Omar Mateen: Lone Wolf

I’ve been puzzling over his motivations since the massacre, and suddenly realized something today: he’s the lone wolf that security agencies have been warning us about for a while.

He clearly had a mixed-up history and “broke bad” at some point.  But he didn’t really have a way to give shape to his badness until, really until ISIS burst on the scene.

Watching the other massacres, he realized he could affiliate himself with ISIS — no need for a pesky trip to Syria or even much contact with them — and then carry out an attack.

He did impinge on the FBI and other radars several times, but, because there was nothing further to his plotting — no connections, no ties, no infrastructure — there was no way to escalate our interest in him, no way to pick him out from millions of mixed-up bad-breaking people who might look to ISIS for some kind of justification for their bad feeling.

I sympathize with our security guys: lone wolves are probably the “long tail” of their job, and very very hard to know how to triage the severity of the threat posed by a lone wolf.

But that’s what it looks like he was.  An ISIS wannabe.

My Tender Croppes

The CrummyCook has branched out and begun, over the past few years, to grow stuff.

First, some herbs.

Then, some cucumbers.

This year, some tomatoes (against my better judgment: the problem with tomatoes is they all ripen at the same time and you’ve got a complete surplus of tomatoes for a couple of weeks and a famine the rest of the year.  Maybe there’s a fix for that).

In any case, I was a bit worried about my tender croppes this year.  It was too cold to put the cukes out for a long time in March and even in April, and everything got behind the 8-ball.

But things seem to be working out.


Here are the cukes.  They are leafing out nicely and are spontaneously trying to cling to the frame.  I’ll have them climbing up this weekend, I think.


The tomato plant that’s doing the best is in the middle of this picture.  Still pretty spindly and hardly needs the frame around it yet.  The one to its right is not in great shape.  And I only had room for two this year.


Herbs are doign great.  The chives are in the front, the oregano to the left, thyme in the upper middle, and mint just barely visible at the upper right.  The upper left is hot peppers.  They seem to be doing well, but this is my first time with them.  Have to see how it goes.



The rosemary (top) and lavender (bottom) are doing well as well.  Not sure how to use lavender yet, but it sure looks pretty.

Jewel in the crown this year seems to be the basil (pictured in the top of the post).

Generally going better than my pessimistic thoughts in May.

Is there such a thing as a “healthcare fiduciary”?

I don’t mean the kind of people who make sure that our health-insurance “payers” are holding back reimbursements long enough to add shareholder value.  There are names for them, but probably best not printed.

I’m talking about a discussion my wife and I had the other day about sleep apnea.

I made the mistake of honestly answering a sleep-apnea screening questionnaire a few years ago, and found myself on the slippery slope to using a CPAP machine.  I have “borderline” sleep apnea, which means I stop breathing many times during the night, but not enough times to have a full-scale intervention.

Which I don’t want.  The CPAP machines look awful,  invasive, uncomfortable, and unfashionable.  I’d do almost anything to avoid them.

So my wife and I got in a discussion the other day.

“You stopped breathing last night,” she said.  “I heard it.  It was awful.  I don’t want you to get hurt.  You’ve got to do something about your sleep apnea.”

“Like what?” I said.  “One of those CPAP machines?”

“Are they so awful?” she said.  “<A mutual friend> uses one.”

But I did think they were awful.  I started lying on my sleep-apnea screening test to avoid hassle.  And here it was coming at me from my life partner.

We got in a bit of a fight about it, and she ended up saying, “OK, I won’t bring it up again.  I’ll just let it take its course.”

Which brings me to my point.  She can’t do that.  She has a healthcare fiduciary relationship with me.  And I with her.  We can’t let one another just do what we want when it comes to health.

And little as I want to use a CPAP machine, it feels good to know someone has that relationship to me.

Trump, Clinton, and Democratic “smart wins” fallacy

I was born the year Adlai Stevenson first lost to Eisenhower for President.  Eisenhower, like Trump, had never held public office (although it could be argued that his D-Day invasion at least didn’t go bankrupt).  Stevenson was a clever, intellectual, and even witty Governor, so he had run a state (something that voters think well of historically in the U.S., better, say, than being in the House or Senate).

Yet Stevenson lost to Ike, lost badly.  Ike’s slogan: “I Like Ike.”  No rocket science.  No “fitness for office”.  No “I’m way more qualified than he is.”

Democrats for my entire life seem to have not gotten the message from this: smart doesn’t pay in politics.  Quals don’t pay in politics.  Experience doesn’t pay in politics.

Likeable pays in politics.  “Good guy” (or good gal) pays in politics.  “I get where he/she’s coming from” pays in politics.

It looks like this Democratic idiocy is going to play out again this election season (or I guess I’m worried it will; hope it won’t).

Hilary will emphasize her brains, her experience, her fitness for office.  She’ll get no more likable than she is now.  And guess what?  I’m worried she’ll lose.

Trump is a master of the Homeric epithet.  “Lyin’ Ted”.  “Little Marco.”  “Crooked Hillary.”  He coins them, and then he works them over and over, until his audience absorbs them.  In the era of the sound byte, the byte has to be repeated over and over until it sinks in.

The Clinton campaign needs a Homeric epithet against Trump, one that doesn’t have to do with fitness for office, or intelligence, or capabilities, and one that will sink in.  “Nasty Trump”?  “Tiny Trump”? (hands, other parts, smallness of personality and vision.)

Techie Illiteracy Quiz (and its converse)

Many years ago when I was just starting out in Silicon Valley, I dreamed up a “Techie Illiteracy Quiz” to rub my fellow engineers’ noses in how little they knew about the humanities.

It had 3 questions:

  1. Who was Napoleon, and what was his relation to the French Revolution?
  2. Who wrote “Paradise Lost”, and is it a poem, a novel, or a play?
  3. Name one philosopher and one of his or her beliefs

History, literature, philosophy.

Techies didn’t do well on this quiz.  They did best on Question 3 because of philosophers like Bertrand Russell whom some of them knew from his propositional calculus side.

I was surprised that most techies knew nothing of Napoleon or John Milton.

Recently I told this story to a friend, and he said, “well maybe there should be a ‘non-techie innumeracy’ quiz to level the playing field.”

Question is, what would be in such a quiz?

I’m thinking math/physics, computer science, life science, although that may just reflect my areas of greater experience (I don’t know much about geology, chemistry, materials science (if that’s even a separate science)).

Well, here’s a draft:

  1. Name or describe one of Newton’s Laws of Motion
  2. Who was Turing, and what was his relationship to cryptography?
  3. How does DNA replicate?

Welcome your thoughts…

“Software Business and Product Strategy”, by David Black. A Thoughtful Book

I just finished my friend David Black‘s book “Software Business and Product Strategy”.  A thoughtful book and, thanks to the stories, a good read.

David’s thesis is that software businesses are somewhat different from other businesses in that:

  1. Software is intangible
  2. All meaningful software projects are really building something for the first time
  3. A software spec is almost the same thing as the software itself (try that for an injection-molded plastic part!)
  4. The substrate for software — computer hardware — is still doubling in power something like every 18 months

He then draws out the implications of these differences.  He says that the principles for building a successful software business are well-understood and even simple, but, like many simple things, are quite hard to execute.

There are a lot of riches in this book.  He talks about “positioning” and “execution” as the two major sources of sofware-business woe, and says some great things about both.

And he talks about sources of failure in software executive teams, the main one being a kind of noble hubris that makes tech innovators want to solve the biggest, most complex, most general problems first when the game is to solve the simplest, most pressing specific problems first.

This is “noble” hubris because wanting to solve big problems is a great and lofty aim.  But in order to solve them one has to build up a track record of solving specific problems first, and that requires — see it coming — attention to “positioning” and “execution”.

The richness of the book is in the scads of stories.  David has lived through more software businesses than most of us and has thought deeply about what went right and wrong with them.

Check it out.

Two (Possible? Only Possible?) Failure Modes for AI

I’m an old AI guy — back from the ’70’s and ’80’s — and am often blown away by what “deep learning” and statistical approaches are accomplishing nowadays.  I never would have predicted an AI like Watson that could win at Jeopardy.  Or Go.

But some things are still the same, and when AIs fail, they fail in the same couple of ways.

I’m not talking about them turning the universe into a paperclip factory and eliminating us because we get in the way, a la “SuperIntelligence”  Maybe they’ll kill us someday, but that still seems a long ways off.

Today’s AIs disappoint us in one of two ways.

  1. Explanation.  Sadly, almost no humans will trust an AI’s conclusions without some account of how it reached those conclusions.  And most AI’s can’t account for their conclusions, especially the modern AI’s that are based on statistical weights and neural-style nets.  “I reached the conclusion that your cancer will respond to Treatment Cocktail A because I increased the weights on Nodes 1120-3388-692A-QRST and VVTX-8338-QQ94-AAAA from 10 to 30.”  Yeah, right.
  2. Turing Gulf.  This phenomenon, also called the “uncanny valley”, has a nice explanation here.  It’s often used to talk about an AI that’s kind of creepy because it’s near-human, but it can also be used for an AI that’s almost good enough but peeves you when it fails to make the grade.  Imagine an AI that needs to be “90”, where 90 is “90% accurate” or whatever.  And the AI is only “89” (again, whatever that means).  That AI is useless for the task because it will only peeve and frustrate its users.

Are those the only possible ways AIs can fail?  Welcome your comments.

Next Thing Co. and CHIP

I had breakfast with Alden this morning, always an eye-opening experience.  And he was most excited about Next Thing and CHIP.

CHIP is a credit-card sized computer with mainstream Linux, built-in WiFi, BlueTooth, composite video output, 512 MB of RAM and 4 GB of flash…

For $9.

Alden’s excited because he can target his IoT development efforts towards this chip with no compromises.  He’s been working with other single-board computers, but the power, specs, ease-of-programming, and price are all there with this.

(I think I’m allowed to show the picture of CHIP… at least I can’t think of any reason why Next Thing wouldn’t want me to.)chip1

In any case, very cool stuff, even to a coming-back-into-the-software-world guy like me.  I have to admit I was having a tough time getting worked up about coding for Arduino.

Complexity — and simplicity — in a PIM

My to-do lists get more and more complex over time.

I’ve explained here why I like My Life Organized (or “MLO” for short).  Briefly, MLO allows you to organize your tasks into a hierarchy, so that bigger tasks can be divided into smaller tasks and tasks without an organizing principle can be grouped into higher-level “projects” or simply “folders”.

But a consequence of this for me — and I think for any PIM-head who takes this stuff seriously — is that the list of tasks invariably grows and becomes more complex.

Most PIM software has a way of ranking or sorting tasks: by “importance”, by “urgency”, by overdue-ness, by all of the above.  It would be nice to build in to the PIM software some kind of scoring for simplicity as well.  One PIM tree is simpler than another if it isn’t as deeply nested, or if there isn’t a large degree of co-dependence between the various tasks, or <pick your simplicity function here>.

You could then have the software detect and warn you if you were adding on complexity at an alarming rate, and give you some tactics (or even semi-automated processes) for simplifying your PIM tree.

Be careful what you wish for, I guess.  I used some PIM software for a while which would actually put your tasks into the calendar based on the importance sort (and available time slots: each task had to be assigned a length).  Tasks could be split up to some extent, and it was nifty for a couple of days, but then it really got like Dr. Evil’s “unattended killer machine” that was supposed to do in Austin Powers and never did.  It was a major task trying to re-jigger the tasks so they would fit into the schedule where I knew they should go anyhow.  And finally, to achieve simplicity, I threw the software overboard and moved on.

Maybe a simplicity automaton would work better than an automatic scheduler, but I suspect it too could be become a tyrant if wholly automated.  Best to make software our companion and not our master.