Slashdot Mirror

He endorsed Trump two weeks ago

Database color

He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind. First he did the world's fakest endorsement for Clinton:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

Then he switched over to trump:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

There are some brutally funny and plain brutal Dilbert comics out there, but he seems to have gone a but nuts in his old age. He seems to have forgotten that DNRC was all a big joke and has started to actually take it seriously.

He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind. First he did the world's fakest endorsement for Clinton:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

Then he switched over to trump:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

There are some brutally funny and plain brutal Dilbert comics out there, but he seems to have gone a but nuts in his old age. He seems to have forgotten that DNRC was all a big joke and has started to actually take it seriously.

Obligatory Dilbert:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2004-...

The Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2010 allows government agencies to pay cash awards to employees who accurately classify government documents consistently ...

So it is down to paying government employees bribes to actually do the job they are hired to do ... Why not fine the ones that over classify the information instead ...

And such plans actually don't work.

The Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2010 allows government agencies to pay cash awards to employees who accurately classify government documents consistently and avoid unnecessary over-classification of information that is not a threat to national security.

This sounds suspiciously like the "Bribing Wally" Dilbert strips from earlier this week: 1 and 2.

I mean seriously a law that says "we will pay you more money to not break other laws and do the job you were hired to do" speaks volumes about how messed up the US government is. Why not try something different, perhaps? Like, when a law is broken or a policy violated then the individual or people responsible are held accountable and administrative or punitive measures are taken. Clinton certainly won't do anything at all to fix that, and Trump only has a marginally higher likelihood (if only because both Republicans and Democrats hate him and will dig in like petulant children rather than work with him).

I really wish that it looked like there was a tenable solution to this, but it doesn't appear like anything will change meaningfully in any of our lifetimes.

The Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2010 allows government agencies to pay cash awards to employees who accurately classify government documents consistently and avoid unnecessary over-classification of information that is not a threat to national security.

This sounds suspiciously like the "Bribing Wally" Dilbert strips from earlier this week: 1 and 2.

I mean seriously a law that says "we will pay you more money to not break other laws and do the job you were hired to do" speaks volumes about how messed up the US government is. Why not try something different, perhaps? Like, when a law is broken or a policy violated then the individual or people responsible are held accountable and administrative or punitive measures are taken. Clinton certainly won't do anything at all to fix that, and Trump only has a marginally higher likelihood (if only because both Republicans and Democrats hate him and will dig in like petulant children rather than work with him).

I really wish that it looked like there was a tenable solution to this, but it doesn't appear like anything will change meaningfully in any of our lifetimes.

We better hope we don't encounter aliens that feel the same way about us and see us as pests on "their" new planet.

What is your point? That aliens will treat us better if we are nice to rats?

Real life is not like Star Trek.

And software development, alas, isn't free of managers and companies pushing such boneheaded stupid goals that get the contrary of what they intend to.

http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-...

This is common in any environment, including Dilbert. Reward or punish a behavior without any common sense and you get what you ask for. On the other hand, if you do like Nordstrom's did in their five word employee handbook then you just might get what you want: Use good judgement in all situations. Then of course that requires the same of management. The other side is zero tolerance, as in we have zero tolerance for bugs leads to a situation where nothing is ever label as a bug.

Apt Dilbert cartoon illustrating your point nicely. Any metric that's simple enough for management to come up with is simple enough to be gamed heavily by the workers.

Two can play at this game

This was predicted in the dilbert comics long back
http://dilbert.com/strip/2012-...

This was done in practice by Adam Osborne in 1982 and again in 1983 and is generally called "Doing an Osborne".

As depicted by Dilbert's CEO

"but the public is still clamoring for Thinner and Lighter"

Phones have been thin enough and light enough for 6 or 7 years. I think most people would rather a better battery than a thinner phone. I can't imagine anyone still thinks phones should be thinner- it'll get to a point where it makes them harder to hold.

"Get to"? As far as I'm concerned, we've been there for years now...especially with the apparent design hard-on for slippery-as-hell (but 'ooh shiny!') exteriors.

oblig.

Why can't these 14,000 people be trained to write SDN software instead of designing mainboards for hardware?

Dilbert has the answer.

It amuses the hell out of me that this came up in the same search I did for "dilbert unclean" link that is oddly applicable as well.

Why can't these 14,000 people be trained to write SDN software instead of designing mainboards for hardware?

Dilbert has the answer.

It amuses the hell out of me that this came up in the same search I did for "dilbert unclean" link that is oddly applicable as well.

(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)

And here is something Scott Adams should have considered before he tried to buy a Ford Raptor at a Chevy dealership:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c...

Summary: He wanted product X, went to someone who does not sell product X, found out that product X will not be available for a year and "realized" he never wanted product X to begin with. Maybe he hypnotized himself.

As for his analysis on trump, a good test of that will be in November if trump "wins in a landslide".

Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think

This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.

That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.

OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.

The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.

He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.

Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.

Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.

So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.

(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)

So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.

(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)

And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)

So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.

(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)

Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think

This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.

That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.

OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.

The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.

He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.

Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.

Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.

So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.

(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)

So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.

(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)

And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)

So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.

(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)

seems to me hard to understand how a manager can manage something he doesn't know anything about

It isn't hard to understand. In fact, there is a whole cartoon series dedicated to exactly this.

http://www.dilbert.com/

Obligatory:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-...

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-08-07

Dilbert called it

Maybe he automated his job and we're all talking to a small shell script.

Proof: http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-...

And more: http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-...

Maybe he automated his job and we're all talking to a small shell script.

Proof: http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-...

And more: http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-...

What makes you think Trump will start a war?

Read Scott Adams blog about it.

Clinton, on the other hand, has a proven history of starting wars.

http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-...

This explains it perfectly.

Weave me a cone yoo cupid bat.

Scott Adams' blog suggests the possibility that Trump may comprehend it, but is biding his time until after she's named as the official Democratic candidate before hitting her with the really damaging stuff.

Eric Schmit is running the tech side of the Hillary campaign. That, all by itself, does not make Google guilty, but with this evidence it shows it is also internal and, yes, they are very guilty.

Also it is considered "offensive" to speak badly of a lady or an ethnic minority or (in SV) a Democrat (see Scott Adams' article here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...).

I would rather have fair than "offensiveless" and am prepared to drop any technologies in that pursuit.

I see your xkcd and raise you a Dilbert.

.... to remember this one.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-...

That's right, it's all about "being flexible and re-thinking how we define rewards." Scott Adams already figured out this system 20 years ago.

Scott Adams has an interesting take on things.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency

My only question is---if Trump is so racist, sexist, and prone to violent reactions--why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits? Sexual harassment cases? Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that? I mean everything that comes out about him basically makes him seem like a mild-mannered Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg... As far a celebrity children, his don't seem particularly bad nor attention-seeking (which IMHO speaks well for him).

Things like two factor auth (user still uses stupid password, but also needs token given by smart-phone app, or recieved by 2nd channel)

[snip]

But no, companies still continue to recommend "secure" passwords.
(Which can still be mitigiated using a decent password manager).

Fun fact: TeamViewer supports TFA for several years now.
But if people don't use it and instead reuse the same passwords for TV as for other services...

At least some "stupid-mitigiation" could have helped.

Things like two factor auth (user still uses stupid password, but also needs token given by smart-phone app, or recieved by 2nd channel)

Or things like public-key authentication (stupid password is used to unlock locally stored file with cryptographic key. Key is only used to sign stuff over wire)

In both case, even in the case of a massive leak (e.g.: like recent LinkedIn's) the stolen passwords can't be used alone to impersonate user identity.
(either an extra token would be needed in addition. Or a file containing the cryptographic key. Both of which stay in the possession of the end-user and never travel the wire).

But no, companies still continue to recommend "secure" passwords.
(Which can still be mitigiated using a decent password manager).

No he's not, and this meme needs to die.

And if you believe the meme, you're a moron.

It is no less accurate than what people say about Trump...

If you want a dose of reality, try reading this:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

None of us are actually that good at this game. :)

If you understand data, then yes, you should understand that posting tabular data, at the minimum, is WAY better than reading it out loud.

:)

I suspect Trump understands the mass population better than you do, even if you understand data better than he does...

especially his reckless Tweets that take 2 seconds to fact check

You're assuming that his audience does that, or cares...

You should read this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

For instance, he could have totally avoided the donations hoopla by just having an updated mentality on data and transparency. It was totally avoidable and, in the context of modern times, he totally caused the situation himself.

You're assuming that he would WANT to avoid it...

Remember the "John Miller" thing? You know who leaked that, right? Trump did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He reads donation numbers out loud at a press conference when most people these days would just post the numbers on their website and be done with it.

And you assume that somehow posting them on the web site is a better choice?

Trump isn't a fool or stupid, he didn't stomp the other 16 people in the Republican Primary by accident.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn't really want to be president? I donâ(TM)t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. Thatâ(TM)s one way to do it.

I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a "clown" last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesnâ(TM)t seem so clownish.

Do you remember all of Trump's vulgar insults from last year? It turns out that those linguistic kill shots were engineered for persuasion, and A-B tested at live rallies for effectiveness. Today, no one doubts how well those Trump nicknames worked.

Snip...

My point today is that Donald Trump does not have as many policy details as his critics demand. And if a candidate does not have sufficient policy details, it might mean that candidate is a stupid clown who is not serious about being President of the United States.

Orâ¦

It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people donâ(TM)t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality. People are emotional creatures who rationalize their actions after the fact.

But did he ever proactively leverage his synergies?

Well, there is precedent... :) http://dilbert.com/search_resu...

Not sure why it's not a PRIMARY story on Slashdot, but Scott Adams knows exactly why Trump is appealing - and it's not just to the lowest common denominator, but all people that are not hard-core tied with one ideology they will cling to unto death.

Try this mind-blower on for size with the next Trump hater - ask them if they believe anything Trump says, they will say no. Then ask them why the so strongly oppose someone based only on things they are certain he will not do, of their own admission...

http://dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-29

http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-...

2013-11-06

Meet Mordac

Karl Popper once tried to come up with an exact rule to determine what a scientific discipline is.

For example, astrology is based on mathematics. Should that be considered a science?

In regards to social and political theories, he noted that the Communist revolution was predicted to start in a highly industrialized country and England was held the likely starting spot. This was thought to be all kinds of scientific, and made historical predictions from rationalization over observations of the social, political, economic scenes at the time.

It was literally, at the time, felt that future predictions from historical precedent was a science.

When it actually happened in Russia (a rural, pastoral, mostly rustic country) the historical scientists of the time had to change their assumptions. The end result was still Communism, but the extra data from Russia allowed for the revolution to start in rural countries as well.

Popper didn't think that this was proper science.

And neither do I.

You can't just cherry-pick historical precedent and think it has any predictive power on the future.

Our situation is absolutely, completely not the same as the ones Robert Paxton has written about.

For one, he is cherry picking his examples. It's an obvious psychological trick - most people can't come up with counter-examples on their own, so his position *seems* like it's always the case and is inevitable.

For two, he's a popular writer, and is encouraged to make things seem just a bit more lurid to make his works more popular. (Not by lying, but he can choose which examples and situations he uses.)

For three, he notes specifically that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all 5 stages. Among the hundred-or-so counter examples for which we have good information.

And finally, there are stark differences between Trump and, for example Hitler (source):

.) Hitler wanted to conquer other countries. Trump is opposed to war unless for defense. .) Hitler tried to exterminate minorities. Trump’s policies lean pro-minority:
        1. Veterans are disproportionately minorities.
        2. Aborted babies are often minorities.
        3. Trump wants to avoid people “dying in the streets” with no healthcare, and that benefit is good for minorities.
        4. Trump wants to keep Social Security strong, which helps everyone, but mostly people at lower incomes.
        5. Trump’s spokesperson is half African-American. Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism. And so on, and so on.
        6. Stopping illegal immigration reduces job competition for lower-income families.
        7.. Some say it also reduces violence to women of all ethnicities.
        7. Trump wants citizens to be armed. Hitler didn’t want that.

Unlike Hitler, Trump is happy to invite anyone with useful technical skills to the country, no matter their ethnicity. And unlike Hitler, Trump has never made reference to ethnicity. Trump often mentions countries of origin and also religion. But so far, not ethnicity. Not ever.

And for a bit of icing, note that we live in a world of communication where it is infinitely more difficult for propaganda to thrive. That's a yuuuuge difference right there!

Stop treating history as a science, 'cause it aint.

I've been following Scott Adams' blog, and he has some insightful things to say about Trump and how he manages to win.

Scroll back a few entries in the blog and they're pretty interesting.

With that background, I've just this morning figured out how Trump managed to pull it off: he's been using "sad" as a verbal kill-shot.

Check out any image of Ted Cruz, and the most notable feature is his sloping eyebrows. He's definitely got that "sad puppy-dog" look.

Trump has been using "sad" in his speeches for months, and associating it with all sorts of slightly pejorative things. He's never made it specific that he's doing this as an association to Cruz, and "sad" is not extreme rhetoric so it escapes peoples' notice. (He sometimes calls Ted sad, but I'm talking about all the other "sad"s over the past few months.)

Furthermore, he masks it by giving people a more transparent and direct kill-shot: "lying Ted Cruz". People are distracted by the extreme moniker and reject it, and all the while they don't notice that they are slowly building an association between "sad" and a wide range of slightly bad things.

So when they see Ted on stage or in the media, that association is what they feel.

I think it's a case of priming, and Trump has masterfully arm-wrestled Ted's reputation to the floor without him realizing it.

Pundits are quick to point out that Trump's unfavorability is at 70%, and all polls show that Hillary would beat Trump in an election.

What they *don't* say is that Hillary herself is only 12 points lower (56% unfavorability), and that's bound to change over the next 6 months.

In fact, Hillary's unfavorability seems to be creeping up of late, and Trump's is falling.

It's starting to look like he might win.

And that he's winning on purpose.

Who'd of think it?