Shared posts

13 Feb 03:27

Fender Mounted Light Bracket for Blinky and Dynamo Lights

by noreply@blogger.com (VeloOrange)
By Scott




Introducing the Fender-Mounted Light Bracket, a nifty way to affix a rear light onto your fender! We've stocked the E3 light mounts from Frame Builder Supply for a number of years now. Last fall, Igor and I were talking about light mounts specifically to mount to the rear fender. A lot of us ride with generously sized saddle bags without quite enough room for a seatpost mounted light. Alternately, if you use a rear rack top bag, the bag will likely cover the light. We find that mounting the light elsewhere like a dropout or seatstay is too exposed, or will be covered up by panniers.

So we took a couple of the E3 mounts that we sell and looked at the rear of the Polyvalent, and what we wanted to see was the light attach to the fender, in a similar way to the reflector we sell, attaching directly to the fender. We mocked some brackets up using scrap paper, and came up with some ideas to send to Tony at FBS. We went back and forth about the measurements and such and voila - a new light mount. The great part is that you can use it for a blinky light or a dynamo light. There is still a slot in the middle of the bracket so the wire can pass through easily.


An added benefit to this setup is the ability to run multiple rear lights. Coming from a randonneuring background, I always had two battery powered lights. For night time riding, having two rear lights really helps. You always kept a spare on hand in case something happened. You could also set them up in different positions, which I found made me more obvious to drivers (I always ran them in solid mode - being in a group of riders with a blinking rear light was seen as impolite as the riders behind you would have their night vision ruined by the constant blinking and power of the light).

I think it looks really cool and certainly makes for a more classy/elegant mounting solution.

Cost is $15.50 ea and can be found on the site here. They're currently only available in Silver.
13 Feb 03:24

RT @ryxcommar: help. the nanny state is taking away my freedom to run over pedestrians with my car pic.twitter.com/nI1AjNII87

by ryxcommar
mkalus shared this story from uberfeminist on Twitter.

help. the nanny state is taking away my freedom to run over pedestrians with my car pic.twitter.com/nI1AjNII87



Retweeted by uberfeminist on Monday, February 10th, 2020 8:27pm


1167 likes, 135 retweets
13 Feb 03:23

Savoy Ballroom in Harlem, New York City. 1939. pic.twitter.com/myFoxYWmmO

by moodvintage
mkalus shared this story from moodvintage on Twitter.

Savoy Ballroom in Harlem, New York City. 1939. pic.twitter.com/myFoxYWmmO





110 likes, 27 retweets
13 Feb 03:23

Tony Charges

by peter@rukavina.net (Peter Rukavina)

Tony needed a top-up for his Nissan Leaf during a meeting across the way this afternoon. How great is that he can fill up at our place!

13 Feb 03:23

Why It’s Come to This

by Dave Pollard


image from Max Pixel, CC0

The polarization of politics is a complex phenomenon. In a new book, Ezra Klein explains why there is a lot more to the current political quagmire than social media-driven disinformation and intolerance.

We humans like things simple, and it’s all too easy to see the world through the polarized lens created by the bubble and echo-chamber of your particular affinity groups.

So in this post I’m going to ask you to grit your teeth, PLEASE read all three of the articles below, all written four years ago in the run-up to last US election, keep an open mind about what each says, and be alert to your instinctive reactions to them:

  1. An obituary, and its back-story: Eli Saslow in the Washington Post writes about the tragic life and death of Anna Marrie Jones of Oklahoma, age 54.
  2. View from the left: Anne Amnesia from the blog More Crows Than Eagles digs into Anna Marrie’s story with her perspective on the larger picture. Anne was a Bernie Sanders supporter. She’s no longer blogging, but may well still be a Bernie fan.
  3. View from the right: Rod Dreher in the American Conservative reviews Anne’s story very enthusiastically but frames the situation utterly differently. Rod did, and says he will again, vote for Trump despite not particularly liking or respecting him.

As long as we, the precariat-becoming-unnecessariat, remain distracted by our polarized worldviews from seeing our common crises — social, economic, political, and ecological — we will remain unable to appreciate our shared predicament, let alone start to figure out how to deal with it.

13 Feb 03:23

Taking a screenshot in 1983. pic.twitter.com/eyFId6C8RI

by moodvintage
mkalus shared this story from moodvintage on Twitter.

Taking a screenshot in 1983. pic.twitter.com/eyFId6C8RI





38 likes, 4 retweets
13 Feb 03:22

You Can’t Launch The Community On A Friday

by Richard Millington

…nor Saturday and Sunday. That’s the weekend!

…nor too close to Christmas (December onwards).

…nor in the summer (June onwards), nor too close to Easter.

…nor in January when everyone is just getting back to work.

…nor on Martin Luther King Day, St Patrick’s Day, or any national holiday.

…nor during an annual conference when all the staff are away.

…nor the month before the annual conference when everyone is too busy.

…not when you’re about to make a major product announcement.

…nor today, during a major news event.

…nor during the middle of the election cycle.

Sigh.

The launch day isn’t important, launch it at 11pm on New Years’ Eve if you like.

It really won’t matter. The sooner you launch the better.

It’s your plan for what happens in the weeks and months after launch day that matters.

13 Feb 03:22

Blanket visualizes daily high and low temperatures

by Nathan Yau

Reddit user quantum-kate used daily high and low temperatures in Denver in 1992 as the basis of this blanket. I feel like I should learn to knit crochet.

Tags: blanket, temperature

11 Feb 23:06

Surface Pro X vs Surface Pro 7 vs iPad Pro vs iPad

by Volker Weber

Surfaceipadcomp2020021079083735.jpg

If you need a 2-in-1 tablet with keyboard and pen for work, these are your most obvious choices. I can work with any of them, but let's look at what makes them different:

  • Surface Pro X runs on an ARM chip developed by Qualcomm and Microsoft, while Apple develops their own silicon, which is undoubtedly the fastest on the market in terms of performace over battery life. Surface Pro 7 has an Intel architecture, which gives it full compatibility with all Windows programs out there.
  • There is no LTE option in the current Surface Pro 7. Microsoft had one variant of the 2017 Surface Pro (5). I don't use LTE on any of my tablets since I am mostly within WIFI range, but if you want it, you want it.
  • Surface Pro 7 has the widest selection of ports: Surface Connector, USB-A, USB-C, and MicroSD. I am missing USB-A on the Surface Pro X, and of course on any iPad. Living the dongle life.
  • Surface Pro X and Surface Pro 7 charge through both the Surface Connector and USB-C PD. When connected to the tizi 60 W Tankstelle charger, it draws around 42 W.
  • All four devices can attach a keyboard via pogo pins so you are not relying on Bluetooth. The Microsoft keyboard has a trackpad, the Apple keyboards don't. iPadOS does not really have a mouse pointer, but Apple added an assistive feature, so you could potentially use a mouse or trackpad. Having a trackpad makes a big difference when using the tablet in laptop mode.
  • All four devices support a pen, and they all work great. The new Surface Slim Pen stores and charges in the fold between the keyboard cover and Surface. This is perfect. With all other pens you have to store them somewhere else. The Surface Pen lasts for about a year on a AAAA battery, the 1st gen iPad Pen charges somewhat akwardly in the Lightning port, the other two charge via induction when magnetically attached. Surface Slim Pen is my favorite.
  • Surface runs on Windows 10 and iPad runs on iPadOS. I don't have to explain the implications of that. Two things are notable: Surface runs the full Office suite, iPadOS runs the mobile version. The difference is substantial. And Surface Pro X cannot run 64-bit Windows software compiled for Intel. I have three apps so far that fail: iA Writer, Tunsafe VPN and Serif Affinity Photo.
  • Battery life on the Surface Pro X is on par with the iPad Pro but it varies more. If you are running a lot of Win32 software- which you will probably have to do, it does suffer quite a bit. When I am in ARM64 Chredge (Edge on Chromium) it's pretty fantastic. More ARM software will help but I am not holding my breath.
  • Apple and Microsoft use almost identical screen resolutions of 264 and 267 pixels per inch. iPad has a 4:3 aspect ration and Surface screens are 3:2. Most laptops today have 16:9, which is more suitable to viewing videos than working. The thin devices iPad Pro and Surface Pro X do not have headphone jacks.

Multitasking on iPad is dysmal. Everybody seems to be piling on that these days. So is file handling and moving things about from app to app. This is where Windows makes so much more sense. But if you can work on iPad, you will love it, and you can go really cheap on an iPad Air with Apple Pencil and Apple Smart Keyboard Cover. Only if you need the large screen you should need an iPad Pro 12.9.

Surface Pro 7 is generally more expensive and the Surface Pro X easily plays in the same price range as the iPad Pro, but prices are coming down already. So is the price for the keyboard/pen bundle. If you want to use one for yourself, it should be a safe bet. But if you want to deploy it widely, you will have to do an application readyness assessment. Your preferred VPN might not work, or you have an app that users absolutely need to have. In that case, having a Surface Pro 7 as a fallback solutions might help you. Unfortunately Microsoft does not have a current LTE version and I would not recommend buying into a 2017 hardware platform.

11 Feb 23:00

Twitter Favorites: [katxmoon] Leave it up to @andrewrchow to write this in-depth story on the marginalization of foreign films, the Korean aute… https://t.co/hSvjFEZ4g2

Kat Moon @katxmoon
Leave it up to @andrewrchow to write this in-depth story on the marginalization of foreign films, the Korean aute… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
11 Feb 23:00

I am not proposing a return to the Stone Age. My intent is not...



I am not proposing a return to the Stone Age. My intent is not reactionary, nor even conservative, but simply subversive. It seems that the utopian imagination is trapped, like capitalism and industrialism and the human population, in a one-way future consisting only of growth. All I’m trying to do is figure out how to put a pig on the tracks.

| Ursula Le Guin

11 Feb 22:58

For nonfiction authors, productive obsession is a key habit

by Josh Bernoff

Do you know everything there is to know about the topic you’re writing about? If not, you’re not trying hard enough. I want you to be obsessed. This is not a recommendation to acquire a mental illness. Obsession is a strategy, and I want you to apply it strategically. Here’s how it works. You think … Continued

The post For nonfiction authors, productive obsession is a key habit appeared first on without bullshit.

11 Feb 22:57

Multi-Account Containers Add-on Sync Feature

by Kendall Werts

Image of the Multi-Account Containers Sync On-boarding ScreenThe Multi-Account Containers Add-on will now sync your container configuration and site assignments.

Firefox Multi-Account Containers allows users to separate their online identities into different tab types called Containers. Each Container has its own separate storage and cookies.  This way, their browsing activity in one Container is not accessible to websites in other Containers. This privacy feature allows users to assign sites to only open in a specific Container. For instance, it permits them to set your shopping websites to always open in a Shopping Container. This keeps advertising tracking data from those websites separate from the user’s Work Container. Users can also use Containers for separate areas of their life, like work and personal email. The user can separate email accounts from the same provider, so they don’t have to log in and out of each account. For more information about how to use the containers add on, visit the Mozilla support page.

The new sync feature will align Multi-Account Containers on different computers. The add-on carries over Container names, colors, icons, and site assignments on to any other machines with the same Firefox account.

If you have allowed automatic updates of the add-on, your extension should update on its own. The first time you click the Multi-Account Container icon after the update, an on-boarding panel will allow you to activate sync.

In order to use this feature, you will need to be signed in to a Firefox account in Firefox.

The post Multi-Account Containers Add-on Sync Feature appeared first on Mozilla Security Blog.

11 Feb 22:56

FlickType Keyboard Review: Real Typing on an Apple Watch Display

by Ryan Christoffel

The Apple Watch is steadily moving toward full independence from the iPhone. Making cellular an option, adding new apps at a healthy pace, and enabling apps to be downloaded and run independent of an iPhone are all crucial steps toward the device becoming entirely untethered. I have a cellular Apple Watch and go running with it each week without bringing my iPhone along, and it works great. I’ve even gone to a couple of doctor’s appointments with only my Watch, and the list of things I miss my phone for in those cases is now minimal.

One time the device still falls flat, however, is when I need to send a message. Scribble is too slow for more than a word or two, dictation is hit-or-miss, and canned responses aren’t good enough for most situations. FlickType Keyboard sets out to solve this problem, and entirely succeeds.

FlickType offers a full keyboard typing experience on the wrist that works remarkably well. The FlickType Keyboard app is designed for typing out messages, which are then sent using Apple’s Messages app. The flow from typing in FlickType to then hitting Send, choosing your recipient, and finding yourself in the Messages app is smooth and seamless; it feels like you’re just using one app the whole time.

Tapping out messages in FlickType is extremely fast because the app uses a QWERTY layout, so your finger already knows where every key is. Behind the scenes, the app does a lot of work to figure out which letter you’re intending to tap, then strings those letters together to form the word it believes you wrote. In my testing, FlickType did an excellent job deciphering what I wanted to say. For those times when it fails, however, you can simply scroll with the Digital Crown to cycle through alternative words. Or, if a word is altogether botched and needs re-typing, just hitting the backspace key once will clear the whole prior word. Occasionally this backspace behavior is annoying, but most of the time it’s exactly what I want.

Choosing alternate words, punctuation, or emoji using the Digital Crown.

Choosing alternate words, punctuation, or emoji using the Digital Crown.

The only drawback to FlickType’s keyboard is that it’s letters only, with no numbers or punctuation marks accessible. Fortunately, the app offers a couple workarounds for this drawback. For numbers, you can hit the + button in the lower-left corner of the screen to find watchOS’ familiar communication options, one of which is Scribble, where you can draw a quick number and have it added to your current draft. This works for punctuation too, but an easier method involves hitting the spacebar twice, which adds a period, and if you want to change that period to a comma, question mark, or some other punctuation, you can simply scroll with the Digital Crown. Turning the Digital Crown in this scenario also presents options of emoji you can append to your message.

You may have heard the name FlickType before, because it’s actually been integrated into other third-party Watch apps like Chirp, the full-featured Twitter client. The makers of the app also have created a FlickType Notes app, which works just like FlickType Keyboard, but it’s designed for creating notes that sync with an iPhone companion app rather than writing messages. FlickType works so well, I really hope Apple reconsiders baking a full keyboard into watchOS.


When I have my iPhone with me, I’m unlikely to ever write out a message on my wrist, but for all the times I’m phone-free, FlickType is by far the best way to write a message. Unlike all of the alternatives built into watchOS, FlickType is reliable, fast, and enables me to write things with great precision. None of Apple’s alternatives – dictation, Scribble, or canned responses – can check all of those boxes. And while FlickType’s keyboard can’t be directly integrated with, for example, an incoming Messages notification, it’s easy to dismiss that notification, tap the FlickType complication on my watch face, and knock out a quick response.

I use a 44mm Series 5 Apple Watch, so it’s possible users with smaller Watch displays may not find FlickType quite as effective. I’d be surprised if that’s true, however, because I’m also tall and therefore have fingers that cover lots of the Watch’s display surface. My guess is that FlickType will work for you no matter your screen size.

If you ever need to send messages from your wrist, FlickType Keyboard is the way to do it.


Support MacStories Directly

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it’s also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it’s made in Italy.

Join Now
11 Feb 22:56

Apple Introduces Mac Catalyst Version of Swift Playgrounds

by John Voorhees

Swift Playgrounds has been around for quite a while on the iPad, but now, it’s on the Mac too as a Mac Catalyst app.

Swift Playgrounds teaches coding concepts and the Swift programming language. Until today, the app, which includes lessons designed to teach Swift alongside a coding environment, was an iPad exclusive. Now, however, anyone interested in learning Swift can move from the iPad to the Mac and back again.

I’ve been a fan of Swift Playgrounds since it debuted. It’s a friendly, easy-to-use environment for experimenting with Swift ideas and concepts, and the lessons available are excellent. With the addition of a native Catalyst app on the Mac, anyone who wants to learn Swift can do so whether they are in front of their Mac or using an iPad. What’s more, the additional space afforded by most Macs there’s more room to navigate playground books and files. Playgrounds on the Mac includes expanded code completion functionality that allows you to navigate code suggestions with the arrow keys on your keyboard or trackpad too.

I haven’t had a chance to spend more than a few minutes with the new Swift Playgrounds yet, but it’s clear from even a cursory review of the app that a lot of thought and care has gone into it. The sidebar and Touch Bar support stand out as terrific Mac-centric additions that take advantage of the Mac’s bigger screen and keyboard and trackpad. I’m looking forward to diving spending more time with Swift Playgrounds on my Mac mini in the coming weeks.

Swift Playgrounds is available as a free download on the Mac App Store and requires macOS Catalina 10.15.3.


Support MacStories Directly

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it’s also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it’s made in Italy.

Join Now
11 Feb 22:53

The Limits of Technology

by Gordon Price
mkalus shared this story from Price Tags.

High-speed trains sitting idle in Wuhan on Sunday, as the city remained locked down.

11 Feb 22:53

*SPOILER* It isn't actually going to happen twitter.com/christopherhop…

by ottocrat
mkalus shared this story from ottocrat on Twitter.

*SPOILER* It isn't actually going to happen twitter.com/christopherhop…

Blimey! When I broke the news of the 'Boris bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland' in the Telegraph in June 2018 I never thought it was actually going to happen... twitter.com/christopherhop…




547 likes, 122 retweets



105 likes, 6 retweets
11 Feb 22:53

Estimates vs Actuals

by Tim Ottinger

"Oh, no! We estimated 23 story points for the sprint, but we only turned in 20. We've failed the sprint!"

It seems that a lot of teams, especially scrum and SAFe teams, are spending a lot of time on story point estimates. This is understandable, and also disappointing.

You see, you can't estimate your way to predictability.

Sometimes, what we expect and what actually happens are not the same. We can feel that as disappointment or shame or frustration.

This is especially true when we have goals and plans to meet those goals. The plans are specifically built to be followed, and when anything happens that is not according to plan it may set our goal at risk.

A plan is a formulation of how we expect to meet some delivery goal. It includes the things we intend to do, how long we will spend on each item, and how we intend to address foreseen obstacles.

This seems like a reasonable definition for a project.

Welcome Changing Requirements

In the more static world of waterfall projects, one began with the end in mind. One determined what "the system" should be like when finished. Given this well-imagined, carefully-studied end state, groups of people would do careful functional decomposition and assign time estimates to the various pieces. The pieces were imagined like a puzzle; they would fit together to complete the whole. If the pieces were properly described, they could be built by different people all working in parallel. To keep the exquisite plans in place, projects would have "change management panels." After all, if any piece took longer to complete than expected then the delay or error might propagate and make the whole project late. When all the parts are complete and fitted together, the final picture is expected to emerge, beautiful and whole.

Whereas this method was made to work (or to appear to work -- a topic for a different article someday), it is not appropriate to product development; it was a process specifically evolved for contract programming projects.

I have a friend who has a directorship in a company that builds software as a way of delivering their services. A couple of years ago they refused to design to an endpoint (even while agreeing the endpoint may be excellent) and instead delivered incrementally. They learned from customers using early versions of the feature and changed their vision for it to suit the customers' actual needs. Had they built to the endpoint, the feature may have failed to provide the desired effect. As is, it has opened up new revenue opportunities.

In a product environment, the product concept is under constant revision. What we should deliver may vary considerably from what we originally planned to deliver. This alone disqualifies the waterfall process.

That said, let's examine estimates and plans in a product-based world.

Decomposing Estimates

One of the key issues is that functional decomposition considers only a fraction of the actual cost of building a feature into an existing product.

Some teams estimate effort/duration in story points, though better ways exist. Story points are an XP invention that got transplanted into scrum and other methods. The idea was to abstract away from hours and days because people could make more accurate relative assessments (comparing one job to another) than they can absolute assessments.

This theory seems good enough and has worked for teams in the past when pressure for reporting higher or lower numbers is not present.

This is why it is ill-advised to "normalize story points" to days or hours. The whole point of story points was to abstract away from actual clock-and-calendar time.
If one is to estimate in actual time, then the formality of story points does not provide any benefit.

The effort is only part of an estimate. We may anticipate that we only need to change 15 lines of code in two or three files -- a trivial amount of typing. Yet such a change could take days because programming is not typing.

An astute manager once took me aside and showed me a scatter graph of estimates (in story points) to actuals (in days).

Where the estimate was small, the actuals were also small. That seems reasonable.

Where the estimate was large, one would expect the actual to be large in a linear kind of way, but that's not we saw.

Instead, sometimes the 8-point stories were done faster than 2-point stories. Sometimes a 5-point story "blew up" and took twice as long as some 13 point stories.

The magnitude of the story point estimate didn't relate so much to the magnitude of the actual effort, but rather to the variation!

The manager told me that she'd been tracking it for some time and realized that effort was not the only component of an estimate.

The gut-feel of the estimator included (at least) two more elements she identified as:

  • Uncertainty: we're not sure how this is done or how to do it in our environment. We will have to learn new things.
    How many? We don't know.
    How hard will they be to learn? We don't know.
    How many mistakes might we make while learning? We don't know.
  • Risk: if we do the thing, we aren't sure that doing it won't cause other parts of a complicated system to break. Maybe we add a field to a screen, but then we have to change the database schema, and this change has to be taken into effect in a number of reports.
    Which ones? We don't know.
    What is the damage if we miss one? We don't know.
    How hard will it be to fix? We don't know.

These factors are significant. An 8-point story isn't necessarily 8 times as much work as a one-point story. It may be less work but with 8 times more uncertainty and/or risk.

If uncertainty and risk don't materialize, then it might be a very quick job. If the unknown shows its ugly head, then the team could be at it for quite some time.

Estimators were taking these into account subconsciously but with reasonable accuracy.

A less-enlightened manager sometimes hears a large estimate, larger than hoped. To come up with a "better" (more palatable) estimate they have the programmer break down the work and estimate the pieces, then add the mini-estimates back together. Sure enough, the sum of the estimates is smaller than the programmer's initial estimate.

This technique removes the risk and uncertainty from the equation, leaving with a much smaller estimate of effort alone.

Any joy at finding a smaller estimate usually evaporates when the actual task is undertaken and the actual time expands to an approximation of the original estimate.

Reality Intervenes Again

Sometimes even when we accept the "gut" answer that seems to include some allowance for risk and uncertainty, the estimate is still wrong.

This is because real work has two more elements which are also not present in estimates:

  • Delays: the work may not start when we expect it to start
  • Interruptions: the worker(s) may have production crises, a colleague who is stuck and needs help, overrun from under-estimated tasks, sick days, or might be pulled aside to do estimation on future stories.

Delays and interruptions cannot be predicted. A wise project planner will work a lot of "contingency time" into their schedules because projects are always at risk of a cascading schedule failure.

For a product manager, there is less of a need for perfect prediction and more of a need for building slack into the system so that teams can be responsive to interruptions without suffering intolerable delays.

Better Estimation?

It is understandable that managers, vexed by the recurring unpredictability of software projects, may choose to focus on predicting more accurately and precisely.

The most reasonable-seeming request is that the development teams provide more reliable estimates.

Teams can provide estimates with more contingency time built-in, but then the very long estimated times create an appearance that the team is "sandbagging" -- taking more time than strictly necessary. It is suspected that they may not be working hard to achieve the goals of the company; therefore the managers work hard to "bring estimates down" and return to the original predictability problem.

This is a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situation. There are contradictory forces that require reliable estimates which are also ambitious and aggressive.

The problem here is not with estimates, but social forces and technical forces beyond the realm of estimation.

The problem isn't that you aren't good at estimation in general, but that the work has too much risk, uncertainty, delay, and interruption.

We can't estimate our way to predictability.

So what can we do?

  • We must characterize and reduce the chaos in our system if we are to have any hope of making valid predictions in the future.
  • Realizing our plans are soft, we can de-risk by delivering complete end-to-end "walking skeleton" features, while we inspect and improve our development and delivery processes.
  • We can keep jobs small so we can conduct many small-scale, safe-to-fail experiments on reducing variability.
  • We can use automated testing ("checking") and more frequent integration to help uncover risks more quickly -- while we still have recovery time.
  • Teams can reserve capacity so variations can be more easily absorbed. After all, if the team is 100% utilized then there is no capacity to spend examining, inspecting, and improving their work to make it predictable and efficient.
  • By delivering incrementally we can adjust and improve our plans on the fly, find more frugal ways to reach our goals, and even adjust our goals as we learn from our users.

Many teams find that once their work is visible (small increments) and predictable, that they are no longer asked to produce estimates nor to track actuals against their predictions.

It takes a bit of work to get there, but any organization is rather more likely to become predictable than to become clairvoyant.

The post Estimates vs Actuals appeared first on Industrial Logic.

11 Feb 22:49

Flesh And Bone

For various reasons, I’ve been keeping strange hours lately, and this has given me some spare moments to rewatch Moira Walley-Beckett’s Flesh And Bone. It’s a brilliant, if shaggy, look at art and the people who make art. It’s very complex, masquerading as simple. I don’t think I know anyone who has seen it. (It’s easily watchable: 8 episodes, only one season. They gave up after one season because dance injuries kept exploding the schedule, but I think the end of season one says everything that they wanted to say.)

Two of the subplots involves two very different people who are writing stories. One is a world-famous choreographer, commissioned to create a ballet that revisits a dance chestnut — a girl becomes a woman — with a modern, #MeToo sensibility. It starts out a travesty: sappy, awkward and doomed. By opening night, we’re not sure. (This is also the central subplot of Robert Altman’s underrated The Company.). At the same time, we meet a homeless guy, Romeo, who hangs around one of the shabby, cheap apartments in which the dancers live. He’s clearly disturbed, and he keeps trying to map people in the neighborhood into his weird Henry Darger fantasy of dragons and rats. He, too, is making a story — and he writes it down by taking a copy of The Velveteen Rabbit and turning it into an artist’s book. It’s a very good artist’s book, though he’s still nuts, and as he writes it he’s not quite sure where he fits into the story. “I thought I was the middleman,” he says, “the sayer of things and the seer of things. Maybe even the prophet. But now I’m concerned.”

11 Feb 14:48

Finding the Roots of Confusiasm

by Nancy White
Over the years, the concept of “confusiasm” has become not only near and dear to my heart, but useful in so many ways that I never expected. It became a rallying cry for emergent, collaborative learning at a professional development project for professors at the University of Guadalajara (UdG Agora Project – confusiasmo! Translated!). It … Continue reading Finding the Roots of Confusiasm

Source

11 Feb 14:48

Save the date for a new global day of Flickr Photowalks

by Leticia Roncero
Haight St Flickr Photowalk Dec 9

As part of the celebrations of Flickr’s 16th birthday, we’re putting a call out for another worldwide day of photo walks. This is an excellent opportunity to get out, meet fellow photo enthusiasts, talk, walk, and socialize.

When? Mark your calendars for April 4, 2020. We need you to help organize the photo walks in your area!

Where? Anywhere in the world! If you are organizing a photo walk in your city, please announce it on the “List of Photowalk locations” discussion here. Just start a Flickr Group, Facebook Event, Meetup, and/or Eventbrite, and post a link in the comments. We’ll add it to the list and help publicize it on the official Flickr social media accounts.

Over seven countries have already signed up and are planning an event for this 2020 edition. View the full list here and join a photo walk near you.

What’s the theme? We don’t have a theme! It’s up to you! You can create a theme for your local walk (or not!) as the most important thing is to get together with other photographers and have fun!

We look forward to seeing details from your events. If you have any questions, please ask away!

11 Feb 14:48

Twitter Favorites: [knguyen] @Megan_Nicolett excuse me, I still fight oppressive systems... *pays $500 to see rage against the machine reunion tour at KeyBank Center*

Kevin Nguyen @knguyen
@Megan_Nicolett excuse me, I still fight oppressive systems... *pays $500 to see rage against the machine reunion tour at KeyBank Center*
11 Feb 14:47

Some Things I Read Recently

by Eugene Wallingford

Campaign Security is a Wood Chipper for Your Hopes and Dreams

Practical campaign security is a wood chipper for your hopes and dreams. It sits at the intersection of 19 kinds of status quo, each more odious than the last. You have to accept the fact that computers are broken, software is terrible, campaign finance is evil, the political parties are inept, the DCCC exists, politics is full of parasites, tech companies are run by arrogant man-children, and so on.

This piece from last year has some good advice, plenty of sarcastic humor from Maciej, and one remark that was especially timely for the past week:

You will fare especially badly if you have written an app to fix politics. Put the app away and never speak of it again.

Know the Difference Between Neurosis and Process

In a conversation between Tom Waits and Elvis Costello from the late 1980s, Waits talks about tinkering too long with a song:

TOM: "You have to know the difference between neurosis and actual process, 'cause if you're left with it in your hands for too long, you may unravel everything. You may end up with absolutely nothing."

In software, when we keep code in our hands for too long, we usually end up with an over-engineered, over-abstracted boat anchor. Let the tests tell you when you are done, then stop.

Sometimes, Work is Work

People say, "if you love what you do you'll never work a day in your life." I think good work can be painful--I think sometimes it feels exactly like work.

Some weeks more than others. Trust me. That's okay. You can still love what you do.

11 Feb 14:42

Play money bug futures market

Developers would prefer to release software at a high quality level. Users prefer to use software at a high quality level. However, firms are incentivized to release software at a lower quality level than would be chosen by either developers or users.

How do you design a system that lets users quantify and hedge the risks of low-quality software, while compensating developers to do the extra work to bring the software up to a higher quality level?

A variety of systems have been proposed, including subscriptions, bounties, and dominant assurance contracts. A market for trading software issues describes another possibility: futures contracts on bugs/tasks.

A market (play money only) based on this research is set for a soft launch the first week of March. For a demo, account, and some free (play) money, please contact me directly.

Bonus links, economics of quality and incentivization department

Co-op helps Uber, Lyft drivers use data to maximize earnings

Tech Spending Is Set to Explode, Says Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella

The Rust Belt Didn’t Have to Happen

Copyleft Should be Scary

2019 year in review for open source licenses

Open Source Should Come With Warranties

The 1997 merger that paved the way for the Boeing 737 Max crisis

Reimagining the PhD

What we learned from over a decade of tech activism | Nataliya Nedzhvetskaya and JS Tan

'Shattered': Inside secret battle to save America's undercover spies...

11 Feb 14:41

From Macmillan to Cameron, every PM thought Britain needed to be represented in European decision-making, as the results would affect the UK whether it was a member or not. As Piers Ludlow writes, Britain will now find it harder to make its voice heard. blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/02… pic.twitter.com/KhgqwlEWVl

by redhistorian
mkalus shared this story from redhistorian on Twitter.

From Macmillan to Cameron, every PM thought Britain needed to be represented in European decision-making, as the results would affect the UK whether it was a member or not. As Piers Ludlow writes, Britain will now find it harder to make its voice heard. blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/02… pic.twitter.com/KhgqwlEWVl





32 likes, 12 retweets
11 Feb 14:41

Britain needs friends in the post-Brexit era. Alienating EU allies would be counter-productive

mkalus shared this story from Comments on: Britain needs friends in the post-Brexit era. Alienating EU allies would be counter-productive.

Amid the posturing about trade, the fact that Britain no longer has a voice in the EU has gone largely unremarked. N Piers Ludlow (LSE) warns that alienating European allies by talking tough risks harming the UK’s soft power and long-term interests.

At the heart of Edward Heath’s speech winding up the so-called ‘Great Debate’ in October 1971, when the Commons was asked to take the decision in principle whether or not Britain should join the European Economic Community (EEC), was an argument about participation. Western Europe’s leaders, Heath reminded MPs, had recently agreed to gather in Paris in 1972 in order to take a number of important collective decisions, including the best policy response to the breakdown of the Bretton Woods currency system. As the leader of a country on the threshold of Community membership, Heath had been invited to attend. But such participation was not inevitable:

If by any chance the House rejected this Motion tonight, that meeting would still go on and it would still take its decisions which will affect the greater part of Western Europe and affect us in our daily lives. But we would not be there to take a share in those decisions. That really would not be a sensible way to go about protecting our interests or our influence in Europe and the world. But to be there as a member of the Community, in my view, would be an effective use of our contribution of sovereignty.

In the event, of course, the House did not reject the motion that Heath was speaking in favour of, and so the PM was in Paris in October 1972 for the first ad hoc European summit of the 1970s. Moreover, he and his successors have been ever-present as European summitry has developed from an occasional happening to a regular event, becoming in the process ever more central to the operation of the EC/EU. But later this month the scenario of which Heath warned will come to pass, and Europe’s leaders, now vastly increased in number and no longer confined just to the western portion of the continent, will gather in Brussels to debate the continent’s future with no UK representative present.

Strangely, though, this eventuality does not seem to be causing much concern to either the British government or those commenting on the UK’s position vis-à-vis the EU. The government’s rhetoric – to the extent that it is concerned with the EU at all – seems focused either on the forthcoming negotiations about post-Brexit trade arrangements, or on emphasising the newly found freedoms that Brexit Britain will enjoy. Non-involvement in vital future decisions about Europe’s future goes unmentioned. As a government that has just ‘delivered’ Brexit, this emphasis on what we have gained rather than what we have lost is perhaps understandable. But even as balanced and carefully neutral an observer as The UK in a Changing Europe can succumb to the same instinct. The sections in the recent Brexit: what next? report focusing on Britain’s relations with the EU centre overwhelmingly on the future trade talks or on the various other practical arrangements for future policy cooperation that will need to be devised. The more general question about how Britain ensures – or if ensures at all – some sort of voice in Europe’s collective course-setting is passed over in silence. We seem blithely unconcerned with our self-marginalisation on this issue.

This seeming indifference is a very recent development. The need for the UK to be involved in the debate about Europe’s future was a central concern for nearly every British government until that of David Cameron. It was, as we have seen, a major consideration for Heath as he took Britain into what was then the EEC. It cropped up in the arguments about sovereignty during the 1975 referendum. It remained a significant factor throughout the Thatcher years. It was pivotal for Major, who in 1991, echoed Heath’s own rhetoric when declaring, again in Parliament,

There are, in truth, only three ways of dealing with the Community: we can leave it, and no doubt we would survive, but we would be diminished in influence and in prosperity; we can stay in it grudgingly, in which case others will lead it; or we can play a leading role in it, and that is the right policy. It does not mean accepting every idea that is marketed with a European label. It does mean trying to build the sort of Europe that we believe in…

And it clearly remained a priority for both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, despite their decision to remain detached from their neighbours’ biggest policy experiment to date –  the launch of the single currency. Only during the Cameron years did it become possible to ask whether Britain still wanted a significant voice in European collective endeavours. The Prime Minister’s readiness to allow his French and German counterparts to take the lead roles in the attempted peace negotiations with Putin over the Ukraine while Britain watched from the sidelines – an abstention it is difficult to imagine being made by any of his predecessors – spoke volumes in this regard. But even Cameron was determined that the UK should retain an important say over matters that it regarded as in its vital interest. This explains the attempt, in the course of the ill-fated renegotiation of Britain’s membership terms in 2015, to ensure that the Eurozone members could not take decisions inimical to the position of the City of London. It is thus only with the Brexit vote that we appear to have resigned ourselves to no longer being involved at all.

Should this be of concern to us? It should. Heath’s basic point – that many of the collective decisions taken at European Council meetings will affect our daily lives, irrespective of whether we as a country are represented there or not – is as valid in 2020 as it was in 1971. Indeed, given the vastly expanded membership and policy remit of the EU we are no longer part of, compared to the still relatively small and politically limited EEC of which Heath was speaking, his point has greater potency now than it did when originally made. So we ought to be giving serious thought to what we can do to mitigate the dangers involved.

Part of the answer, clearly, will be to make maximum use of our diplomatic representation, not just in Brussels itself but in all of the member state capitals. For this reason, the government’s pledge in 2018 to boost the strength of UK diplomatic representations is a sensible move. (The Commons select committee report, however, criticised the length of time it had taken to deploy the extra staff, and questioned how many of them were truly additional.) To the extent that we can ensure that virtually every member state leader seated at the Council table is aware of British interests and concerns, we will have somewhat lessened the problem. Likewise we should welcome and seek to build on the widespread professions of enduring friendship that accompanied our departure last month. The more we can consolidate our status as more than just any other third country from an EU perspective, the better it will be. But the EU’s track record as a neighbour ought to counsel against simply relying on its good will. Reaching a decision among 27 is always hard, and in a system where huge efforts are made to accommodate all insiders, there is not much scope to pay heed to the needs and views of an outsider, however close. Those not in the room inevitably matter much less than those who are present.

So we ought to be taking seriously the suggestions for additional mechanisms designed to promote close and continuous dialogue between Britain and the EU27, whether individually or collectively. These range from an Anglo-German Treaty of Friendship (called for recently by Norbert Röttgen of the CDU and the Conservative Tom Tugendhat) to the much more ambitious notion of involving the UK in the European Security Council proposed by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron. All such structures will have their flaws. And none can wholly replace the voice at Europe’s top table that has been lost as a result of Brexit. But an active engagement with several schemes along these lines would signal that the UK is not indifferent to what happens on its doorstep, and wants as far as is possible to remain involved.

Equally importantly, the UK government needs to ensure that its posturing in the run-up to (and during) the negotiations over new trade arrangements with the EU does not send the EU a message of UK indifference – even hostility – or suggest a desire to diverge strongly from the European norm. Setting out a maximalist starting position, and trying to show your interlocutor that ultimately you have alternatives and can walk away, may be normal negotiating tactics. But they can easily become counterproductive to any effort to retain British influence in and over the EU if they sound too much like an aggressive affirmation of Britain’s detachment. Can we really go on claiming to be close and friendly to our former partners, if we suggest, as did Johnson last week, that our future commercial ties with them could be organised on a comparable basis to those between the EU and Australia? The mood music around the trade negotiations will also influence the wider political relationship, with the result that if we allow too deep a commercial chasm to develop, or even suggest that we wouldn’t mind too much if it did, the likelihood of preserving strong political ties will also be seriously diminished.

As a sizeable and wealthy European country, Britain ought to go on having an important voice in the debate about the continent’s future. Indeed – Brexit notwithstanding – such involvement remains vital both for us and for the rest of Europe. Our European neighbours would expect and want no less. But making certain that we retain some influence when so many of the crucial decisions will be discussed and decided in a forum in which we are no longer represented, will not necessarily be easy. It is therefore essential that the discussion now underway about the UK’s own post-Brexit priorities pays heed not only to how we go on doing business with our neighbours and former partners, but also to the type of strong and structured political relationship which will maximise the chance of our preserving some say in the way in which Europe develops.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor LSE.

11 Feb 14:41

US Customs = jihadist iconoclasts twitter.com/malabousaza/st…

by ottocrat
mkalus shared this story from ottocrat on Twitter.

US Customs = jihadist iconoclasts twitter.com/malabousaza/st…

US Customs officials destroyed renowned Mali musician Ballaké Sissoko's kora. pic.twitter.com/NxXIQthUec







59546 likes, 30469 retweets



1 retweet
11 Feb 14:40

A Relentless Focus On The Long-Term

by Richard Millington

You need a long-term focus – but it’s hard.

Yes, you can answer the question – but it’s far more valuable in the long-term if you can persuade another member or another staff member to dive into the community and answer it. That builds habits and stops you from getting sucked into a customer support role.

(By the way, this is the most obvious difference between doing community and customer support work).

Yes, you can create content or run a webinar – but what if you could persuade your members to do it?

Yes, you can launch a fancy community with every feature members might need – but it’s far better to only embrace the features they do need.

Yes, you can promise your bosses amazingly quick results from the community – but it’s far better to educate them about the community lifecycle and why the long-term matters.

Yes, you can measure the engagement metrics your platform gives you – but it’s far better to build your own measurement tools to track valuable changes in behavior.

Two important things are critical here. The first is that most of the long-term value you can create comes from you managing to build relationships with members.

Every minute you invest in building a personal relationship with a member (or senior exec) pays off many times over.

The second is you need to constantly resist the pressure for the short-term solution. There are hundreds of them – but they simply push the problem from today until tomorrow.

11 Feb 14:40

"You turn the key from hope to trust..."

by peter@rukavina.net (Peter Rukavina)

Stephen Fearing and The Sentimentals, As the Crow Flies.

I saw Fearing live at George’s Roadhouse in Sackville on October 18, 2014. Catherine had been diagnosed with breast cancer a few weeks previous; it was confirmed to have spread to her bones, and thus be incurable metastatic breast cancer, two days after I returned from Sackville.

That week I started an email newsletter to update Catherine’s friends and family; here’s what I wrote in my first message:

Apologies for moving so quickly from handcrafted individual emails to a mailing list, but I was beginning to lose track of who I’d told what about Catherine and her progress, and this seems like a way of doing so that’s sustainable, but without the publicness of a blog, which would make Catherine uncomfortable. Catherine has, however, bless this alternative.

I’m writing mostly because I need to write to process things – that’s what my blog is for, and with that off the table, I still need a way of processing things. So I apologize in advance if what and how I write sounds overly technocratic or emotionless; that’s how I’m used to writing, and I’m pretty sure if I just started crying I wouldn’t be able to get the details down as I want to.

I’m also writing to save Catherine the need to re-explain the ins and outs of her cancer to each of you every time you meet; that can be exhausting for her.

I’ll do my best to keep you all updated over the days and weeks to come; I won’t take it personally if you decide to unsubscribe (there should be a link to allow you to do that down at the bottom), as I can only imagine that getting frequent missives about the minutiae of breast cancer can be a trigger for some, and an annoyance to others. I won’t take unsubscribing personally, I promise.

For those of you that I’m emailing the first time, here’s what’s happened so far.

Catherine was experiencing some pain in her right breast, which prompted her to visit our family doctor, Peter Hooley. Dr. Hooley ordered a mammogram of both breasts, the results of the mammogram were concerning enough to prompt a follow-up mammogram and then a “core biopsy” – taking selected pieces of breast tissue so that they can be examined under a microscope for signs of cancer.

The results of the mammograms and biopsy showed evidence of cancer in Catherine’s right breast, and this resulted in a referral to Dr. Fleming, a General Surgeon, to talk about surgical options.

We first met with Dr. Fleming on September 25. His assessment at that point was that Catherine had treatable cancer in her right breast, but the left breast looked clear, and his recommendation, which Catherine accepted, was to move forward with a lumpectomy for the right-breast tumour: basically a targeted “cookie cutter” to cleanly remove the cancerous tissue in that breast.

The lumpectomy was scheduled for this Wednesday, October 22 and in the interim Dr. Fleming ordered a range of additional tests, all designed to determine whether or not the cancer had spread to other parts of Catherine’s body.

Breast cancer, we learned, isn’t all that much of a problem all by itself, localized to the breasts: it’s when it spreads – they call this “metastasizes” or “advances” – that it becomes a larger concern that can no longer be treated with a simple lumpectomy.

Over the past week, Catherine’s had a bone scan (a radioactive dye injection, 3 hour wait, and then a scan of the bones; cancer cells show up differently than regular cells in the scan), an MRI of both breasts (basically, a look at the breasts with more detail than the mammogram allowed), a lung/chest X-ray, a breast ultrasound, and a lot of blood work.

Her MRI was, according to Dr. Fleming, the test he was most dependent on to determine whether to proceed as planned: it happened just this past Friday, and within 20 minutes of leaving the hospital, Dr. Fleming was on the phone to Catherine with some initial findings.

The MRI showed that the cancer in the right breast is “multi-centric.” This means that rather than being a single removable tumour, the cancerous cells are in more than one “quadrant” of the breast (divide the breast into four neighbourhoods; if there’s cancer in more than one neighbourhood it’s “multi-centric”). This is important to learn because it means that a simpler lumpectomy is no longer an option for removing the cancer in that breast: the only option is a mastectomy (complete removal of her right breast).

The MRI also showed what may be a cancer in Catherine’a left breast, although this hasn’t been reviewed to the extent where it’s possible to make decisions about it yet.

And the radiologist reviewing the MRI also suggested that there may be “lymph node involvement” on the right side as well: when breast cancer starts to spread, it goes to the lymph nodes first, and so it raises a flag.

More concerning is that the bone scan showed evidence of what the surgeon called “increased uptake” (of the radioactive dye) in three locations: in Catherine’s hip, in her right femur, and at two locations in her spine.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the cancer has spread to Catherine’s bones: one thing we’re learning quickly is that while we might think of cancer diagnosis as Star Trek-like, it’s really more a synthesis of imperfect, indirect tests. So having bursitis in her hip might cause this “increased uptake” just as much as cancer might. However because of the femur involvement – Catherine’s never had an injury to her femur, so it’s unlikely that the increased uptake would be caused by something else – it’s not a good sign, and it’s these bone scan results that have caused the plan to suddenly change course.

The plan now is that in the next few days Catherine will have an MRI of her bones, which might (or might not) shed more light on whether the cancer has spread there. She will also have a CT scan of her chest, stomach and pelvis, also with a goal to determining whether it’s possible the cancer could have spread there.

Dr. Fleming also recommended that Catherine put off the surgery on Wednesday, for two reasons: first, the additional testing this week will tell him more about the left breast, and whether a double mastectomy would be recommended, and, second, it’s likely that the next best step would be chemotherapy, not surgery, and so he has recommended using the surgical time on Wednesday to outfit Catherine with a “port-a-cath”: this is basically a semi-permanent “shunt” that’s installed under her shoulder blade on the front, with a tube connected directly to a large vein that’s found there.

The port-a-cath allows chemotherapy drugs to be sent in, and blood to be taken out, without the need to find veins in Catherine’s arms or hands, and makes the logistics of chemo go much more easily.

So that’s the tentative plan right now: port-a-cath on Wednesday followed, likely, by the start of chemotherapy as early as next week.

Another thing we learned today is that cancer treatment isn’t really like an orchestra being guided by a conductor, but rather more like a series of soloists each specialized in a certain approach to cancer, with the best one for the current treatment running the case at any given time.

So, in other words, the reason we’ve had two visits with Dr. Fleming is because the plan to this point was surgical, and he’s a surgeon. Now that the plan looks like it might change, it’s likely that Catherine’s case will be transferred to a “medical oncologist” in the PEI Cancer Centre, and that the oncologist will pick up the baton and guide things from here.

Dr. Fleming, however, is still holding the baton for now, and he’s going to spend two hours in the hospital tomorrow morning requesting tests, conferring with the radiologist and the medical oncologist, and he’ll call us tomorrow with the results of his discussions, and an indication of when other tests will happen, and whether or not it makes sense to have the port-a-cath inserted on Wednesday or not.

Assuming that the course change is to chemotherapy, the details would be worked out with the medical oncologist, and a course of treatment developed, with a schedule of chemotherapy appointments over the next 3-4 months. Receiving chemo is incompatible with surgery, so if surgery were to happen it would happen after chemo.

We had a lot of discussion about what this means and whether it’s a good idea to wait on surgery and the basic message we got from Dr. Fleming is “if the cancer has spread to other parts of your body, it’s most important that we deal with that first.”

Dr. Fleming is a superb tactician: he spent 15 minutes with us diagraming the procedure for inserting a port-a-cath. But because he’s a surgeon, not a cancer specialist, he wasn’t particularly good at describing for us what chemotherapy will involve, what the schedule will be, how what the side-effects will be, and so on. We’ll learn about all of that from the medical oncologist.

What he also couldn’t tell us anything about is what Catherine’s prognosis is: when cancer spreads from the breast to elsewhere in the body, it is called “metastatic breast cancer” and it’s not considered curable, in the “we’ll go in there and get this out” sense. But it’s not a death sentence either: it’s possible to live with metastatic breast cancer as a “chronic condition.” Not forever, but for many years.

And that’s about all we know.

I may be writing this to you with what seems like a cool head, but my head isn’t really that cool, nor is Catherine’s. It’s likely that the life of our family got turned upside down today in ways we don’t completely understand yet, and it’s hard to have conversations about all of this without bursting into tears simply from the stress and confusion and complexity of it all, and the feeling of being amidst something completely beyond our control.

Many of you have called or emailed in the last couple of weeks, and I’ve appreciated that. If I’ve sounded a little distant and clinical about everything, it’s only because that’s my best refuge to keep from breaking down on the phone or in person.

For the crew that seized the bull by the horns and came over and made the good part of a backyard fence for us this past weekend, thank you: it was the #1 best thing you could have done to make Catherine’s life better this weekend.

Catherine lived for 1,914 more days after I sent that out.

10 Feb 05:13

Why Google Did Android

What happened was, in the late stages of my career at Sun Microsystems, as we were sliding into Oracle’s loathsome embrace, I had discovered Android. The programming language was Java, and not a dorky “ME” subset. My employer was saying nice things about it, and I’d long craved something I could both carry in my pocket and program. I discovered it was pretty easy to program and eventually published the Android Diary series in this space, which got pretty lively readership.

Thus, I shouldn’t have been surprised when, shortly after leaving Sun, I got outreach from Google’s Developer Relations org. I was receptive and almost immediately I found myself in Mountain View for the famous Google Interview Day. My first session was with Vic Gundotra, who was a major Google V.I.P. at the time. He opened by saying “I’ve been reading your blog and I think I know a lot about you. What would you like to know about us?”

That was easy. I asked “Why is Google doing Android? Are you serious or is it just a hobby?” (Because at Sun we’d had a lot of hobbies — sideline technologies that we couldn’t seem to give up — and that sucked and I didn’t want to work on one.)

Vic said something like (It’s ten years later and I’m paraphrasing) “The iPhone is really good. The way things are going, Apple’s going to have a monopoly on Internet-capable mobile devices. That means they’ll be the gatekeepers for everything, including advertising, saying who can and can’t, setting prices, taking a cut. That’s an existential threat to Google. Android doesn’t have to win, to win. It just has to get enough market so there’s a diverse and competitive mobile-advertising market.”

I don’t know about you, but I found that totally convincing. And I suppose a lot of industry insiders are thinking “Well of course everyone knew that!” I didn’t. I made it through the interviews and they offered me the job and I had four good years at Google.

I wonder if Vic was right about what would’ve happened if they hadn’t done Android?