This was my entry for the Liquid Matrix Podcast contest for a pass to BSides Las Vegas. I didn't win, but wanted to share it with you.
The Iron Wisdom of the TSA
inspired by a Vendor DERP from Liquid Matrix episode 0x2C
The airline tells us that their onboard staff
are there for safety, not for in-flight ease.
And yet SouthWest will brief us with a laugh,
and once airborne, serve beverages to please.
But safety on the ground from TSA:
before you soar, they make your spirits sink.
Remove your shoes, your liquids throw away!
No wonder on the plane you need a drink.
Your courtesy is answered with their scorn,
suspicion is delivered without tact.
So cover up, the scanners churn out porn!
There's theater security to act.
The mission of the TSA thus laid:
"Security" keeps passengers afraid.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Monday, June 3, 2013
Want innovation? Reduce the cost of education!
Today's post is inspired by the discussion over US visas for foreign workers, and the argument from high-tech companies that there aren't enough new US grads in STEM (Science, Tech, Engr, Math) to fill the open positions. Specifically, I'm reacting to the "data" in this article, which says what we've all suspected for the last 15 years: US companies can't find qualified people who will are willing to work for what the positions pay.
My gut reaction (no data to back this up other than personal experience) is that new US grads have a disadvantage that a lot of foreign grads historically haven't: student loan debt. If a new US grad leaves school with $50k-$150 in student loans, that's a strong disincentive to take risks. Instead, a monthly loan bill will demand that students quickly find a reliable source of income. Additionally, cost of living in traditional areas where STEM companies congregate is high. In my case, it was the Silicon Valley in 1996, when I was "lucky" to pay $1200/mo for a 2-bedroom apartment.
The "mythical" Silicon Valley startup mentality had the motto, "work any 80 hours a week you want," and didn't care what your education level was as long as you got the job done. Now, startups are less work-intensive, but early stage positions still offer very little income. If these companies want to attract the "best and brightest", one way to do it is to increase applicants' openness to risk.
A relatively recent idea has been the "hacker hostel" model, in which startup incubators come with not only office space, but sleep space. While that reduces the monthly expenditure for a new hire, it has its own disadvantages, including being appealing primarily to early-stage companies (read: the co-founders are the ones sleeping on the couch).
A more long-reaching solution would be to drive the cost of education back down. Forbes reported in 2012 that education has risen 500% since 1985, while the consumer price index was only 115%. There's a pretty picture here (note: data from same source). While there was some re-structuring a couple of years ago, in which some colleges switched from mixed financial aid to grant-only, that story has fallen out of the media, and costs haven't really been affected. Furthermore, the global economic downturn has reduced spending on eduction (at least in the US), driving tuition & fees higher, even in state schools.
A reduction in the cost of education is a likely driver to innovation specifically because it will reduce the p2p driver that killed so many startups. In business, p2p for a VC-backed firm was "path to profitability", insisting on rapid repayment of investment by bringing products to market early. In education, I'm using the term as "path to payment", repayment of student loans. If we want graduates to work for less money, then let's make it possible for them to do so.
My gut reaction (no data to back this up other than personal experience) is that new US grads have a disadvantage that a lot of foreign grads historically haven't: student loan debt. If a new US grad leaves school with $50k-$150 in student loans, that's a strong disincentive to take risks. Instead, a monthly loan bill will demand that students quickly find a reliable source of income. Additionally, cost of living in traditional areas where STEM companies congregate is high. In my case, it was the Silicon Valley in 1996, when I was "lucky" to pay $1200/mo for a 2-bedroom apartment.
The "mythical" Silicon Valley startup mentality had the motto, "work any 80 hours a week you want," and didn't care what your education level was as long as you got the job done. Now, startups are less work-intensive, but early stage positions still offer very little income. If these companies want to attract the "best and brightest", one way to do it is to increase applicants' openness to risk.
A relatively recent idea has been the "hacker hostel" model, in which startup incubators come with not only office space, but sleep space. While that reduces the monthly expenditure for a new hire, it has its own disadvantages, including being appealing primarily to early-stage companies (read: the co-founders are the ones sleeping on the couch).
A more long-reaching solution would be to drive the cost of education back down. Forbes reported in 2012 that education has risen 500% since 1985, while the consumer price index was only 115%. There's a pretty picture here (note: data from same source). While there was some re-structuring a couple of years ago, in which some colleges switched from mixed financial aid to grant-only, that story has fallen out of the media, and costs haven't really been affected. Furthermore, the global economic downturn has reduced spending on eduction (at least in the US), driving tuition & fees higher, even in state schools.
A reduction in the cost of education is a likely driver to innovation specifically because it will reduce the p2p driver that killed so many startups. In business, p2p for a VC-backed firm was "path to profitability", insisting on rapid repayment of investment by bringing products to market early. In education, I'm using the term as "path to payment", repayment of student loans. If we want graduates to work for less money, then let's make it possible for them to do so.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Urgency and activity
I've noticed that I tend to get work done best when I'm nearly out of time to do it. Presumably, I'm not the only one who works like this, but it definitely causes... let's call it "friction" with the people I work with who seem to work at a constant pace.
I wonder sometimes if my life would be different if I could maintain that constant pace. Given my irregular output, I see myself as a miracle worker who would thrive in an environment of being called in to get stuff done in an emergency. However, my co-workers tend to see me as unreliable, which has occasionally been career-limiting.
A few years ago, the team I was part of was introduced to Scrum, an Agile methodology. At the time, we were told in training that one of the goals was to even out the crisis humps, replacing the "mad rush" at the deadline with a series of smaller deadlines, so there'd be no all-nighters to get things done. Looking back now, I wonder if it was a compromise to try to get "bursty" workers to increase their output, or at least make their output more predictable to schedule-keepers.
Driving home today, I wondered about what a crazy frenetic work environment would be like, in which goals for the day were handed out in the morning. After a while I know it would be maddening, and that very few people would survive working there. However, if they could put the right team together, imagine the output!
Some of this thought is driven by just having read The Phoenix Project, a novel about DevOps. It's a great read, and if you're an Amazon Prime member with a Kindle, you can "borrow" it for free. That's what I did before buying it. :-)
What it got me thinking about is how to overcome "impossible" challenges. In the book, one such challenge is going from a deploy every 9 weeks to a deploy of 10 times per day. It's called "impossible" by some characters, but, since the novel is a polemic about DevOps, of course they figure it out quickly. The key is to challenge your assumptions about what's possible. At my current job, we recently had a semi-successful meeting where some team members argued that what was being asked for was "against the laws of physics". That to me is a sign that you need to approach the problem differently, set aside the "impossible" label, and look at what obstacles are in the way. If you can re-route around those obstacles, or wave a magic wand to streamline them (by several orders of magnitude), then the solution becomes possible, and the new challenge is driven by the excitement of doing what you knew yesterday was impossible.
I guess the challenge for me now is to figure out how to find something impossible every day... make each day a mini-sprint, and see what happens to my output.
I wonder sometimes if my life would be different if I could maintain that constant pace. Given my irregular output, I see myself as a miracle worker who would thrive in an environment of being called in to get stuff done in an emergency. However, my co-workers tend to see me as unreliable, which has occasionally been career-limiting.
A few years ago, the team I was part of was introduced to Scrum, an Agile methodology. At the time, we were told in training that one of the goals was to even out the crisis humps, replacing the "mad rush" at the deadline with a series of smaller deadlines, so there'd be no all-nighters to get things done. Looking back now, I wonder if it was a compromise to try to get "bursty" workers to increase their output, or at least make their output more predictable to schedule-keepers.
Driving home today, I wondered about what a crazy frenetic work environment would be like, in which goals for the day were handed out in the morning. After a while I know it would be maddening, and that very few people would survive working there. However, if they could put the right team together, imagine the output!
Some of this thought is driven by just having read The Phoenix Project, a novel about DevOps. It's a great read, and if you're an Amazon Prime member with a Kindle, you can "borrow" it for free. That's what I did before buying it. :-)
What it got me thinking about is how to overcome "impossible" challenges. In the book, one such challenge is going from a deploy every 9 weeks to a deploy of 10 times per day. It's called "impossible" by some characters, but, since the novel is a polemic about DevOps, of course they figure it out quickly. The key is to challenge your assumptions about what's possible. At my current job, we recently had a semi-successful meeting where some team members argued that what was being asked for was "against the laws of physics". That to me is a sign that you need to approach the problem differently, set aside the "impossible" label, and look at what obstacles are in the way. If you can re-route around those obstacles, or wave a magic wand to streamline them (by several orders of magnitude), then the solution becomes possible, and the new challenge is driven by the excitement of doing what you knew yesterday was impossible.
I guess the challenge for me now is to figure out how to find something impossible every day... make each day a mini-sprint, and see what happens to my output.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)