Rob's Blog

The closest I’ve got to traditional publishing is getting my articles in the company internal newsletter. This happened today.

Being edited is a weird experience. I’m reading my own words, but occasionally I see something I would never write. I haven’t been done any kind of disservice, this time round at least. But for some reason the newsletter is laid out like a paper newsletter even though it’s only distributed as a PDF. Which means space constraints. There may even be some kind of editorial style imposed. Anyway, I am reading my supposed own words, and occasionally exclaim something like, “I’ve *never* used the word ‘tremendous’!”. It’s not necessarily a bad word, it’s just not one I ever say or write. So seeing it under my byline is…weird.

There are word count limits that I know about in advance, so I find myself unable to elaborate, or having elaborated, have to cut out whole swathes of my arguments to get the word count down. And then there is editorial feedback. “Could you remove the bit about eliminating project managers?” Well, I suppose I could tone it down a bit, but I want to be a bit controversial, otherwise what’s the point of saying anything?

Here’s something I could immediately tell I hadn’t written, without being able to put my finger on why:

Raymond argues that the role of project managers as resource allocators becomes obsolete in the bazaar because personal motivation becomes the key instigator in ensuring that the best possible code is produced.

I think “key instigator” is a phrase I would never use. “Best possible code” doesn’t sound like me either. Here’s what I actually wrote:

Raymond argues that project managers are not needed in the bazaar because motivation comes for free and marshalling of resources happens automatically in its free market in reputation.

To be honest, I think the edited version is probably better. I think I am sometimes so concerned about not talking down to my audience that I don’t explain myself properly, and end up using turns of phrase that leave them going, “huh?” But it is also a failure because the “free market” aspect of allowing developers to choose which problems to work on has been lost in the translation. I really need another couple of hundred words to explain it.

So it’s a huge difference from blogging, where I can say what I want, how I want to say it. Presumably real writers for real publications have the same sorts of experience.

Does the editing make the article better? Perhaps it does. Perhaps it makes for a more readable, bite-sized, less rambly article. Perhaps it is good that I was prevented from writing, “we should throw away project management” and alienating all the project managers I work with…

Perhaps all this is also true of the differences between radio, with its producers and scripts, and podcasting.

That’s what a colleague asked me today, starting an interesting conversation. I jotted notes thinking it would be a good blog post. But I think I will save time and just post the notes:

Have computers made things cheaper in the last 40 years? How I would put it: have computers made us richer?

What about cars? Yes. CAD/CAM. Are cars cheaper? Yes – no-one had two cars 40 years ago. Your car now is as well specified as a 40-year-old Rolls Royce (if not better (safer (simulation)/more efficient(engine design and management)/more features – air conditioning/sat nav)). Not as pretigious but better.

What about food? Yes. Logistics, globalisation, better agriculture (research done using computers?, better/cheaper farming tools). No-one ate food from as many exotic countries 40 years ago. Food was probably a higher proportion of household budget. People eat out more now. Green revolution: people in poor countries starve less than they would have done otherwise.

What about homes? Everyone has double glazing and central heating now. Less money spent elsewhere makes this possible. Systems are cheaper. Chinese manufacturing made possible by logistics. Materials used in windows- materials research uses computers.

Do people earn more? Wrong question. Impossible to measure. What is the right measure of inflation? Basket of goods is useless when discussion goods that haven’t been invented. Right question is: what do people have now that they didn’t have then?

Increase in technology in general makes us richer. Computers are used for research and developing new technology, and running businesses more efficiently to help pay for research and development. Cheap goods from China rely on cheap Chinese labour = abundant Chinese labour. But this relies on moving stuff around more cheaply. Logistics = containerization; computer programs to load ships; computers to monitor ships’ engines to make them more efficient; computers to design ships; computers to manage inventory and reduce waste; just in time manufacture and delivery. CAD/CAM = new products to market faster and cheaper.

Computers free up time which gets used to do other things, like innovate or relax. BUT – computers make bureacrats more effective. Hmm.

Lifestyle is different now: if born 30 years before you were, would you have cozy office job? Less robots = more (physical) factory jobs. Fewer JCBs = more labouring outside? Working inside instead of out in the weather means longer, healthier life?

You will find computers involved in most things that make you feel rich. And computers are used to improve computers and other technology so the process accelerates. Computers for communication makes doing business in general cheaper (more efficient). Related thought: that measure of progress beloved by the left, inequality, has also decreased over last 40 years. See: central heating, double glazing, two cars with sat-nav and air conditioning, foreign holidays: everyone has these things. All having more money buys you is fancier homes, cars and holidays. A Rolls-Royce and a large house in Westminster and a holiday in a 5 star resort in the Maldives is more expensive than but functionally equivalent to a Ford Mondeo and a flat in Essex and a holiday in a budget resort in Spain. Technology is an equaliser.

Computers in particular and technology in general have played a part in making all those things cheaper.

I listen to Radio One in the morning. Chris Moyles and a bunch of other celebrities walked up Kilamanjaro to raise money for charity. Now Moyles has just got back from a trip to Uganda to give out malaria nets with the money raised.

He said that two things surprised him about Uganda. It’s very green and lush; and everyone has mobile phones.

I think part of the reason everyone thinks Africa is brown and dry is Live Aid. “Where nothing ever grows; no rain or rivers flow.” Never mind forced relocation. Looking around on loc.alize.us, Uganda is a bit greener than Ethiopia.

Uganda:

Ethiopia:

Mobile phones, of course, are a triumph of capitalism. On the radio, Aled correctly pointed out that they have been so successful because they don’t require the massive infrastructure of land lines, so that stage was skipped.

A listener asked a good question: if people can afford mobile phones, why can’t they afford malaria nets? Part of the problem is probably education: the charity workers are also having to teach people why and how to use the nets, so perhaps there is currently little demand for them. But if businesses don’t spring up to meet such a demand I’d want to know why.

Another question: would using more insecticides in agriculture reduce malaria?

Update: Michael Jennings commented on this post with a long article about mobile phones in Africa. As for why they might be more common than mosquito nets:

I would suggest that it is because mobile phones are cheaper. Such are the benefits of mass production and massive economies of scale. Also, second hand phones from the rich world end up in the poor countries in huge numbers – no such markets exist in mosquito nets. Also, I suspect that more people actually do have mosquito nets than Chris Moyles thinks – it’s just that nets provided by informal networks do not show up in his sort of statistics.

My suggestion about education originated in Moyles’ comment that many of those receiving the free nets didn’t know what they were for; and that the charity workers were planning to visit everyone and make sure they were using them correctly. I suspect people would figure it out (and are) without charity workers, one way or another.

I’m kind of a forgetful person. I can sit in front of a computer and manipulate virtual things all day and keep variables and chains of reasoning in my head, and solve all kinds of technical problems. But put me in charge of anything physical and I’ll forget where I put it, or even that I ever saw it. It’s the way I’m wired. It’s not that I accept it or blame anyone but myself, and I fight it and constantly try to find techniques to work around my limitations, but the fact remains that I’m good at some things and not good at others.

So it seems that sometimes the government is out to get me. Today I got a letter saying I’d forgotten to pay my car tax and have to pay a £40 penalty (or £80 if I forget to pay that). It’s actually a lot less than I might have thought, and it’s not like they don’t make it easy to pay, and I do at least *choose* to have a car.

But the fact remains: if I was good at bureacracy I would have become a bureacrat. All these requirements — fill in this form by this date or else — are thrust upon me with very little sympathy for the fact that this kind of thing falls outside what I’m good at.

I admit I don’t blog every time I incur a late fee for a forgotten credit card bill, and on the face of it it’s the same kind of thing, but the language here is crucially different. I have comitted an “offence” and must pay a “penalty” and if I forget to pay there may be “court proceedings”. A credit card company might at least phone me up and have a friendly chat about a forgotten bill. Indeed, I can remember one occasion where a late fee was waived when I told them I hadn’t realised a rounding error left me with a few pennies’ balance on a credit card. I don’t imagine the DVLA being all that understanding about it if I call them and tell them that I was organising a wedding when the reminder notice came and on honeymoon when the car tax was due.

And they are a monopoly. It’s not as if I can switch to another provider if I don’t like the terms. I can get a credit card that will take the minimum payment by direct debit. I don’t think the DVLA offers this option, as if the ability to fill in forms on time is part of the test for car ownership.

I can only be thankful that the horrendous ID cards scheme is unravelling. I can imagine the ways I might have unwittingly fallen foul of *its* requirements and penalties.

I do grocery shopping online. I ordered the usual four rolls of toilet roll. The pack that came had “50% extra free”. Now I have a mountain of toilet roll in the bathroom. More is not always better.

The offer fails on two levels: I didn’t know I was getting 50% extra free and bought it anyway. That means they gave me more than they needed to to secure the sale. If I had seen the 50% extra free, I would have bought something else.

Similar strangeness often happens when buying clothes and shoes. I choose a shirt I like for what seems to me a reasonable price and decide to purchase. I get to the counter, declare my willingness to pay the marked price, and the assistant scans the barcode, only to announce a 20% discount that I hadn’t expected. Maybe they do it for the goodwill.

Something big is happening: we are living in interesting times. The media have decided that the government needs to be changed. There is economic turmoil. People are afraid, but probably less about swine flu and the climate than about keeping their jobs. Nobody knows what will happen, so I am going to make some guesses. These are based on a mixture of hunches, wishful thinking and stuff I’ve read lately.

• There will suddenly be an election earlier than “anyone” predicted.
• Cameron’s lot will become unpopular very quicky after they get in power and since everyone will still hate the Labour party the whole of politics will be disgraced and someone new will save the day.
• There will be an upturn in the economy in the next nine months, followed by another even bigger downturn in the next 18 months and it will last for two or three years.
• There will be lots of inflation that “no-one” was predicting in the next two or three years.
• At some point in the next five years, the mainstream media will turn against the climate change consensus (these things come and go like fashions and this one is on borrowed time).
• At some point in the next two years the mainstream media will turn against Obama, a little bit, but not to the extent they did Bush and Brown.
• State pensions, welfare and healthcare will be phased out over the next twenty years to the extent that they are irrelevant to anyone under 40. You will need to take care of yourself. But healthcare will improve and get cheaper to the point that it won’t matter much. Private screening, for example, will be a big thing.
• Despite all of the bad stuff, twenty years from now people (especially “poor” people) will be better off and living longer because of technology.

Hopefully everything there will turn out to have been uncannily accurate and I can brag about it in a future post. Now, where to put my money?