Archive
Self Made Myth
Western societies, especially the good ole USA, revere the myth of the “self-made” man. Even though many people might consider some of my greatest influencers; Seth Godin, Leo Babauta, Hugh MacLeod, and Scott Berkun self-made men, all of them depend on what Godin defines as “tribes” for their livelihood. And they’ll all humbly admit it – which is why I’m a fan.
I recently listened to Leo interview Seth on the subject of tribe-building for writers. Here are some tidbits of sage advice served up by Mr. Godin:
- Don’t get upset by the fact that you don’t have a vision and can’t tell what’s coming next.
- The core of any worthwhile, enduring business is not about maximizing profit.
- You’ve got to embrace a willingness to fail.
- Get that voice out of your head so you can do your best work. (D’oh!)
- Don’t write for strangers – you don’t need a huge “tribe“, and thus, you don’t have to dilute your message.
- Forget about writing “how to” books anymore. People just look it up online.
- People hate reading, so keep it short.
The first four bullets are not just applicable to aspiring writers, no?
The Uncrossable Threshold
Unless you work in a Chinese sweatshop, the likelihood is high that your management has an “open door” policy. After all, it’s been the right thing to do since the 80’s, right? However, the likelihood that anyone but their “direct reports” casually cross the threshold to chat about problems and ideas for improvement at any level in the org is low, no?
So why is that? Could it be an unwritten rule in hierarchies that “little” people aren’t allowed to “whine” to stratospheric luminaries? Could it be a culture of fear of reprisal? Could it be a dearth of trust? Could it be the perception that bosses don’t like to hear bad news? What do you think it could be?
Resource And Asset Ban
Stocks and bonds are assets; water and iron ore are resources. Assets and resources are “its“. People are not resources and they’re not assets and they’re not “its“. Get it? So, stop parroting your moo-herd peers if you want to distinguish yourself from the pack like you say you do.
Hitherto, the unesteemed BD00 proposes a federal law (Phil, if your reading this, the last two words are fer you 🙂 ) that will ban all orgs from using the MBA-inspired, utterly unauthentic, and Taylor-esque words “resource” and “asset” when their PR spinners and glossy annual report writers refer to their “people“.
Referring to people as assets is a vestige of the so-yesterday theory X management mindset that is so ingrained in the psyches of both SCOLs and DICs everywhere that this standard practice remains unexamined even today by most orgs. So, please consider replacing the phrases on the left with those on the right:
- Deploy our assets -> deploy our people
- Utilize our resources -> utilize our people
- Allocate some resources -> allocate some people, time, and money
- People are our greatest asset -> People are our greatest strength
You may think that BD00 is being anal when he brings up such minutia, and that’s OK. BD00 thinks that the little things matter, and this is one of those little things that matter. What little things matter to you?
The Chairman Was Wrong
Frank Sinatra was wrong. New York is NOT the city that never sleeps. Nawlins is the city that never sleeps – at least during Mardi Gras.
From Within, From Without
With exceptions (and there are always exceptions) everyone knows that the view “from within” is different than the view “from without“.
While viewing “from without“, there is typically less emotional attachment of the viewer to the viewed. The more one is attached to the view “from within“, the more difficult it is to extricate oneself from that view and form a secondary view “from without“.
On product development projects, it’s much easier for a project team member to step outside of the intricate details “from within” to form a view “from without” than it is for an “outsider” to form a view “from within“. But just because it’s easier, it doesn’t mean that it’s done often.
This “from within” and “from without” crap is simply a twist on the old “put yourself in someone else’s shoes” advice…..
Broken Books
With the addition of features like auto, initializer lists, lambdas, and smart pointers, a lot of C++98 programming idioms and guidance have become obsolete now that C++11 is here. Thus, as Herb Sutter said at GoingNative 2012, a boatload of code examples in the best C++ books are now “broken“.
As a result, new and revamped versions of the books will take awhile to become available. Here’s Herb’s “estimated time of arrival” for several stalwart books:
In the meantime, you can feast your eyes on, and feed the left side of your brain with, these links:
- Bjarne Stroustrup’s C++11 FAQ page
- Wikipedia C++11
- Scott Meyers Overview Of C++11
- C++11 Features To GCC Compiler Map
- C++ Standards Committee Home Page
- GoingNative 2012
- C++11 Features in Visual C++ 11
- Clang Compiler C++11 Support
- Writing Modern C++ Code (Herb Sutter)
Do you know of any other good links to add to this post?
operateUntilDeath()
Putting aside the “NotYouAndMe” class name in the bogus BD00 model below for a moment, I think most powerful and wealthy people believe that they can willfully control their feelings, actions, and behaviors via a “Conscious Executive” entity hosted within their brain. Objects of this fictitious class “require” and are “provided” energy by the one and only “life force“.
“NotYouAndMe” objects continually execute the “operateUntilDeath()” function in a “while(alive)” loop until the “life force” asynchronously pulls the plug – which can be anytime and anywhere. D’oh!
Each cycle through the “operateUntilDeath()” function goes something like this:
- Poll your senses for objects and events “out there“.
- Evaluate the sensor input data against prior memories accumulated and stored in your “Experience Database“.
- Speak/act according to whether you consciously perceive the current landscape as a threat or an opportunity.
The only problem with the model above (beside the fact that it’s another whacky BD00 concoction) is the “conscious” part playing the CEO of your corpus. That’s why the aggregator class is aptly named “NotYouAndMe“. To see this fallacy more vividly, feast your eyes upon the real, Nobel prize winning “YouAndMe” model below.
The BD00 mandated reality is that there’s a hidden and oft-denied “Unconscious Executive” behind the scenes that enables/disables the “Conscious Executive” object whenever it damn well pleases. In effect, the “Conscious Executive” gets sloppy seconds on the sensor data only after it’s been censored and chewed up by the “Unconscious Executive”. In totally clueless people like BD00, the “Conscious Executive” is rarely, if ever, “enabled“. D’oh!
How about you dear reader? Do you believe that you’re “fully in control and in charge”? Are you a “Conscious Executive“? The more you believe it, the less it is.
The “E” Test
From Dan Pink’s “FLIP Manifesto“:
To take the E test, draw the letter “E” on your forehead. Oops, too late. You already know which way is the “correct” one.
Ingrained Internal Shared Mindset
All Models are wrong, but some are useful – George Box
One of the models below puts the owners and managers of an enterprise at the top and the other model places them at the bottom. Which system design do you think is capable of creating more wealth for all stakeholders over the long term?
Finite Experience
I’ve just dropped in for a visit. How about you?
Why am I here?
WTF?
Meh!
D'oh!
My BTC Address
Bulldozer00's Blog 