What is easy to understand, but hard to illustrate is cyclic patterns of impulse - response.
Without the impulse, no response. However, it is the response that drives the nature of the dynamics.
I've recently paid attention to this phenomenon, and believe the concept can be adapted also to human phenomena.
As heads-of-state Trump and Putin have misunderstood each other's communications for some time, it is only natural that they are distrustful.
Each one expects the words of the other to lead to a response they can understand.
I decided that I am certain enough to model a solution to the armed conflict in Syria on my blog. The analysis is based on my understanding of graph theory and studies of the nation state stakeholders in the conflict.
Consider this:
Any organization is a system of people in roles, let's call them members.
The members are expected to make decisions in accordance with their responsibilities.
All decisions rest on the available information.
The human mind is imperfect, including limitations in memory, and an emotional context for the information.
So, an organization is typically a tree of people making decisions, which together form a system.
A number of these systems are operating on and near Syrian territory. The dynamics may best be described as utter chaos.
Furthermore, I don't believe there has been any instance in the history of mankind where a rocket has performed a successful investigation of crimes.
It's well worth the karma hit if this may trigger someone to come up with better ideas than more rockets.
The article quotes "people familiar with the matter". For all we know, this could be a controlled leak, and the "people familiar with the matter" could be CXOs and Facebook's core management team. :)
Funny to see the alleged data abuse giant unravelling with all the hustle and bustle of upper management panic.
Based on my own analyses, I can't see how Bitcoin will survive. Other "bitcoins" (cryptocurrencies) will surely arise to fill the gap.
Time to call it for me: The fundamental value of Bitcoin is naught point nothing. USD 0.00 EUR 0.00 etc.
Tax evasion pressures, money laundering pressures, commercial pressures, exchanges "losing" bitcoins all the time - and now child pornography hidden within the blockchain itself?
Whatever the current status of the open source project(s) and whether they can play nice - can anyone explain how this can turn out well for Bitcoin?
Thinking is hard. That's why we must strive to avoid it at all costs. :)
Probabilistic thinking is useful to wrap one's head around.
Having worked with decision support for a decade, I've come to realize that probabilistic thinking may or may not be useful to work into organizational decision making regarding change.
The thing is people need certainty. Imagine a guidance from Apple saying they would make $2 per share with 47% probability. Investors will freak out. Which is why most companies sandbag their results. I want to know if any orgs actually use probabilistic decision making in their day to day operations.
> Imagine a guidance from Apple saying they would make $2 per share with 47% probability. Investors will freak out.
if that's all it said, sure, because that sounds like apple just made some insanely high-variance bet. if instead apple provided some nice smooth probability distribution over possible earnings, folks would react much more reasonably.
Strictly speaking, one may end up with a separate set projections for e.g. dividends. These may in a standardized
way present ranges for each KPI with confidence intervals associated.
I'd rather invest if that type of data were included. :)
As this is a somewhat large topic, I'll elaborate further throughout the series of blog posts.
That is the very reason I believe the current system should be augmented with a new first class financial statement, rather than replaced. This will give investors better information, and managers will gain better decision support.
Those who prefer the old way of doing things remain free to carry on as before. Those who embrace it may compete better.
Of course, the same mechanism may prove useful for governmental organizations.
A single blow of a hammer to the head may cause a cracked skull and/or massive hemorrhaging. It could be instantly lethal, or cause death even after medical attention is given. Even with survival, there's a distinct risk of later disabilities - mental or motoric.
In this particular ambush, the only right thing is to shoot the assailant. If some cops could handle this situation without their firearm (and they were confident enough this wouldn't risk their partner's life or health), then that would surely be the exception rather than the rule.
UK police seem to be quite capable of dealing with this kind of thing with the side-handled baton or occasional taser. Partly because they have extensive training in de-escalation.
UK police also usually wouldn't respond with two officers for a situation like this.
There was an assault outside my house a few months back, and they sent 3 cars and 6-7 officers despite no indication weapons were involved.
People tend to respond very differently when thy face a group of officers spread out - turn towards one of them in a threatening manner and three others will be slamming you to the ground.
What struck me about the video in the article was how there were just two of them, and despite that one was getting in the suspects face. You don't get in the face of an expected dangerous assailant if you want to avoid violence.
It's not a strange assumption to make, given how the prefix system works for true SI units. The litre/liter is defined as a decimeter cubed, or 0,1 m^3. It is a metric unit, but not SI. Still, it is allowed within the SI system...
Similar idiocy does happen to European tourists/visitors.
Google "John Kristoffer Larsgard" for an AG's narrative that makes no sense, yet made it all the way to court and a conviction. (Astroturfing on both sides - look for the facts.)
For me, the US is indefinitely off my itineraries, both private and business. I've lived there for years, and I liked it, but the risk of becoming a pawn in some elected law enforcement official's scramble for reelection - or pissing off the wrong police officer - carries too much risk.
