Category: Choosing not to do something

Choices, Part 1: 15 dollars per hour Versus 150 dollars per hour

This is based on a speech I’ve seen Brian and Darren Hefty give multiple times at their farming and agronomy seminars. I’ve updated it for inflation, the original figures were $10/hour and $100/hour.

The Hefty brothers said their father would tell them to find the “$100/hour” jobs and focus on those. That most farmers would rather paint a fence themselves than pay someone else $10/hour to paint the fence. But that only saves at most $10 per hour.

It does not account for the opportunity cost, which might be much higher. So, the question becomes: can the farmer find something to do with that fence-painting time which would be worth more than $10/hour.

Can the farmer identify jobs which will make or save the farm $100/hour? If so, then someone else can be paid to do the $10/hour jobs. But likely no one else can do the $100/hours jobs.

A Good Idea Used as a Sales Pitch Is Still a Good Idea

Brian and Darren Hefty were using this speech as a sales pitch for their soil and tissue testing services. The logic is still valid. Their next part of the speech, to a room of farmers, would be to ask the audience members to consider how much they expected to spend on fertilizer over the next ten years? And if they could save even 10% of that number, how much would that be? If it took 20-30 hours of time to save that 10%, how many dollars per hour would that savings come out to be. Put that way, the figure was well over $100 per hour (this was over 10 years ago).

They went through this sales pitch because most farmers do not enjoy paperwork. Most farmers dislike paperwork. If someone enjoyed paperwork they’d get a simpler office job than the risk, complexities, and physical labor of running a farm.

So, to ask a farmer to spend the time to take multiple soil and tissue samples, keep a record of where the samples were taken from and when, and maybe what stage of the plant’s growth, to send it off to a lab for testing, then to take the results and spend another few days matching up the results to individual fields and figuring out where the soil needed to be amended and where it didn’t need to be amended, is a big request. But, is there even a chance that 10% of the current fertilizer program isn’t needed for the next five to ten years? If that answer is yes, then the savings could easily be in tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

How This Relates to Using Technology

This seems unrelated to the question of how to make a person’s technology work for them, instead of the person working for their technology.

Yet, it has everything to do with that question. If the approach to technology, whether it’s a spreadsheet program, voice recorder, or anything else, is to fight with it every step of the way, that’s a lot of lost opportunity. If the person instead steps back and asks “what is the $150/hour job I am missing?” it’s likely they’ll realize there is an easier solution. Maybe the entire tool doesn’t have to be mastered, only one function. Perhaps there’s a much simpler tool which can be used. Or maybe it is the exact right tool for the exact right purpose, so it will be worth the time to spend two to three days learning the tool extensively.

How To Make Your Technology Work For You? Don’t Trust Home Automation, Don’t Trust Tech Companies.

Out of all this, I’d recommend Brandon Jackson’s YouTube video (15 minutes 30 seconds long) at “The Customer’s Perspective in the Amazon Account Lock out” and his Medium post at “A Tale of Unwanted Disruption: My Week Without Amazon“. His video is dated June 14 2023 and his post is dated June 4 2023. (Both were last accessed on June 16 2023.)

Also, here’s an article by Thomas Claburn in The Register, dated June 15 2023: “Amazon confirms it locked Microsoft engineer out of his Echo gear over false claim“.

In case none of those links work at some unknown point in the future, here’s a summary: Amazon customer (Jackson) notices his Amazon Echo device is not responding. He contacts Amazon and is told an Amazon delivery driver heard someone in his house make a racist remark at the driver who was delivering a package. Jackson checks the date and time of delivery on footage from multiple cameras on his property. He has footage of the driver delivering the package, footage includes audio. There is no racist remark on the audio. He sends the footage to Amazon, it takes Amazon a full week to reinstate his account. During that time, multiple home automation devices which could be accessed by Amazon’s Echo and Alexa now cannot be accessed because he’s frozen out of his account.

In his post and video, Jackson goes into a bit of detail about his home setup. He wasn’t completely locked out of his home automation. He was only locked out of being able to access them with Amazon’s services. But as he points out, the average user would likely not have the skills and knowledge to set up multiple access systems the way he did. So the average user would have been stuck.

I am a bit more skeptical of home automation than Jackson. There is a whole ecosystem of certifications, codes, standards, statutory law, case law, and other requirements for home appliances. The same is true of the electrical distribution system to the home and inside the home. Those ecosystems arelargely unknown to the public because they generally works.

The software controlling those home appliances is still new enough it does not have that same regulatory and legal ecosystem. So it currently relies on consumers deciding where they will spend their money.

But as Jackson points out, most of these home automation systems are concentrated in two or three large companies. And those companies cover so many fields that a customer may have an expectation based on their experience in one area, which can be unrelated to what they’ll experience with the same company in another area.

So, while I am still skeptical of home automation in general, I agree with Jackson that if home automation is used, try to have it running locally.

And in general, don’t rely on big tech companies.

Identify the Problem Part 2

Here are the two articles I mentioned previously:

A quote from the second article, originally published in 2017:

In surveys of 106 C-suite executives who represented 91 private and public-sector companies in 17 countries, I found that a full 85% strongly agreed or agreed that their organizations were bad at problem diagnosis, and 87% strongly agreed or agreed that this flaw carried significant costs.

“Are You Solving the Right Problems” by Wedell-Wedellsborg, Thomas, in Harvard Business Review, from the January-February 2017 issue (site last visited June 15 2023)

I’m slowly sidling up to expressing my own views on this topic, I know. My initial reactions are very vocal and filled with disbelief and profanity.

I’ll try to calm down a bit and be more methodical in my critiques. What are managers, whether low level, mid level, or C-suite, paid for in these companies? What are the discussions when they are promoted?

This would be like a national non-profit, closing down multiple chapters per year, with an acknowledged problem in getting members to sign up for leadership positions in chapters which are still active. And the national officers of that non-profit being most concerned with getting enough personal information from members that they can better qualify for government grants.

The bigger the problem is, the more chance there’s something about it people don’t want to acknowledge. The longer the problem exists, the more chance it spawns its own side-effect problems which will have to be dealt with, before the underlying problem can be addressed.

Bureaucrats of all types are very adept at finding what will get them promoted, what will keep their job safe, and what will threaten their job. Not what should get them promoted, keep them safe, or threaten their job. What will.

If an organization promotes people on how eagerly they follow orders, and not whether they understand the orders they give and are given, the intent, the immediate effects, and the long term effects of those orders, then the more likely this will be the result. Organizations which are much better at solving problems than identifying problems.

Life changes. These organizations will not be able to handle the change, and will die.

Technology Won’t Get Someone To A Goal They Haven’t Defined

I created this blog to be about how a person can make their technology work for them. Personally, I like technology, gadgets, and tools.

However, I often talk to friends who want help with some piece of technology. “I just want it to work” is a common statement. In my opinion, they are working for their technology more than it is working for them.

Some of the biggest difficulties I’ve seen people have with technology is they haven’t decided what they’re aiming for. They don’t know how their steps today will get them to a place they want to be in the future.

A Simple Example

As a very simple example, one restaurant I frequent has a loyalty program. The loyalty program requires installing an app on a smartphone. I sympathize with why the restaurant wants their customers to install an app. There’s customer profiles, direct to customer messages, tracking trend with regular customers, detailed data on what dishes are doing well. But why would I, the customer, want to download the app?

There are some rewards for the loyalty program, discounts on dishes or next visit or something-or-other. I read through the apps list of what information it tracks, and honestly it was more than I wanted to share with a restaurant app.

Data harvesting aside, each app on my smartphone and each program on my computer is a place for trouble to start. It’s a place for a conflict with other programs or with the operating system to arise. It’s something to potentially eat up my computer’s or smartphone’s processor cycles or memory space.

Is there anything so important about a restaurant loyalty app that it’s worth all that hassle? No, not for me.

The Existence of Something Does Not Obligate Me To Buy It.

Too often when my friends ask me about helping them with some piece of technology, they never stopped to wonder why they got it in the first place. Yes, there might have been an end goal of more money, less worry, more time, a task being easier to accomplish. This piece of technology was presented to them, and there doesn’t seem to have been a lot of thought about “Will this thing in front of me get me to the goals I want to achieve?”

Many times, there wasn’t a goal set at all. Someone told them it was a good idea or a recommended idea for something-or-other, and now there’s this piece of technology that they are working for.

Slow Is Smooth, Smooth Is Fast

Computers and Software

I’ve had computers where I could hit six key combinations in quick succession. And then I could watch it all be executed smoothly — and correctly! — over the next twenty seconds.

I’ve also had computers where I had to watch the monitor after every single key press. I wouldn’t like the results if I got too far ahead of what the computer was doing,

Hardware devices with lots of buttons tend to fall into the second category: get too far ahead and it will take me longer than if I’d gone the device’s speed to start with. Most remotely hosted services seems to fall into this second category too. And most smart phones are in this second category.

Business Practices

Then there are other mental processes where rushing makes things slower in the end. The classic phrase “I’m writing you a long letter because I didn’t have time to write a short one” is an example of this. There are legions of corporate memos sent in haste, legal documents filed in haste, emails addressed and sent in haste, where time-consuming mistakes were made which probably could have been avoided if there had been less haste.

Hand Crafts

My last set of examples today is hands-on processes like sewing, welding, woodworking, and dozens of other hand crafts. “Measure twice, cut once” is a common statement in almost all of them for the same reasons I wrote about above. Measuring twice takes much less time than buying more fabric or wood or metal or whatever else I was using.

Why Am I Writing This?

Mostly, I write this blog for myself, but I write about the problems I see people have with technology. I write about the recurring themes I hear in what people say and in what they ask me for help with. I write this blog for everyone who says “I just want it to work.” Part of making it work, and this goes for all types of its, is knowing the speed of the technology and respecting that. Fixing something broken is almost always slower than slowing down enough to not mess up in the first place.

Slowing Down to Speed Up, Writing Edition

I listen to some small business and entrepreneur podcasts. One of the phrases I frequently hear is “slow down to speed up.”

I’ll be honest, I typically hear that right before the host explains why they fought that idea when they first heard it, before having to learn it the hard way. And by “hard way,” I mean by repeated painful experience. Anyway, I’ll get back on topic.

Slowing down to speed up also applies to writing. I used to wonder why there were so many different types of notebooks and stationery. For that matter, why were there so many different types of accounting ledger books?

In both cases, writing something down and then rewriting it somewhere else in a different way helps focus the mind.

For writing, I’ve seen guidelines which say there is a creative mode which runs fast and often a bit too free, then there is the editing mode. These are different parts of the brain, and trying to switch in and out of editing mode while ostensibly being in creating mode doesn’t work that well.

I’ve tried that with writing and it does work. I’m still not fully in the habit. But each time I get a little bit better are remembering to let it flow first and then go back and correct later.

I’m also finding it helps to do that with money. I don’t write down every cent of every transaction, but I’m starting to create a list of regular expenses, pulling the information from multiple other places it’s recorded. And it is helping me focus on what I want to keep and what I’m fine letting go.

Why am I writing this on a blog about making technology work for you?

Technology has created so many time-saving services, it’s erased the friction which used to exist. So we all, myself included, want to let the apps and programs and whatever do it all for us. When we do that, we convince ourselves we’re going faster and faster. But we’re planning and considering less and less.

A re-read and rewriting of a good idea is better than writing it hurriedly fifteen times. And it will be fifteen times because we’re moving so fast we forgot what we already wrote.

An inventory and accounting of what classes and guides and books have already been purchased is better than purchasing more variations of the same thing. But it’s faster and feels faster to just buy more of what has already been purchases.

Slowing down to go faster is a real thing.

Useful Find: E-Paper Typing Tools

Yes, I know I just wrote a post on not buying things I don’t need.

In case I ever need this, I’m going to write it about it here.

The original article I found is “ReMarkable emits Type Folio keyboard cover for e-paper tablet”, by Liam Proven in The Register, dated March 16 2023.

I’ve seen articles about tinkerers buying or repurposing e-paper displays (I think I’ve also seen them called e-ink displays) for their projects. This article describes some of the first commercially produced items I’ve seen with e-paper displays. There are several mentioned. If I ever get one I’ll probably go with reMarkable, but I’d have to be writing a lot more than I currently do before I could justify the cost.

Digging around I found another article on The Register by that same author on writing tools. I agree that the biggest obstacle to writing on most tablets is the lack of a keyboard. The articles are “Where are all the decent handheld scribbling tools?” Part 1 and Part 2, dated November 10 2011.

TAS: Tool Acquisition Syndrome. The Struggle Is Real.

I heard the term Tool Acquisition Syndrome on some welding or woodworking podcast. It’s witty and descriptive. “Shiny Object Syndrome” is a similar term I’ve heard in entrepreneur and small business podcasts.

Both terms describe the tendency to buy more tools. Usually this ends up delaying a project: the tool must be bought, arrive, be unpacked, the manual read, and so on.

I’ve found one of the counters to TAS is to look through all the things which can be done by the tools I already own. Many electronic devices can do a surprising number of things.

Once in a great while there will be a great sale on a tool I don’t actually need. I’ve purchased some really interesting tools that way. But generally, I don’t need to buy new tools, I already have what I need.

The Simpler It Is, The Closer You Look, Part 1

The simpler a physical operation or technology seems to be, the closer I’ll be to worrying about material properties.

Every physical thing eventually goes back to a natural material. Even “synthetic” materials such as plastics, nylon, or viscose, eventually come from a natural material. And natural materials vary.

Whether a natural variance will affect the end use is often hard to predict. A few years ago Consumer Reports took a close look at gluten-free foods and found that one of the hidden dangers was arsenic poisoning. Many gluten-free foods contain rice flour. Rice is grown in different areas with different soils; and rice has a tendency to absorb arsenic from the soil (if the soil has arsenic; some soils don’t).

I used rice as an example, but every other natural material has equally unexpected variances somewhere. When I buy a good such as quilting cotton, there’s an unseen army of people I’m depending on. Someone grew the cotton, harvested it, processed it, and spun it into thread. Someone else took that thread and wove cloth out of it at a set width and tightness of fabric. And then someone after that dyed or printed the cloth.

The further I go back in any chain of assembly or manufacture or processing, the closer I’ll be to taking a very close look at physical properties in the material itself. If I have to do that, then I’ll probably start learning about how to specify those properties when buying, and how to test for those properties, and how often I’ll need to test.

The simpler it is, the closer I need to look at everything.

Useful Finds: A Bunch of Links About AI and ChatGPT.

Last week I wrote about my skepticism about ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence. I read and heard multiple further criticisms and critiques of the use of artificial intelligence since then. When I started looking for those links for this post, I found several more.

The Difference Between a Content Creator and Content Editor

In a discussion on the Software Defined Talk podcast episode 400, Matt Ray (one of the hosts) described using ChatGPT to create content. ChatGPT can quickly create a lot of text very quickly, but not all of it is good. It’s not even always factually accurate. Ray pointed out there is a large difference between creating content and editing content created by someone else.

I’d Have Expected the Companies Showcasing These to Understand This and to Have Some Content Editors.

And I would have been wrong to expect that.

As a short recounting of some current events: ChatGPT is launched, gets lots of attention. Microsoft announces it will buy ChatGPT, or its parent company, and ChatGPT will become part of Microsoft’s search engine Bing. Bing gets a tiny fraction of search engine traffic, and search engine advertising dollars, that the Google search engine gets. Cue breathless articles about this being the end of Google’s dominance in internet search. Google announces they have been researching AI themselves for quite a while. Google shows an ad where their own AI answers questions. It gets a question wrong and since this coincides with a massive drop in Google’s stock price, the former is assumed to have caused the latter.

But as The Register explains in “Microsoft’s AI Bing also factually wrong, fabricated text during launch demo” by Katyanna Quach, dated February 14 2023 and last accessed February 14 2023, Microsoft’s search AI demonstration also had factual errors. In some cases, pretty severe errors that in theory would have been easy to spot. It wrongly stated easy-to-look-up facts about product features and bar and restaurant hours and options.

(I’m adding “last accessed” dates for the text articles in this post because some of the articles I’m referencing have revision dates in addition to post dates.)

From Quach’s article:

None of this is surprising. Language models powering the new Bing and Bard are prone to fabricating text that is often false. They learn to generate text by predicting what words should go next given the sentences in an input query with little understanding of the tons of data scraped from the internet ingested during their training. Experts even have a word for it: hallucination.

If Microsoft and Google can’t fix their models’ hallucinations, AI-powered search is not to be trusted no matter how alluring the technology appears to be. Chatbots may be easy and fun to use, but what’s the point if they can’t give users useful, factual information? Automation always promises to reduce human workloads, but current AI is just going to make us work harder to avoid making mistakes.

The Register, “Microsoft’s AI Bing also factually wrong, fabricated text during launch demo” by Katyanna Quach, dated February 14 2023, last accessed February 14 2023,

Why didn’t either Google/Alphabet or Microsoft check the answers the AI gave before their demonstrations? Did they assume the answers would always be correct? Or that the probability of correct responses would be high enough it was worth the risk? Or that everyone would enthralled and not check at all? I have no idea.

Intellectual Property Rights? We Don’t Need No Stinking Intellectual Property Rights! Except For Our Own Intellectual Property. Then, Yes, Please!!

I might make that the subject of a whole other post another day. To put it briefly: Many of these models, language and image, are trained on large amounts of publicly available information. In the free, research, or crowd-sourcing stages, intellectual property rights to the information used for training are often not discussed. Then the model has some success, money gets involved, and those issues become very important.

“Move fast and break things” is similar to “Rules are meant to be broken.” Both statements sounds cool and daring until things of real value are involved, such as money and copyright infringement.

ChatGPT, the Latest Darling, Is Not as Neutral as It Says It Is

Here are a couple of posts from the Substack page Rozado’s Visual Analytics by David Rozado and a referencing post from Reclaim the Net:

To summarize the three posts, when asked if it has a political bias ChatGPT says it does not and claims that as an Ai, it cannot. When asked questions from numerous different tests of political ideology, ChatGPT tested moderate on one and some version of left, left-leaning, or liberal on all the others.

Is it the content ChatGPT is trained on? Was there an inadvertent bias in the people who chose the content? Is “The Political Bias of ChatGPT – Extended Analysis” Rozado explains he first documented a political bias in ChatGPT in early December 2022. ChatGPT went through an update in mid-December 2022, which Rozado said included a mitigation of the political bias in answers. Then after an update in January 2023, the political bias was back.

I’ve chosen not to go through all of Rozado’s posts, but there are quite a few. This is a topic which has a lot more than I’m writing here. I’m pointing out that there’s more to read than I’m referencing here because that’s part of my point: none of this is simple. None of it is the easy replacement of messy human interaction that technology in general and AI in particular is claimed to be.

That Political Bias? Quickly Defeated With the Right Questions.

Zerohedge’s post “Go Woke, Get Broken: ChatGPT Tricked Out Of Far-Left Bias By Alter Ego ‘DAN’ “ written by the eponymous Tyler Durden, dated February 13 2023 and last accessed February 14 2023, is about breaking ChatGPT’s clearly documented political bias.

How is this done? Tell it to pretend it is DAN, Do-Anything-Now, and provide answers to prompts both as itself and as DAN.

The results are surprising, and interesting, and humorous. The Zerohedge post links to entire Reddit discussions about how to break ChatGPT.

No, I haven’t read through all those Reddit discussions, although I probably will at some time in the future. I know I’m beating this drum a lot, but I’ll repeat it again: trying to replace humans with technology, AI or anything else, is not as easy as claimed.

ChatGPT Still Can’t Do Light Verse or Even Romantic Rhymes.

Those endless poems, some banal and some quite good, which start with “Roses Are Red and Violets Are Blue”? ChatGPT is awful at those and at light verse as well.

The Register‘s post “Roses are red, algorithms are blue, here’s a poem I made a machine write for you” by Simon Sharwood, dated February 13 2023, and Quillette‘s post “Whatever Happened to Light Verse?” by Kevin Mims, dated February 2 2023, both last accessed February 14 2023, are both very good