Another player in the game who reveals to us or weaknesses.
See your competitor company or co worker as rivals
#100DaysofWriting Life as it isn't.
6,341 wordsinstagram.com/allwynpfr @allwynpfr Guestbook
Another player in the game who reveals to us or weaknesses.
Photography is story telling and photographers are artists, a particular one at that. Not a musician or a performer but a painter.
Your calling as a photographer is to tell a story through that one frame, in that split 10th of a second of life.
Just as one would stop and admire the Monalisa at the louver, your photography too should aim to stop people in their tracks and just think about what you've created.
“The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions.”
― Noam Chomsky
I find this applied to myself now more than ever before.
Story telling through photography
Typically, storytelling has been about a plot, a set of characters, and environment and conflict. This however would make for a very bland and basic story.
We may often make one choice with our rational mind but end up practicing another. Sometimes these two things are exactly opposite. How could this be ? Which one is the correct one? Well, yes and yes. If someone is to ask you what kind of men are you into? you instant answer is - I'm really like intelligent men who are judicious with their spending but when in a social setting you are almost immediately attracted to the most well dressed man. How could this be? Well because there is a disconnect.
Your conscious mind is weeding out the jerks but your unconscious is looking for someone you'd look nice with perhaps, or has the security or wont mind splurging a bit. No one really knows. The truth is that neither of those two sources are wrong. It's just that either of them are incomplete. You need to consider both options in totality without shame or judgement. It is just who you are. If you don't it's you who is going to be unhappy. Your unconscious knows it and is trying its best to speak to you through your actions.
[r: Blink 2,67]
I find it interesting why people who do graffiti do it. They risk their lives, the art work bears no exclusive names. If you ask them its all about getting a high when they know that stuff they have put out there is being viewed by others. That it travels and has a life of its own.
To me the test of how useful or uselessness of a particular thing is completely dependent on how and how much its end users interact with it.
To me it does not matter how long you have toiled in writing the code or the choice of color pallets or whatever.
Does the end user use it?
end of story.
They should either love it or hate it but never ignore it.
If they love it and use it.. Don't repair it if it ain't broke.
If they hate it but still use it,I see it as scope for improvement.
But God forbid, if they just do not care / know about it, you as the creator are in trouble.
The value of a particular stock is nothing but the perception of the value of the stock that the majority of the masses have. Okay, that was a mouthful.
Ref the tulip crises of Ireland
Or investing in art and painting.
Ancient paintings hold value and auction for such a high price simply because the common perception is that they are valuable. No one thinks the same of the paintings my niece made last summer.
The example of this idea being implemented and coming crashing down is a Ponzi scheme going bust or the dot com bubble or any financial crises for that matter.
People who once believed in the contrary, now learn en-masse that said item no more holds value it once did and is increasing decreasing
ponzi #scheme #investment #money
The Pareto Principle suggests that in some cases, the majority of results come from a minority of inputs.
I am yet to see a significant real life application of this law in my personal life. I'll probably update this entry when I do.
People do not get tricked because they are dumb, they get tricked because they desperately want the hoax to be true. They, in a way, want to be lied to. The need the lie to be true.
R: book blink gladwell
I see a desperate lack of automation in the small and large and mid size companies. Case in point, My own employer, a mid sized, 50 year old pharma player has people employed who pick up hefty packages for rule based routine work. I do not blame the management. How could they know better. But moving forward I do see a stark change in the structure of the workforce. Irrespective of the core business of the company. I see each companies employing a 'Chief Automation Officer' either on payroll or as a consultant. Either way, their job will be extremely straight forward. Scout each employees' daily jobs, role and KRA to find tasks that fit this description -
Routine / rule based / repetitive.
With this in place, the work loads of a number of employees will be cut to half if not more. Especially in the slow moving sectors like pharma and Finance.
Alternatively, I also see companies ditching the mid manger for an exclusive programmer or software engineer who's sole job it shall be to moderate and govern these automatons.
All these changes will leave but one crucial job to the humans -
If you want to stay hired, come up with ideas. As at least, as of right now the robots are no where as creative as the best humans.
It has come to my notice that hype too is governed by a law -
This law suggests that there is typically a burst of excitement around new technology and its potential impact. Teams often jump into these technologies quickly, and sometimes find themselves disappointed with the results. This might be because the technology is not yet mature enough, or real-world applications are not yet fully realized. After a certain amount of time, the capabilities of the technology increase and practical opportunities to use it increase, and teams can finally become productive. Roy Amara's quote sums this up most succinctly - "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate in the long run".
I'd often wonder why certain heads of departments would crib to me about how a certain manager, vendor or employee had not delivered on a promise or had out right not preformed their task. This had directly blocked them from undertaking their own tasks.
Taking action was out of their locus of control. "Why not simply let the VP know that X had not done their job?" I'd think to myself. "Why don't they just go and tell the MD that X was not performing and get them to add pressure."
I now realize that this whole premise is wrong as I have been looking at it in the exact opposite manner.
Today while listening to a podcast I learnt -
Your goal as an employee is not to have to escalate every problem you face to your boss. Your boss wants to see you as a problem solver. Someone who can work through your own issues, who can navigate complex relationships and still get your work done in a really successful manner.
If you are to escalate problems to your boss, that would mean your boss getting involved and him having to solve said issue. In effect he/she will be doing your job. Why the heck did they hire YOU then?
This rules applies no matter what function, hierarchy or department you are hired in.
the reason why in school one could potentially score 100/100 in math but only 80/100 in history, languages or 'moral studies' is because unlike religion, language or human interactions, math has only one right answer. An answer will either be right or wrong, true or false, 1 or 0.
All my student life I thought it was a huge conspiracy that worked in the favor of smart people, I wish someone stepped in and told me this back then. I would probably have worked harder and even focused more on a given subject.
"Students who acquire large debts putting themselves through school are unlikely to think about changing society. When you trap people in a system of debt, they cant afford time to think. Tuition fee increases are a 'disciplinary technique' and by the time students graduate, they are not only loaded with debt, but have also internalized the "disciplinarian culture. This makes them efficient components of the consumer economy"
- Noam Chomsky This. This is so true for almost everything I have to say about the matter.
Everyone white face
You have no messages
I'm happy to hear you are doing fine
So depressing but so hilarious but so depressing
How not to tell a story of course
The general explaining his plight
People looking straight at me with slaves burning inside
Made me fear old age more than death
And a life without purpose or reason
“We can kind of read the animal’s mind in a way, we can predict what the animal is going to do before he does it,” Churchland said. “When you’re a novice at something your brain is doing all different things, so you have neurons engaged in all different things. But then when you’re an expert, you hone in on exactly what you’re going to do and we can pick up that activity.”
For the longest time I've thought of taking supplements as being unnatural and inhuman even but my thought is changing.
I've know for long but only recently paid attention to the fact of chickens being injected with hormones, vitamins and yes supplements. For decades I've had no qualms about consuming this form of food. Kind of hypocritic it is of me, now that I think of it that the food of my food is indeed full of supplements, and I am against supplements.
Now that I think of it, food itself is a supplement.
Reed's Law on Wikipedia
The utility of large networks, particularly social networks, scales exponentially with the size of the network.
This law is based on graph theory, where the utility scales as the number of possible sub-groups, which is faster than the number of participants or the number of possible pairwise connections. Odlyzko and others have argued that Reed's Law overstates the utility of the system by not accounting for the limits of human cognition on network effects; see Dunbar's Number.
Another cool piece of triva I recently came across that is more principle than trivia. I present to you Hutber's Law -
This law suggests that improvements to a system will lead to deterioration in other parts, or it will hide other deterioration, leading overall to a degradation from the current state of the system.
I see this law hold true in many aspects of my work life. It reminds me of this podcast that spoke of the Galileo principle (by Tim Harford) that speaks of how improvements meant to solve complex structures end up creating more complications. If only the others on my team could see the same.