team we finished ahead of schedule. That always makes me happy.<br />
<br />
And that's where effectiveness comes in. Because today I discovered that none of the test we completed were technically valid. The spec was missing a key point, and the data from which we validated our results was not the correct data. So I saw two weeks of very hard work go down the drain.<br />
<br />
Luckily, for my tests, I had recorded all my data, which allowed me to go back and quickly validate the tests against the right data elements. In the case of my peers tests, that wasn't an option since they hadn't saved all the data.<br />
<br />
We are often told today that business has to seek 'good enough'. There isn't enough time to do things right. The agile business accepts 'good enough' as the price of being agile. Indeed there are those who laud 'good enough' as a virtue rather than a vice.<br />
<br />
That may be true, but today was a lesson for me in the effectiveness of doing things right.<br />
<br />David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-6135890201374305202013-11-30T15:10:00.002-06:002013-11-30T15:10:40.066-06:00The Power of TitillationIn my post entitled <a href="http://cafedavid.blogspot.ca/2013/09/clarkes-third-law_9.html" target="_blank">Clarke's Third Law</a>, I talked about my search for a reason that people are so willing to believe in hoaxes. In that post, I posited that the difficulty in understanding the science behind much of which we deal on a daily basis makes simpler theories easier to believe, even though they are completely wrong.<br />
<br />
However, I realized today that there is another factor that can't be discounted. Many of these theories posit some sort of ill intent: the government puts fluoride in the water to control us; or vaccines are a plot by the medical establishment to dig deeper into our pockets.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it's that ill intent that makes people want to believe. Human beings love to judge. We like to find moral failings in others (and I won't say why, because the reasons can be myriad.) So we get a certain salacious delight in these theories and want to believe them.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-59571294743852130662013-11-08T15:19:00.003-06:002013-11-08T15:19:53.956-06:00Fearmongering - The debate on Gun Control in the USI've been trying to not write this post for quite some time. There are a number of reasons I've been hesitant. I'm not sure it's my place to write it. I am not a citizen of the United States. I am not personally affected by the situation. My concern is entirely third party.<br />
<br />
But with what appears to be an ever increasing number of seemingly random acts of gun violence I am simply unable to understand how a country can be so obsessed with private gun ownership. According to the <a href="http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf" target="_blank">Small Arms Survey</a>, there were 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US in 2007. That made it number 1 in the list, followed by Yemen (54.8), Switzerland (45.7), Finland (45.3) and Serbia (37.8). Almost 1 gun per person seems absolutely inconceivable to me. I think Canada is absurdly high at 30.8.<br />
<br />
More significantly, a <a href="http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM12080.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> published in the American Journal of Medicine positively correlated the rate of gun ownership to the rate of firearm related deaths. Now, I encourage you, as always, to assess the reliability of the source. Check the paper itself, and validate whether the American Journal of Medicine is a reputable peer-reviewed publication.<br />
<br />
I accept the reliability of the source, and I'm reasonably satisfied with the methodology of the paper. And I fully understand that correlation does not imply causation. It's entirely possible that a third factor causes both high gun ownership and high firearm fatalities. Or perhaps the more people killed with guns, the more people buy guns. There's a certain twisted logic there, I guess.<br />
<br />
However, I'm going to make a scientifically indefensible leap and say that reducing gun ownership would probably reduce gun deaths. It's a leap that is based on logic and common sense, neither of which are scientific, but both of which are the basis for most policies we adopt in the free world.<br />
<br />
That puts me back in the position of trying to understand how people can justify private gun ownership.<br />
I made the mistake of searching for arguments against gun control. I call it a mistake, mostly because of the negative impact to my blood pressure. And not because of the fact that they were offering an opposing belief, but because of some of the questionable 'proofs' offered.<br />
<br />
Jim Fetzer, of Veterans Today, jumps rather quickly to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum" target="_blank">reductio ad hitlerum</a> in his article "<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/06/why-gun-control-is-bad-for-america/" target="_blank">Why gun control is bad for America</a>". In the third paragraph he cites an article by Stephen Halbrook from American Rifleman that talks about the Nazi use of firearm registration. Fetzer does go on to provide 7 other examples where he links gun control to violent atrocities.<br />
So I'll summarize his primary argument to be: Private gun ownership is necessary because gun control may be used as a precursor to violent atrocities. (Please tell me if I've missed the point)<br />
That argument falls a bit flat for me in a number of way.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Private gun ownership certainly seems to have resulted in many violent atrocities (albeit with fewer victims per individual atrocity). So haven't we just changed who commits the atrocity?</li>
<li>There is no statistical comparison of gun control to violent atrocities. We have 8 examples. That's 8 out of how many governments that have instituted gun control methods? The joy of anecdotes is that you can always find at least one that fits your theory.</li>
<li>Finally there is no evidence provided that private gun ownership would have prevented these atrocities. If the Nazi party had not registered firearms, would that have prevented the holocaust? Unlikely. The psychology behind why the Nazi party rose to power, and why Germans who did not support them, also did not oppose them, would not likely have been materially altered by private gun ownership.</li>
</ol>
<div>
I will note that there is a theme here that does flow through many of the pro-gun articles I read. It seems (and I say seems because I have no statistical tracking) that many of these staunch advocates of private gun ownership greatly fear their government. I even have a fair bit of sympathy with that in some regards, although my fears still don't impel me to buy a gun. I fear that my government may <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/online-surveillance-bill-critics-are-siding-with-child-pornographers-vic-toews/" target="_blank">go too far</a> in the line between safety and freedom, but I fight that by voting and by supporting petitions and other campaigns. So far these methods seem to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Internet_Predators_Act" target="_blank">work</a> quite well, and I haven't <a href="http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full" target="_blank">endangered my family</a> by having a gun in the house.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Penn and Teller (who I really enjoy in many ways) are firmly in the anti-gun control camp. In an episode of their series "Penn & Teller: B******t!" they make their case for why they think private ownership is a good thing. Along with the fear of government, they cite protection from criminals, and the fact that current gun control measures fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not going to truly dispute the latter two, mostly because they posit points that currently do not have unequivocal scientific evidence one way or the other (at least that I've found). There are studies that correlate gun ownership with homicide and suicide rates, but not with crime overall. Studying the rate at which gun control measures fail is even more grey. And really, overall crime rates are a function of so many changing and interacting socio-economic variables that any study is questionable. How we approach drugs, the current unemployment rates, racial issues, urbanization, gentrification of neighbourhoods, and even the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/weekinreview/02dewan.html?_r=0" target="_blank">sunspot</a> cycle, seem to be factors.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I will say that, if I could decrease the homicide and suicide rates by an appreciable percentage by taking on more risk that I would be robbed, I'd make the sacrifice. But that's a personal choice, and not one I would expect everyone to make.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
The rest of the articles I've read don't seem to provide anything new. They may use different words but really reiterate the same beliefs:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9762200/NRA-The-only-thing-that-stops-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun.html" target="_blank">"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/70105/gun-control-laws-wouldn-t-stop-senseless-shootings-they-would-cause-more" target="_blank">The problem isn’t guns, it is people.</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm" target="_blank">Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings.</a></blockquote>
<br />
<div>
So it really seems to come down to three main arguments, stated in different ways by different folks. Unfortunately every one of those arguments is really a belief. Each one has anecdotes offered as evidence of validity, but lacks any sort of scientific proof. Instead, each one seems to provide something to fear that may occur if guns are regulated. Beware, if guns are regulated, the government will kill people. Beware, if guns are regulated, there will be more crime. Beware, if guns are regulated, only criminals will have guns.<br />
<br />
Does that really mean that we are dealing more with religion here than anything else? Is the problem that I'm facing, the fact that I'm trying to understand someone else's religion? Or is it simply that I'd rather be afraid that I can't go shoot the members of my government than be afraid that some random person will shoot me?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-20746546645100983472013-09-15T21:09:00.001-05:002013-09-15T21:09:09.475-05:00A Copyright Troll and a GeniusSome things speak pretty much for themselves. This <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/782131-thatcher.html" target="_blank">letter</a>, in response to a frivolous Cease and Desist letter is one of them.<br />
<br />
I only wish I could be as witty.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-2547860270186710102013-09-09T16:31:00.001-05:002013-09-09T16:31:14.385-05:00Clarke's Third LawThe scientist and science fiction author, Arthur C. Clarke, proposed three "laws" of scientific prophecy:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.</li>
<li>The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.</li>
<li>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Sadly, only the third of these ever made it into popular culture. I say sadly because I think the entertainment possibilities of the first are quite possibly limitless, and because I think the second is a truly insightful comment on the value of speculative fiction to science.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, having bemoaned the lack of emphasis placed on the first two of Clarke's laws, I'm about to contribute by talking about the third law.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As you may note in a previous post, I'm a bit mystified by some of the anti-science hoaxes that seem to be proliferating. Fluoride in the water supposedly causes cancer, arthritis, and the downfall of western civilization. Vaccines supposedly cause cancer, autism, and the downfall of western civilization. Fire supposedly causes cancer, <a href="http://youtu.be/LFrFRslbJ2s" target="_blank">cream shortages</a>, and the downfall of western civilization.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ok, I made that last one up. Although give it time, I'm sure there will be a 'movement' to ban it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now I've already pondered why the people who promulgate these hoaxes do so. But what makes people so willing to believe them in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Faced with competing claims, I generally try to check out the evidence and arguments for each. I then select the claim that is borne out by the majority of rigorous scientific study. I certainly don't believe that scientists are always right. But I do believe that the preponderance of properly conducted scientific experiment and study is the best source of truth I can find on an issue.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not always emotionless in this search for truth. I'm afraid I am prone to reject a claim that relies on invective rather than argument. If a side dismisses every study that disagrees with it by impugning the authors (keywords like 'corporate shills' are a red flag), I tune out rather quickly. Likewise, as soon as I see arguments about 'conspiracies' my patience grows thin.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Still, if there are opposing scientific studies I try to get a sense of their validity. I confess I generally seek out Literature reviews (a meta-article that summarizes the work) rather than looking at the individual studies. Generally that will give me a good sense of which studies were published in reputable journals and which studies have been replicated. With that knowledge I can make my decision.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not everyone is like me (and for the most part, I thank God that it's so). In fact there are some people who appear to actually prefer to believe the unfounded, or the outright wrong. Scientific American had an article on <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories" target="_blank">Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories</a> earlier this year. They don't really come to any conclusions, but they do raise the link between belief in conspiracy theories and feelings of powerlessness. Conspiracy theories help combat that by assigning meaning to events, even if that meaning has no basis.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I propose a slightly different take. Knowing a number of people who blindly accept some of these theories, yet don't seem to evince these feelings of powerlessness, I'm going to go with Clarke's Third Law. In many ways, scientific fields have progressed to the point that anyone not in the field is not advanced enough to distinguish it from magic. The rejection of science is really a rejection of magic - a rejection of what we don't understand. We prefer a theory that seems simpler to us, or at least a theory that we own.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now I may actually be positing a distinction without a difference. Perhaps powerlessness and lack of understanding are the same thing in different words. I also recognize that there are many other possibilities. People are complex, and the reasons that person A is wearing a tinfoil hat may differ from the reasons why person B doesn't vaccinate their child.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But my theory helps me hold the magic at bay for a bit.</div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-69204948962359528652013-08-31T19:23:00.003-05:002013-08-31T19:23:54.748-05:00Demontivation and the Unwritten Duties of Every EmployeeSometimes, other duties as needed defines 90% of my job.<br />
<br />
Currently, I'm supposed to spend my time ensuring that the processes for the applications I support are effective and efficient. I liaise between our users and our IT team to match functions to needs, and then document exactly how to use those functions to meet those needs.<br />
<br />
But the majority of my actual work falls well outside that job description. A lot of the work is due to the usual suspects: scope creep, SEP, etc. But an appreciable portion comes from duties that underlie every employee's job description.<br />
<br />
I spend a fair amount of time ensuring that the applications I support, and the processes I document, conform to our company's values, to our corporate policies, to legal requirements, to ethical principles, and even to good business sense. It goes even further though. I spend considerable time ensuring that any actions with which I'm involved, or sometimes simply of which I'm aware conform in those areas as well.<br />
<br />
These are my unwritten job duties:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Above all, ensure my work and the work with which I'm involved conforms to the highest ethical and legal standards.</li>
<li>Ensure my work and the work with which I'm involved is beneficial to the business.</li>
<li>Be a good steward with all company resources, including my time and my abilities.</li>
</ol>
<div>
I think those are unwritten duties which every employer has the right to expect of it's employees.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What brought this all to mind is a recent decision in British Colombia. A couple of Elevator companies were taken to the privacy commissioner for tracking employee travel via company issued cellphones, when those cellphones were in 'on duty mode'. The BC privacy commissioner found that this was a reasonable step to ensure that employees were working their expected hours.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My first thought was that this was a good decision. Immediately on the heels of that, I started to wonder: "How could an employer handle this more effectively." This kind of tracking leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those tracked, because it implies that the employer must 'crack the whip' on its employees. It's fear based motivation, which simply can't build a positive working relationship between employer and employee.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These companies tried to explicitly write one of those unwritten rules (Be a good steward) into the job. They obviously felt that there was a need to enforce that stewardship of time that should simply be part of their work culture. In doing so, they actually tell their employees that stewardship is not something intrinsic, but rather an extrinsic behaviour forced upon them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
What an employer has to want, and should strive to build, is a culture where employees govern themselves to follow those unwritten job duties. Every employee should be working to benefit his or her employer. If they aren't or don't feel they should, its time for them to seek a different employer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
Unfortunately, I recognize that's a bit Pollyannaish of me. No matter how good an employer's hiring practices, and no matter how hard they strive to build a culture of trust, ethics, and respect, there will be employees who will not work to benefit the company.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ultimately, I think the answer is not to try to hold employee accountable for the behaviour (working 8 hours per day) but to hold them accountable for results. Now I know nothing about elevators, other than how to push the button to get me to my floor. So I don't know how to manage to those results. But I do know that most industries that I've had any experience in could implement results based performance management.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem is that results based performance management runs counter to some of our cherished business principles. One of the most cherished is that people should work x hours per day or week. Employers often treat employees like pieces of equipment that they rent for a certain amount of time per day, and must get maximum use out of. The idea that results are what matter, not hours per day or days per week, sends shivers down the spine of traditional management.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I posit that goals and results to aim for will create much more effective, efficient and profitable companies than will a culture that metaphorically chains people to their desks for 40 hours per week.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now I know nothing about the specific companies involved, and I cannot comment on the business need that they felt required this tracking. I can't say whether this was a measure that indicates a breakdown in relationship, or simply was something that was implemented for a number of reasons that seemed like a good idea at the time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What I can say is that, while I would never deny my employer the right to track my work and productivity, Big Brother methods like this would quickly prompt me to look for other, more motivating, environs.</div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-42879552421834192382013-08-22T19:40:00.001-05:002013-08-30T23:24:26.133-05:00The Gatekeeper MentalityIt's interesting how things can come at you suddenly from different directions. You discover something exists and then suddenly everyone is talking about it as if it's been around forever.<br />
<br />
Fandom (Geekdom?) Gatekeepers just appeared on my radar. Apparently there are people out there who feel it is their duty to decide who is, and is not a fan. Or perhaps even who may be and may not be a fan. In the course of the last couple of weeks my webward wanderings have taken me to a number of different articles on the topic (<a href="http://wilwheaton.net/2013/08/memo-to-gatekeepers/">http://wilwheaton.net/2013/08/memo-to-gatekeepers/</a> is a good example, as is <a href="http://tosche-station.net/on-true-fans-gatekeepers-and-what-is-real-star-wars/">http://tosche-station.net/on-true-fans-gatekeepers-and-what-is-real-star-wars/</a>)<br />
<br />
Now don't get me wrong. I've known people like this, in many many areas. Growing up in the Christian church is amazingly instructive on Gatekeepers. I'm quite damned to hell because I believe in infant baptism, am not a pacifist, think dancing is ok (although God should grant me points for not inflicting my dancing on the world). I don't believe what these Christian Gatekeepers believe, so I'm not one of them.<br />
<br />
I've met similar types in fandom, but I simply wasn't really aware of the impact they've had on others. Of course I'm not a 'True Fan' of anything. I've been to one SF convention as an attendee. David Weber was the Guest of Honor and I'm closest to being a 'True Fan' there than anywhere else. I've helped with a couple of gaming conventions, and of course I've been to a few conventions as part of Castle Games. So while I'm not a big convention goer, I do circulate in the community. <br />
<br />
In addition to all that, I spent a few years running a team of young gentlemen and one or two ladies who provided technical support. While they weren't all geeks, there was a disproportionate representation (Sorry guys... and Sally).<br />
<br />
Which means I have a fair bit of contact with fandom. I consider myself part of it. I certainly have run into some 'True Fans' in my time. But I guess always dismissed them in the same way I dismissed someone ranting about how the hymnbook had to be blue, not red. They were passionate in their beliefs, but it wasn't something that truly concerned me. I never realized how much they might drive others away. Reading stories of the kind of harassment people face from them stunned me (see the comments in <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/08/05/a-creators-note-to-gatekeepers/">http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/08/05/a-creators-note-to-gatekeepers/</a> for some rather egregious examples (note that Mr. Scalzi's article makes more colourful use of language than is my wont)).<br />
<br />
So why am I stunned. Why does this surprise me?<br />
<br />
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are 'True Fans' out there trying to build walls around their fandom. It's actually a very natural human trait. We've been defining ourselves as 'we' and 'they' since Paleolithic times (oops, damned again because I don't believe that Genesis is a literal history). Human beings form groups and discriminate against all who are not part of that group (Look at the work of Henri Tajfel if you doubt that).<br />
<br />
Yet, when I think of fandom in the area of speculative fiction, I've always had a fairly optimistic view regarding tolerance and inclusion. Sure, some fans can be a bit exclusionary when it comes to soap and water, and overly inclusionary when recounting how their half-elf wizard/assassin slew the dragon single handed. But I've always thought that embracing the breadth of thought inherent in speculative fiction should drive people to accept rather than reject.<br />
<br />
The true triumph of humanity has been our ability to live above our base instincts. We have achieved works in the physical, social and spiritual realms that transcend our Paleolithic roots. We are far more than the near primates huddling together in fear of the dark 'other'.<br />
<br />
If anyone should see that, if there are any people who should be driving that ascension of humanity, it is those who embrace the expansiveness of speculative fiction. I suspect (hope?) these 'True Fans' would be aghast if someone was denied entrance to their clique for being a Christian. They would never dare say "You're not a true fan, you're Japanese!" I suspect they'd vehemently oppose such discrimination. But then I also suspected they'd embrace any hint of curiousity about their interests rather than pushing people away.<br />
<br />
Maybe my suspicion is more of that optimism.<br />
<br />
I hope not.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-81676431154728871122013-08-16T21:47:00.000-05:002013-08-16T21:47:08.481-05:00Office 2013 - Harbinger of doomSo, as anyone who knows me is aware, I've been testing Office 2013 for our compnay. And, as everyone who knows that is aware, I'm very disappointed with it.<br />
<br />
It seems that the entire design of Office 2013 was tablet focused (yet many of the changes would make using on a tablet more difficult). I was bemoaning this (among many other Office 2013 flaws) to one of my fellow testers, noting that people aren't going to be able to do serious work on a tablet. I'm never going to be able to type 60 to 70 words per minute on a tablet keyboard. I'm never going to be able to design analysis on a 7 or 10 inch screen (heck I need all 3 of my 24" widescreens).<br />
<br />
I was stunned when he indicated that he did not share my belief (and it is a 'belief' as I have no proof of what the future will hold). He noted how he already does about 15% of his work on a tablet.<br />
<br />
That gave me pause. It takes me 3 minutes to type a simple tweet on my 7" Android tablet, and that's with an upgraded 'Smart' keyboard. That's 9 words per minute. On my 10" Windows tablet I'm even slower. And at my age, I'm not going to get much faster. My fingers aren't going to shrink and my dexterity isn't going to improve. I'm just never going to be a 10th as productive on a tablet as I am on a desktop.<br />
<br />
Which brought me to an uncomfortable thought. Is Office 2013 a sign that I am rapidly becoming irrelevant? If I can't work effectively using tools that are designed for a mobile medium, in what other ways am I falling behind the tech curve. Am I on my way to the same place as many workers from a couple generations ago? As computers became ubiquitous, and they were unable to adapt, they could not keep pace. Does the same fate await me? Is Office 2013 the light in the sky the dinosaurs saw just before the big boom?<br />
<br />
At the moment, I don't believe so. <br />
<br />
I believe Microsoft has oversolved their problem. They weren't relevant in the mobile market, so they are literally trying to sink their ship in hopes that it might become a submarine. Hopefully someone will realize that they are sinking a perfectly good ship, plug up the holes, and continue to service their enterprise customers. Making their product significantly less effective on the desktop, with the idea that desktops are going away, is the same sort of lunacy that produced Windows 8. It's like New Coke for computers.<br />
<br />
I believe that tablets and smartphones are useful adjuncts to the professional workspace. At my most forgiving, they provide useful ways for workers away from their workspace to stay connected and complete light work. At my most cynical, they're great for business as they double the amount of worktime that those businesses can now expect from employees: "Here's your tablet. Now you are expected to check your email every hour on the hour, 24/7/365."<br /><br />
I believe that no one can match my productivity using current tablets. You aren't going to write technical documents, map processes, analyse data, and develop reports as fast on a 7 inch touchscreen device as I will on a desktop with multiple monitors, a mechanical keyboard, and a mouse.<br />
<br />
And I believe, that the evolution of the tablet in the enterprise will ultimately result in it simply being part of a linked system, where my tablet, my desktop, and other devices, simply become parts of an integrated whole.<br />
<br />
But, I know those are beliefs, not facts.<br />
<br />
Is that a meteor in the shape of the Office Logo?<br />
<br />David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-69696916935609404862013-08-13T22:04:00.000-05:002013-08-13T22:05:09.445-05:00Why do you take the 'Sucker' nowhere?P.T. Barnum is often quoted (albeit incorrectly) as saying "There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Regardless of the quote's attribution, it touches on a chain of thought that I haven't been able to fully explore. Hence my need to write it out so I can come to an understanding of what I really thing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not particularly concerned with the first part of the quote. I think it's undeniable that there are many people who are overly credulous, and at some point, we're all suckers (stupid P.J. with his stupid gullible joke).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I've been thinking about the 'two to take him' part. I completely understand why someone would become a con man. Easy money has a powerful allure for some (again I'm unconcerned with the accuracy of the perceptions). If someone decides to set up a Ponzi scheme, or tries the Nigerian Bank con, I can understand their motivation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The motivation that eludes me is what drives people to put immense time and effort into frauds and hoaxes where they obtain no material, mental, or spiritual benefit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A number of different interactions and events have prompted this question. From friends falling for the usual internet hoaxes (Fake Virus Warnings and other scarelore) to the recent petition to have the City of Winnipeg stop putting fluoride in the city's water, I've really begun to wonder what motivates people to do this sort of thing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If these hoaxes caused people to take action that would benefit the perpetrators, I could understand. If they caused people to take actions of which the perpetrators would be aware (fulfilling some aberrant psychological need), I could understand. But these actions are shots in the dark.<br />
<br />
And in cases like the City of Winnipeg fluoride issue, where the perpetrators could conceivably be aware of the results of their hoax, the amount of work, time, and effort involved seem wholly disproportionate to any reward. <br />
<br />
I know that there has always been a great deal of irrational fear surrounding fluoridation of drinking water. From the conspiracy theories of the 50's (fluoridation was a Communist plot), to the cancer/dementia/SIDS scares of today, it certainly seems to be fodder for scaremongers.<br />
<br />
But this is more than simple scaremongering. Entire organizations have sprung up to fight a practice that has proven benefits with only one minimal side effect (dental fluorosis). These organizations create websites, hold meeting and actively proselytize. They spend a great deal of time and effort manufacturing materials to support their 'cause'.<br />
<br />
And if they were true believers, I guess I could simply categorize it as a religion. I understand the human need for faith, and perhaps these people simply choose to put their faith in the anti-fluoride movement. But that just doesn't track for me.<br />
<br />
Creating the materials to support their cause involves a degree of intellectual dishonesty that, to my mind, precludes the true believer thesis. These materials will quote a study that fully supports the safety of fluoridation, yet say that it demonstrates significant risks. The <a href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/water/" target="_blank">Fluoride Action Network</a> indicates that the US Department of Health and Human Services links fluoride to arthritis"<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f0f0f0; color: #36454c; font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, 'Lucida Grande', 'Gill Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.65625px;">Joint pain and stiffness are well known symptoms of excessive fluoride intake. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, too much fluoride causes “chronic joint pain” and “arthritic symptoms.” (DHHS 1991).</span></blockquote>
Yet when you read the DHHS <a href="http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/" target="_blank">report</a>, arthritis isn't even mentioned. Now it's possible I'm missing something, but I doubt it.<br />
<br />
Which brings me back to the question. What do people get out of this? Is it simply a practical joke on a scale that I'm unable to appreciate? Perhaps I'm simply too materialistic to appreciate the esoteric rewards of such behaviour.</div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-13347249339651306262012-11-26T23:39:00.004-06:002012-11-26T23:39:43.428-06:00Celebrate the attempt!There's a sad tendency I've seen grow in the past few years. Someone tries to do something positive. But it isn't perfect. Immediately, people tear down the attempt by picking on the imperfection.<br />
A few years ago, I tried a low-carb diet. I was very disappointed with a number of my friends who immediately decried the diet and my attempt at it. I don't discount the risks inherent in dieting, and ultimately I didn't sustain it. But was the right approach to attack an attempt I was making to make a positive change in my life?<br />
In another vein, I was discussing the recent <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/former-salvation-army-employee-charged-in-alleged-2-million-toy-theft/article5661685/" target="_blank">theft from the Salvation Army</a> with an acquaintance. They were citing the theft as a reason not to support the Salvation Army. Again, I was very disappointed. The Salvation Army had done a great deal of good over the years. It's unfortunate that someone within the organization chose to besmirch that reputation, but to decide they are unworthy of support on that basis is absurd.<br />
Is the problem that we've latched on to aphorisms like "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time?" When someone can't or doesn't teach the man to fish, are we right to chastise them for giving the fish? They did something good, but it wasn't good enough?<br />
There's nothing wrong with a desire for perfection. I've always believed we should strive for it. But I recognize that we strive for perfection, not in the hope of success, but in the hope of achieving excellence. I also think we need celebrate the attempts as much as we celebrate the victories.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-50645690010808067762012-11-18T20:09:00.001-06:002012-11-26T23:39:59.587-06:00Jimcon II<br />
We had a great time at Jimcon this year.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, I want to say how cool it was to play Fleet Admiral with so many different people. When everyone from kids new to the hobby to the more 'seasoned' gamers have a good time with the game, you know it's great.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Second, participating in the game designer's panel was both scary and flattering. Part of me felt I had no business being there, as it still doesn't seem like we know half of what we need to. But I was honoured to share our experiences in the hopes that they helped the participants. Thanks to all who attended. You were a rocking audience.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, I'm very pumped (despite the exhaustion) about Space Tub. I really think this has potential and we need to go full bore on working on it. Everyone seemed to like it (even when the 'in your face' aspects of the game came out (and maybe even liked it more then)).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jim, you rock! Thanks for a great convention.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Next Year -- Fleet Admiral Tournament!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
~The David</div>
David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-17091894541574391302010-11-06T17:05:00.015-05:002010-11-06T17:49:23.662-05:00Cafe Brit TourWell, the rain has finally stopped.<br /><br />I took the opportunity to go on a <a href="http://www.cafebritt.com/home?siteID=MG8ILneE0EI-ZHSrawSR2xPPLDYFinTkeQ">Cafe Brit</a> tour.<br /><br />They offer a few different tour options. I chose the <a href="http://www.coffeetour.com/coffee-lovers-tour">Coffee Lovers</a> tour. It included a pick-up at my hotel, a tour of their nursery and their roasting area, as well as a tour of a nearby wet mill operation.<br /><br />The guides are great. They bring a bit of humour to things. Some of it's a bit campy, but that seems to be what they're going for. Overall I loved the tour. Two of the guides are in the picture below.<br /><a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXXhsG5j5I/AAAAAAAAAEE/nqAKAzOWY6E/s1600/Cafe+Brit+Tour+Guides.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXXhsG5j5I/AAAAAAAAAEE/nqAKAzOWY6E/s400/Cafe+Brit+Tour+Guides.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536568290697645970" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Some Ripe Coffee.</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXWtXEgiaI/AAAAAAAAAD0/ZaZUQhbmIac/s1600/Ripe+coffee.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXWtXEgiaI/AAAAAAAAAD0/ZaZUQhbmIac/s400/Ripe+coffee.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536567391697275298" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >The Coffee Roaster</span> (think of how many cups that would make me :) )<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXWKez2a6I/AAAAAAAAADs/DZAkORG5rzk/s1600/Coffee+Roaster.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXWKez2a6I/AAAAAAAAADs/DZAkORG5rzk/s400/Coffee+Roaster.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536566792479468450" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Quality Control</span></span> is important. Have to check out the beans.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXVGaCF-QI/AAAAAAAAADk/Z7gMEWf-5Tw/s1600/Checking+the+beans.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXVGaCF-QI/AAAAAAAAADk/Z7gMEWf-5Tw/s400/Checking+the+beans.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536565622965926146" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Here's Andrew learning to make Espresso.</span></span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXUUuRFgyI/AAAAAAAAADU/dI2MNOMGV5c/s1600/Andrew+Learning+to+make+coffee.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXUUuRFgyI/AAAAAAAAADU/dI2MNOMGV5c/s400/Andrew+Learning+to+make+coffee.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536564769404060450" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">And here's a very artistic Cappuccino.</span><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXUAi5mmYI/AAAAAAAAADM/ePCkppyCbf8/s1600/Coffee+Art.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TNXUAi5mmYI/AAAAAAAAADM/ePCkppyCbf8/s400/Coffee+Art.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536564422755391874" border="0" /></a></span><br /><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br />All the tour participants were great. We had a couple of other Canadians (Vancouverites, but what can you do?) There was a couple from Belgium, Russell and his wife who were from Orlando (great people). We also met Claudia from Switzerland and Monica from Italy.<br /><br />I spent a bit too much at the gift shop, but hey, it's coffee. It was a really great day.</p>David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-71976276808091791912010-10-27T19:16:00.004-05:002010-10-27T19:32:00.359-05:00Yet more Costa Rica Pictures<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMjCEXlb5BI/AAAAAAAAAC0/QEB4kEHYU4A/s1600/DSCF0207.gif"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMjCEXlb5BI/AAAAAAAAAC0/QEB4kEHYU4A/s400/DSCF0207.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532885522530952210" border="0" /></a>Andrew <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMjCDhJzY_I/AAAAAAAAACs/MN5Xq0NmCZE/s1600/DSCF0198.gif"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMjCDhJzY_I/AAAAAAAAACs/MN5Xq0NmCZE/s400/DSCF0198.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532885507919537138" border="0" /></a>(being braver than I) decided to go ziplining. I figured there was a perfectly good sky tram as a way to get down, but he took the 'fast' route.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-64392832239842243422010-10-25T20:28:00.003-05:002010-10-25T21:01:53.651-05:00More Pictures from Costa Rica<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2LpcTidI/AAAAAAAAAB0/KnRJRDBc1ls/s1600/DSCF0024.gif"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2LpcTidI/AAAAAAAAAB0/KnRJRDBc1ls/s200/DSCF0024.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532168766002268626" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2KsrCSuI/AAAAAAAAABs/l0krUP4A7eI/s1600/DSCF0028.gif"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2KsrCSuI/AAAAAAAAABs/l0krUP4A7eI/s200/DSCF0028.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532168749689490146" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2J8yfx_I/AAAAAAAAABk/fzY5Z2Wp7IQ/s1600/DSCF0032.gif"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2J8yfx_I/AAAAAAAAABk/fzY5Z2Wp7IQ/s200/DSCF0032.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532168736835880946" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2JDKYchI/AAAAAAAAABc/NrADUCOGNa4/s1600/DSCF0035.gif"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMY2JDKYchI/AAAAAAAAABc/NrADUCOGNa4/s200/DSCF0035.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532168721366807058" /></a><br />Some shots from the rest of the trip.<br /><br />We visited a Butterfly sanctuary.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-84195814156933237052010-10-24T18:42:00.007-05:002010-10-24T19:05:25.258-05:00Resurrection TimeWell, I'm resurrecting the blog to allow me to post some of my pictures from Costa Rica. Andrew Lindeman and I went to the Arenal Volcano over the weekend. It was a fascinating trip, although I must confess to some anxiety as we negotiated the treacherous curving roads from San Jose to La Fortuna.<br /><div style="text-align: right;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTGreys9ZI/AAAAAAAAAAU/NWwIRsRiEkc/s1600/Arenal+Paraiso+Room.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTGreys9ZI/AAAAAAAAAAU/NWwIRsRiEkc/s200/Arenal+Paraiso+Room.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531764692620211602" border="0" /></a></div><br />We stayed at the Arenal Paraiso Hotel. Not bad for the money, but it's not a high end hotel by any means. Good for 1 night when you really just need a bed.<br /><br />The restaurant wasn't bad, and the view from the room was great (looking out at the volcano)<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTHRFxPssI/AAAAAAAAAAc/EcT6bVdDCrc/s1600/View+from+the+room.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTHRFxPssI/AAAAAAAAAAc/EcT6bVdDCrc/s400/View+from+the+room.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531765338738242242" border="0" /></a><br />Andrew went off to use the Hot Springs at the hotel (which he didn't really think a great deal of. If you're looking for hot springs, you probably would do better to stay at the Baldi Resort.) I took some shots of the area, and went to check out the souvenir shop (overpriced and kitschy). I then decompressed for a bit. We went out to dinner at one of the restaurants. Good live music and okay food.<br /><br />Sunday we got up early and drove to one of the viewing areas for the Volcano. 3 kilometres away from an active volcano is a really cool place to visit, but I don't know if I'd want to live there.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTJBHyvKgI/AAAAAAAAAA0/DqyWJq8oRas/s1600/Viewing+the+Volcano+3.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTJBHyvKgI/AAAAAAAAAA0/DqyWJq8oRas/s400/Viewing+the+Volcano+3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531767263426718210" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTJAwEwXhI/AAAAAAAAAAs/9KvqsbFCx4c/s1600/Viewing+the+Volcano+2.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTJAwEwXhI/AAAAAAAAAAs/9KvqsbFCx4c/s400/Viewing+the+Volcano+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531767257059843602" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTJAyJGihI/AAAAAAAAAAk/GOxf5PB2ONM/s1600/Viewing+the+Volcano+1.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IpRCXpAXVjc/TMTJAyJGihI/AAAAAAAAAAk/GOxf5PB2ONM/s400/Viewing+the+Volcano+1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531767257614944786" border="0" /></a><br /><br />That's all for now. I'll post some of the Sky Tram shots nextDavid Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-86246736701939615702009-02-12T16:14:00.004-06:002009-02-12T16:43:39.802-06:00A Blizzard of Customer ServiceWell, it's been forever, but I've finally found something about which I can rant without breaking any of my own rules. Let's start with the background.<br />Recently, JP went and dragged me into World of Warcraft. I had been intentionally avoiding this because I really didn't see the point of paying over and over, every month for a game. Not something I really wanted to do. But he got a number of my friends in on it, and finally I caved.<br />Now I'm hooked. Blizzard has put together a very compelling game. It has all the right twists to hook people. The gameplay is engaging, the rewards and risks keep things interesting, and it's got such variety that you can always find something new. I've always felt Blizzard was the best game company out there, and this just validates that.<br />However they have a lot to learn about customer service. Having purchased the game to upgrade my trial account, I also set up a Paypal account to allow me to continue my subscription. Blizzard advertises that you can use Paypal if you live in North America. This works for me as I don't and won't use credit cards.<br />What Blizzard doesn't say is that even if you use Paypal, you still have to use a credit card. They require Paypal (according to the information provided to me by Paypal) to ask me for a credit card before they will allow me to set up Paypal as a payment method.<br />But that's not even the true customer service failure. The real failure was achieved when I contacted them to find out why they require this. I've run into one of the classic service failures. The complete failure to pay attention to what the customer is saying. At best Blizzard's responses imply that they haven't even read my email. At worst they are being deliberately obfuscatory. And we'll see if they even keep my business.<br /><br />I've pasted the Email chain below. I have deleted a fair bit of the header information for readibility. I have not edited either my emails or Blizzard's.<br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *<br /></div><span style="font-family: courier new;">I was trying to use my PayPal account to continue my subscription to World of Warcraft, however when I got to the PayPal portion of the process, it demanded I put a credit card on my PayPal account to complete the purchase. When my friend JP convinced me to give World of Warcraft a try, one of the only reasons I was willing to do so was that you had started to accept PayPal. I don't use credit cards, and being mobility challenged I don't want to have to get to a store to purchase your game card options.</span><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">My first assumption was that this was a PayPal requirement, but their customer service department assures me it is your requirement. I would hope you would reconsider that requirement. As a former Customer Service Analyst (admittedly not in the computer game field), I can see supposed business reasons for making such a decision, but none of them are truly customer friendly reasons.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">David Badilotti</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *<br /></div>Greetings David,<br /><br />If you would like to change your account's payment method to use PayPal, please visit the Account Management page (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/account). To use PayPal to pay for your subscription, simply select the PayPal option on the subscription setup screen. You will be required to log in to your PayPal account and agree to the Terms of Service.<br /><br />**PLEASE NOTE: After successfully setting up a PayPal subscription via Account Management, payment validation may take up to 60 minutes before you will be able to login to the game. Once this process is complete, you will be able to start playing again. Thank you for your patience and understanding.**<br /><br />For more information on PayPal, or to set up an account, please visit http://www.paypal.com/. Please keep in mind that you can *only* process a PayPal payment through our website; due to privacy concerns we are not able to manually add PayPal payments over the phone. Any specific questions about your PayPal account should be directed to PayPal support.<br /><br />For more information on using PayPal with your World of Warcraft account, please review our FAQ at: http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?articleId=20518<br /><br />If you have further questions or concerns, Billing representatives are on hand to take your call Monday through Friday between 8am and 8pm PST, at 1-800-59-BLIZZARD (800-592-5499). Customers in Australia should call 1-800-041-378. Our Billing team will be happy to assist you with any billing related questions. You may also contact them via email at billing@blizzard.com.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Blake R.<br />Billing and Account Services<br />Blizzard Entertainment<br />Blaker.support@blizzard.com<br />http://worldofwarcraft.com/account<br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *<br /></div><span style="font-family: courier new;">Blake,</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">Well that was an amusing use of script. You might want to consider reading the email and responding to the actual issue.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">Care to give it another try?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">David B.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *<br /></div>Greetings David,<br /><br />Allow me to point out where your question can be answered. Since Paypal information as well as the use of credit card information is all considered highly volatile, we do not handle these over e-mail.<br /><br />"For more information on PayPal, or to set up an account, please visit http://www.paypal.com/. Please keep in mind that you can *only* process a PayPal payment through our website; due to privacy concerns we are not able to manually add PayPal payments over the phone. Any specific questions about your PayPal account should be directed to PayPal support."<br /><br />Which, if you note, specifically gives you our answer to the question, which is, "I can't discuss that."<br /><br />There are plenty of other methods you can use if you'd like to not have a credit card trail on our servers. The game cards that you mentioned are another viable option. You can also attempt to use the phone subscription method if your phone would allow for it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are no other methods in place for payment outside of this. If you'd like assistance setting up any of the latter ones, I'd be more than willing to help or at least point you in the right direction.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Blake R.<br />Billing and Account Services<br />Blizzard Entertainment<br />Blaker.support@blizzard.com<br />http://worldofwarcraft.com/account<br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *<br /></div><span style="font-family: courier new;">Blake,</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">So let me see if I understand your answer.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">My question was "Why do you require Paypal to ask me for my credit card information before you will let me use that as a payment method." Your answer is that Paypal and Credit card information are too volatile to discuss in email. That seems to be a bit disingenuous to me. I think a more frank answer would simply be that you do not know why that is required. I'd probably have accepted that and simply asked for you to pass the feedback on.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">Ah well, fodder for the mill I guess.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">Thank you for responding as best you can.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;">David B.</span>David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-80332672952565349962008-08-19T18:32:00.005-05:002008-08-19T19:03:09.694-05:00Perfect Service Quality Loses CustomersI'm going to start by relating a recent set of customer service interactions. Please understand that everything I say is my interpretation of things. This is opinion, not objective facts (but that's the whole issue.)<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jogo</span> Canada a Winnipeg games store that I frequent. I probably go in there 4 to 5 times a year, and I'll spend between $40 and $200 a visit. A couple of weeks ago I'd stopped in to pick up a birthday gift for a friend. I grabbed the latest Settlers of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Catan</span> expansion, knowing she was a fan of the original game. Unfortunately her husband had the same great idea. No problem, I decided to keep it, and inquired if she'd tried <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Starfarers</span> of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Catan</span>. She was intrigued, so I promised to pick it up for her in replacement. The weekend before last, JP and I returned to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Jogo</span> to do just that. When we walked in the door, the clerk sitting behind the desk asked us if he could help us find anything. In my opinion it didn't sound like he was happy to see us, so I declined, indicating I knew what I wanted. I walked over to the section where the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Catan</span> games were, but could not see it. At this point I said that I was looking for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Starfarers</span>, but I didn't see a copy. The clerk, brusquely (again, in my opinion) informed me that it was there. I replied that I saw two copies of the expansion to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Starfarers</span>, but no copies of the actual game. His reply was something to the effect of "Oh, that's all we've got." By now I was very displeased with the whole interaction. I felt that the service was completely unfriendly. I made one last attempt, asking if they had any coming in. The clerk stated that they were concentrating on other areas, but that I should try the Explore Store in the mall. At that point I left. For good. I won't be going back to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Jogo</span>.<br /><br />Fast Forward one week. Having not had time the Saturday of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Jogo</span> visit, JP and I hied off to the Explore store. There were two clerks behind the counter, neither of whom said a thing to me as I entered. I walked over to the strategy games section, grabbed a copy of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Starfarers</span>, and went to the till. The one clerk asked if I found everything, and rang up my purchase while the other clerk bagged it. I probably exchanged no more than 20 words with them but both were friendly. I'll go back to the Explore Store.<br /><br />So why did I start by saying that "Perfect Service Quality Loses Customers"? Well, based on a 'Quality checklist' approach, I will bet that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Jogo</span> clerk would score much higher than either of the Explore Store Clerks. Let's look at the objective facts. He greeted his customer when they entered and offered assistance. He never said 'no' or 'can't' but rather phrased things in more positive wording. He offered alternatives. These are exactly the type of objective behaviours that end up on Quality Checklists.<br /><br />He followed the process of customer service, and lost a customer.<br /><br />The clerks in the Explore Store barely interacted with me but they left me willing to return. I don't know if they had any steps they were supposed to take, but they were friendly.<br />Process is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you do the right things, if those right things don't have the desired result. I'm guessing that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Jogo</span> clerk was taking the steps he'd been taught to serve a customer. However the result was a very bad taste in my mouth. I went away displeased, so I won't return.<br /><br />I spent a few years as a Quality Analyst. I know why the industry creates checklists and focuses on behaviours that can be objectively rated. I also know that none of that creates good customer service.<br /><br />So what's the answer?<br /><br />Toss out the checklist.<br /><br />Ignore the score.<br /><br />Talk about results!David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-80252353033734268202008-08-09T06:44:00.004-05:002008-08-13T06:07:52.779-05:00Manage by the Same Numbers?Becky Carroll over at <a href="http://customersrock.wordpress.com/">Customers Rock!</a> posted an article about <a href="http://customersrock.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/who-speaks-louder-marketing-or-customer-service/">marketing and customer service</a> that got me thinking. Now her main point is about the impact that both marketing and customer service have on a brand, especially if each communicates a different message (think about the difference between your ISP's ads and what you experience when you call them).<br /><br />However, the comment that got me thinking was when she noted:<br /><blockquote>Yet too often, marketing and customer service are managed separately in a company or organization, they don’t speak to each other, and they don’t have common metrics (you know, those things that drive the behaviors?).</blockquote>In the context of my previous post on managing by the numbers, this is an important addition. When subsets of an organization have the same outputs, both groups need to be managed by numbers that are based on solid and consistent methodology, clear definitions and common understanding.<br /><br />But do we think of these subsets as having the same product? Think about your Line Managers and your Training Department? Both groups share employee satisfaction and productivity as metrics. Yet Training will often be judged based on units delivered, pass rates, and often 'customer' satisfaction surveys (I could do a whole post about the wholly ineffective ways that training groups 'survey' learners to determine how 'good' their training is.) Line Managers will be judged by productivity, attrition, employee satisfaction, and so on (and don't think the way these numbers are 'created' wouldn't be worthy of a few posts as well).<br /><br />I think an organization that measured its operational and support groups with the same scorecards would have some very interesting results.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-46083689121690935872008-08-06T19:21:00.004-05:002008-08-09T07:25:08.316-05:00Manage by the NumbersAbout a year ago, I made a post decrying the way people ascribe meaning to numbers. Well it seems Tom Vander Well over at <a href="http://www.qaqna.com/">QAQnA</a> thinks along <a href="http://www.qaqna.com/2008/08/are-you-produci.html">similar lines</a>. He is specifically looking at the world of call quality, but in my experience the flaws he points out are epidemic in today's business world.<br /><br />People want to hear the number. "What's our market share percentage?" "What's our employee satisfaction index?" "What is our customer satisfaction score?" But businesses really need to know the meaning behind that number. Saying you have 100% of the market doesn't mean much if your market is for left-handed tent stake hammers. Having an employee satisfaction index of 5 is useless if the survey was conducted by managers walking around and asking employee's if they are satisfied with the company. Believing that 95% of your customers are satisfied doesn't mean much if your churn rate is 50% a month.<br /><br />I believe that companies desperately need to learn to use business intelligence more effectively. The first step of that process, though, is to understand that a number only has meaning when it is arrived at by a solid and consistent methodology, is based on clear definitions that bear some relation to common sense, and when everyone using that number understands the methodology and definitions.<br /><br />Otherwise, you might as well take Tom's suggestion and just use the same report forever.David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-4862628252347423222008-07-26T13:12:00.005-05:002008-08-09T07:24:26.489-05:00Playing By My Own RulesYou often hear that phrase applied to people who are breaking rules - seeming anarchists who gain fame or infamy by 'playing by their own rules.' But really these people are simply playing without rules.<br /><br />Lately I've spent a great deal of time thinking about some of my own rules. I believe I do exactly that. I play by my own rules. That doesn't mean I do whatever I feel like. Rather it means that I hold myself to certain standards based on my own moral, ethical, and logical code. Well two out of three perhaps.<br /><br />One of those rules has impacted my posting. I tend to post about concepts that have fired my imagination. I post about my passions. Lately however everything that has driven me to write out my thoughts has been very specific to my work environment. One of my ethical rules is that I won't post anything specific about my work. Now I have said a few times that work prompts many of my posts, but I've always been able to talk generally about concepts rather than revealing anything specific. Of late, that's simply not been possible.<br /><br />The worst part of all this is that I've had some of the most interesting realizations. I'd love to share them, but at present I don't seem to be able to put them in a context that doesn't break my own rule, and I won't do that.<br /><br />But that, in itself, becomes a topic of discussion. What are my rules? I've never taken the time to write them all down, and I'm not going to do so now, but I thought I'd list a few. Here, in no particular order, are David's Rules:<br /><br /><ol><li>Pay attention to other people's convenience. Don't make people wait for me.</li><li>What is said in confidence is kept in confidence. Always.</li><li>Don't fight the weather.</li><li>Perfection is unattainable, unless I work harder and smarter.</li><li>Don't get involved with someone with whom I work. Relationships and work don't mix.</li><li>People judge me as much by how I communicate as by the content of my communication.</li><li>Slow and steady doesn't win the race, but I always finish.</li></ol>David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70972000393890376.post-83290690266539300112007-11-13T17:35:00.001-06:002007-11-13T17:49:19.182-06:00But I've always done it that way!Today I caught myself. I'm out on an audit, working with a peer I haven't worked with before. With the holiday weekend we were behind my normal timing for an audit. I was lamenting the fact that, with the managers schedules, we were having further timing issues and that we were not going to be able to have the meetings we need to have when I usually would have them.<br /><br />He commented that we could rearrange some things and still get fully back on track. I started to protest, and then I really thought about it. I caught myself holding on to a way of doing something that was solely based on habit. There was no reason I couldn't rearrange my meeting order, and his plan was simply more efficient.<br /><br />It amazes me how often we do things because we've always done them that way. There is an old <a href="http://www.businessballs.com/stories.htm#%27we%27ve%20always%20done%20it%20that%20way%27%20story">business fable</a> about this very topic.<br /><br />I've decided to set a new guideline for myself. If I become frustrated with something, the very first question I'm going to ask myself is why I'm doing it in a way that frustrates me. If the only reason I come up with is because I've always done it that way, I'm changing things!David Badilottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14256930411796957412noreply@blogger.com1