drink the sweet feeling of the colour zero

Semantics, and being wrong on the internet

TAGS: None

How do libertarianism, cloud computing and George Orwell collide?  Internet arguments, that’s how!  Nerds love arguing about semantics, and for good reason: the word choice shapes how we and others view the world.

Let’s consider for a moment the term Left Libertarianism. I have my own thoughts on the topic, and consider the term the closest of various available descriptors to my own views on the world.

If the internet is to be believed, I am not the only person who identifies with the term “Left Libertarian”.  I certainly didn’t write the Wikipedia entry on the topic.  A quick Google of the term leads to a number of websites for various groups that identify with the term.  In fact, so many different beliefs fall under the term “Left Libertarian” that if you get us in a room together we’ll have wild debates about which particular strain best represents the whole.

I don’t think all of the above is a delusion.  I mean, it’s entirely possible I dreamed up going to pubs with other left libertarians, but the existence of the internet evidence make me lean towards “not quite hallucinating social events (yet)”.  So I’ll proceed from here with the assumption that left libertarianism exists as a classification of belief systems.

Now, let’s discuss today’s recent internet argument.  It begins with my debating partner asserting that I am not a libertarian, because he is unable to separate the term “libertarian” from the hard right libertarians that exist predominantly in the USA.

I attempted repeatedly to point out that left libertarianism and right libertarianism isn’t the same thing.  No dice.  The individual in question simply could not get past the term “libertarian”.  In his mind the use of that word had very specific connotations and that was that.

Fair enough.  Left libertarians are rather used to this.  Normally, I’d just shrug the encounter off as another in a long series of identical encounters, however, the night progressed into further arguments about linguistic semantics and the recalcitrance of this individual regarding the nuance of “left” versus “right” libertarianism becomes important.

Choosing your definitions

Recently, I wrote an article in which I defined various tech terms that I commonly use. Among these definitions is the controversial distinction between Public Cloud provider and Service Provider Cloud provider.

A common school of thought amongst technologists is that any organization making services available over the public internet is a public cloud provider. The key word for them here is “public”.  I happen to disagree.

When I say “Public Cloud provider” I mean specifically Google, Amazon, Microsoft and IBM.  All the rest I consign to the “Service Provider” category.

The why of this is twofold.  First off, there is a world of difference between the Big Four public cloud providers and everyone else.  They dwarf the service providers not only in the scale of their networks, but in the diversity of the services they offer.

Even popular service providers like Rack Space, Digital Ocean or Heroku can’t compare to the big four public cloud providers.  The differences are just so immense that they are their own category.

My debating partner for the night appeared to be exceptionally frustrated, even angry that I refused to change my views on use of the term “Public Cloud” to reflect his.  He suggested that I instead use the term “major public cloud” or something similar.

I bailed on the argument before pursuing it much past this point, in large part because of something else that he had said.  He said that he felt it was our job to educate others, and implied that for this reason I should choose his definition of “Public Cloud”.  This is an idea I’ll come back to.

Perception deltas

In addition to the gap in capability between service providers and the big public cloud providers there is a real world difference in how non nerds talk about cloud computing.  When your Average Joe talks about “the cloud” they typically mean – at their most expansive – the Big Four public cloud providers and the SaaS offerings that live in their ecosystems.

Even that’s being generous.  My admittedly unscientific polling in this area consistently shows that “cloud = Amazon” in the minds of most, with Google and Microsoft both getting the odd mention.  Including IBM is a huge hat tip to the nerds as it is.

As I see it, tech nerds aren’t exactly a huge percentage of the population.  So when I write I need to take into account more than just the viewpoints of nerds.  Common usage of language is just as important as semantic accuracy, and we collectively decide all the time to use definitions that are not entirely accurate or make no sense.

My personal linguistic frustration with common usage is our collective inability to understand the difference between “on-premises” and “on-premise”.  The former means “on location” and the latter “on idea”.  This oddity also comes plays a role in the night’s ponderings.

Power words

With the night’s debating partner, individual words have enormous power.  “Left Libertarianism” means nothing to him because he can’t get past the word “libertarian”.  He cannot separate one loud group of not very nice people who self-identify with that term with all the other people who identify – or partly identify – with that term.

Similarly, any discussion about Public Cloud providers simply ends at the word “Public” for him.  That’s the important part, as it if for so many people.  I find it frustrating that he’s utterly immune to the irony of suggesting the addition of a qualifier; in my experience saying “Major Public Cloud” is a bit like saying “Left Libertarian”.  The qualifiers get lost in the power words.

(Note: I am entirely aware that “words that have power” is likely more accurate, and that “Power Words” probably has some specific meaning to some group of people.  Hush.  “Words that have power” just sounds dumb.)

By rights “Left Libertarian” should be different from “Libertarian”  Just as $Variable_1 should be different from $Variable_2.  They’re just labels.  But that’s not how humans work.

Humans aren’t machines.  We don’t consider all linguistic identifiers equal.  We fixate on things.  Why does “on-premise” bother me so much?  I have no idea.  The same individual so frustrated that segment “Public Cloud Provider” from “Service Provider” once told me I should give up trying to correct people who use “on-premise”.  As he put it: it’s not a hill he’s willing to die on.

Service providers

Right in the middle of this I want to throw the term Internet Service Provider (ISP).  I gave up before getting to this part of the argument with tonight’s debating partner, but it’s worth a brief mention.

If you ask your average citizen when the term ISP means they will say something to the effect of “the company that lets me access the internet”.  In other words: your Fibre Optic, Cable or ADSL provider.  I’d be very curious to see how many associated the term with mobile providers.

Legally, however, ISP means something different.  In many jurisdictions ISPs include domain registrars, web hosting companies, e-mail providers, backhaul providers, colo facilities and more.

What’s really interesting is that over time the common definition of the term ISP overrode how nerds used it as well.  With a few rare exceptions, a tech nerd talking about an ISP means quite specifically an internet access provider.  Everything else they’ll lump under “cloud” in one form or another.

This leads to interesting internet arguments between tech nerds and law nerds.

ISP isn’t the only term where common usage has overcome the use of one or more class of nerds.  I’m certain, for example, that I don’t have to rehash the history of the term “hacker” for anyone reading this blog.

Linguistic control

Where this all gets stitched together is in the concept of linguistic choice as a forcing factor in conceptualization.  George Orwell taught us that how we use words determines how we can communicate concepts.  Over time, this can even affect our ability to conceptualize various concepts in the first place.

The beliefs of the individual provide context.  Tonight’s debate partner is ardently “pro-cloud”.  I would go so far as to call him a True Believer.  He evangelizes not only the subscription-based/OpEx model of service provision, but the Agile methodology, cloud native application development…all of it.

Everything relating to the word “cloud” is important to him both personally and professionally.  It makes perfect sense that he would have a very specific view on what words should mean and that he would believe those definitions should be used to “educate” others.  He wants those people to believe as he does.

I, on the other hand, am far more agnostic about the cloud.  I view the word “cloud” itself as so distorted by marketing as to be utterly meaningless without taking some attempt to narrow a definition.  Remember, there are dozens of vendors who have tried to assert “virtualization = cloud”, followed by “hyperconvergence = cloud”.

It should thus not come as a shock that I don’t get all weepy over the educational value of the term “public cloud”.  When I talk about things cloudy the difference between the big public cloud providers and the service providers is almost always critical.

I don’t have time to get caught up in people mentally skipping qualifiers because they saw a power word.  It’s actually more effective to link to a definition that they outright dislike – such as how I segment public cloud providers from service providers – and proceed from there.

The semantics nerds will then think nasty thoughts about me as a person, but most of them then proceed to understand what it is I’m trying to communicate.  This isn’t true when I just slap qualifiers on terms with power words.

It’s the same reason I don’t write Internet Access Service Providers.  It means nothing.  All anyone will see is ISP.

Someone is wrong on the internet

I would like to think that both opinions on the use of the term “public cloud” are valid.  I certainly see my debate partner’s point.  I even understand the linguistic control concepts that make the word selection so important to that individual, even if I don’t share his convictions or beliefs.

Similarly, I would like to think my own viewpoint is valid.  We all like to think our viewpoints are valid!  I also recognize that it is highly unlikely the night’s debate partner will ever consider it to be so.

When I wrote my definition article I told my editor that this would probably end up being a yearly thing.  Definitions change.  Language is fluid.  For me, those definitions are a tool.  A way to clarify what I mean so that I don’t have to type the same explanation in every article, list the same disclaimers and define a series of terms.

Maybe, when I revisit those definitions a year from now some new term will have evolved to mean “the big four public cloud providers”, and I can use that.  I could then use “public cloud” to mean “everything that isn’t on a private network”.  Whatever “private network” means when everything has a publicly addressable IPv6 address.

Maybe.  I view the terms themselves as largely arbitrary, and such flippancy is probably driven by an unhealthy amount of cynicism.

The lesson to be extracted from all of this?  When you challenge the terms that help someone evangelize their beliefs through linguistic shaping, you are challenging their beliefs – and thus them – directly.

Now go forth and frolic in the market of ideas and enjoy the evolution of nomenclature as beliefs, convenience and common understanding all compete to solidify the definition of the words we use…and how we conceive of the world.

On not dropping the PR and marketing ball

Tags: , ,

As a tech journalist and as a commercial tech writer the bane of my professional existence is PR and marketing people who don’t know anything about the companies or products they are trying to promote. The very worst among offenders among them are simply applying “tickbox” marketing and PR; they go through whatever list they were given in school and figure selling tech is the same as selling apples.

Fortunately, not all PR and marketing people are like this.

I don’t have time to praise everyone in tech PR and marketing that are great at their job. There are a lot of you out there, and I love each and every one of you for it. There is, however one comparative anecdote I’d really like to share that should drive home the difference between someone who’s terrible at their job and someone who is truly amazing at it.

Dropping the ball

On the terrible at their job side we have an individual working for a hybrid-cloud-in-a-can company that doesn’t know what their own product does. The solution in question is an OpenStack-based hyperconverged appliance starting at four nodes that has some built-in options to interconnect with OpenStack-based service providers and/or a major public cloud provider.

This isn’t exactly rocket surgery anymore. At the end of 2017, there are a dozen cloud-in-a-can providers, many of which shift OpenStack based solutions. By now, anyone who knows anything about private cloud technology can tell you pretty much all you need to know about this product just by saying “OpenStack-based hyperconverged cloud-in-a-can”.

I published a blog on a tech news website that mentioned the vendor in question’s solution. It was a passing comment as an example of a vendor in the space who has done reasonably well and had a few big customer wins.

A marketing person for this company wrote me to ask that I make some changes to the article. They didn’t want me to mention that they were using hyperconvergence to lash the nodes together. “They’re not hyperconverged” sayeth the marketdroid (yes they are, BTW), they’re “multi-cloud” (that’s a huge stretch).

If that wasn’t enough, the marketing body had a list of things in the article they wanted clarified. From common acronyms to terms of the trade to idioms. There was even a discussion about how “snapshotting” isn’t a verb. (Terrifyingly, this is the second time in less than a month that this particular conversation has come up with supposed tech people who should know better.)

I was blown away. Not so much that a marketing person asked that I change an article to be more “on message” for their client – that’s sadly par for the course – but that someone working for a hyperconvergence-based cloud-in-a-can company doesn’t know that nerds use “snapshotting” as a verb.

Juggling with style

My salvation lies in the part where there are marketing people and then there are marketing people. The polar opposite of Marketing McDerpy up above is the incomparable Jane Rimmer.

Let’s consider a recent conversation I had in the vEpxert Slack. I was discussing with some vExperts how I’d like to do some testing on a node that a vendor is sending me for review. I was thinking about reaching out to a few VDI vendors so that I could use their software to push the node to its limits and include their software (and the results) in my review.

One of the vendors I mentioned directly was Liquidware Labs, who happen to be one of Jane’s clients. A couple of hours later I have email from Jane saying she saw my comment on Slack, and could she help.

I don’t know why I was so shocked by this. Jane’s not some fresh out of school marketing droid eager to sell clouds like they were apples. She’s so devoted to her craft that she herself is a vExpert.

Because of course she is. She’s Jane Rimmer. If tech marketing had a super hero, she’d be it.

The bottom line

Having marketing and PR people who care enough to learn about your product and the market in which you operate makes all the difference. It makes life less frustrating for the writers you interact with. It helps to build a community around your brand. More importantly, it helps everyone understand what it is you do and why organizations should give you money to do it.

The tech industry needs more technologically competent people like Jane Rimmer. The Tech industry needs a lot less buzzword bingo playing derpologists in senior marketing and PR positions.

It’s up to tech vendors to choose whom they’ll employ. And it’s up to us, as buyers of that tech to choose which vendors we support.

  • Author:
  • Published: Sep 27th, 2017
  • Category: Uncategorized
  • Comments: Comments Off on Completely unofficial advice to Tech Trailblazers applicants

Completely unofficial advice to Tech Trailblazers applicants

TAGS: None

So you have decided to apply for Tech Trailblazers and hope to impress judges.  What should be included in the applications, and what is the best approach to filling it out so that judges can make sense of it?  I have been a Tech Trailblazers judge for several years running, and there are a few tips and tricks I can impart.

I’m imparting this advice on my personal blog because in the wild woolly world of marketing telling the unvarnished truth is radical and edgy.  Fortunately, on a personal blog I can be a little bit more honest than when I have to pretend to be an adult.  Hopefully this translates into being a little bit more helpful.

The most important piece of advice I can provide is that the word limits in the application form are just that: limits.  They are not guidelines.  They are not suggested word amounts.  Use the fewest possible words to answer the question on the application form and move on.

One of the worst things you can possibly do is to fill up the application with meaningless babble that serves no purpose except to up the word count.  Don’t.  I would also highly recommend avoiding marketing buzzwords unless there is a really valid reason to add them.

If you click here you will be able to see a fake application I made for my favourite startup, Ninite.  Ninite have a fantastic product that’s impossible to hate, and it’s run by some of the best nicest people you’ll ever meet.  (Information harvested

Ninite is simple.  There’s a lot of wow, or brilliance.  They do one thing and they do it well.  They discovered a pain point, they addressed it, they built a business on top of it.  Short and sweet, and the fake application I’ve created for them reflects that.

You’ll note that I didn’t use anywhere near the word limits in the application.  This is because it simply wasn’t necessary in order to answer the question posed.  More words would simply have confused the matter.

If you can’t dazzle with brilliance, try honesty

Tech Trailblazer judges are not venture capitalists.  Nor are we junior tech news hacks for a local daily newspaper whose idea of science and technology writing is 6 solid weeks of back-to-back eclipse stories.  We are not impressed by your ability to cram software defined storage, hyperconverged infrastructure, cloud, public cloud, private cloud, hybrid cloud, hybrid storage, service providers, Bogo the storage clown and Jibbers knows what else into a single sentence.

Tech Trailblazer judges are hardened tech nerds who, given the chance, will hours on end in a pub arguing the exact boundaries on what should be considered software defined storage and what shouldn’t.  I should know: I’ve had those arguments with several of them.

This isn’t to say we’re all cynical, spiteful and misanthropic.  What it means is that we, all of us, encounter hundreds of companies a year that fall into the various categories that we judge.  The chances that you will show us something that we haven’t seen before or that truly wows us is pretty slim.

All of the above means that being candid with us is the best possible approach.  Maybe your startup is yet another software defined storage startup in a long line of similar startups.  That’s fine, there’s nothing to be ashamed of in treading familiar ground.

If you are putting the time and effort into your company then the chances are there is something you feel you’re doing differently.  Maybe your hook is that you do data geo-locality better than the next guy.  That’s great!  If you can articulate what you clearly enough to say “we’re very much like X, but we do Y better than they do” I promise you, you’ll have our attention.  That gives us a place to start analysis and comparison.

Pedigree doesn’t matter, goals do

Chances are pretty good that your Tech Target judge doesn’t care that you were founded by Storage veterans from Veritas with over fleventy sleep years of experience.  So is every other startup that we encounter throughout the year, both as Tech Trailblazers judges and during the course of our day jobs.

Being perfectly honest about it, the pedigree of your executive team doesn’t matter.  It’s a sad game at conferences to try to name the year’s list of failed startups assembled by tech luminaries whose cache should have assured a better result than ultimately occurred.

What we do like to hear about is what you plan to do with your product and/or company.  As discussed above, chances are pretty good that you can get our attention if you can describe the product in question succinctly enough that it’s “like X but Y”.  Obviously, the next question from any analyst with their salt will be “so what prevents X from adding Y”?  That’s the hard question.  That’s the one that, if you can answer properly, makes you a clear winner.

The real questions

Ultimately, what we as judges are trying to find out – though the application form is far more polite about it than I am – are the answers to the following questions:

1) What does your product do?
2) Who cares that it does that thing?
3) How many people do you think will care enough to pay for it to do that thing?
4) How do expect to leverage this thing you’re doing into something important enough that a larger competitor won’t simply make a feature that does exactly what you do and render you irrelevant?

Sometimes the answer will be that you have a patent.  Some companies do something boring and miserable that nobody wants to do, and are thusly happy to pay you to make the problem go away.

Maybe you do something that everyone else does, but you just do it better.  You have some secret sauce – intellectual property, a gaggle of supernerds, or otherwise – that makes your approach to a common problem something that will wow practitioners and IT decision makers alike.  That’s awesome.  But don’t end the story there.

Tell us how you plan to go to market.  Are you an acquisition target?  Do you plan to win hearts and minds with your market-shaking superfeature and then add all the more pedestrian functionality until you’re a competitor worthy of note?  We’re judging companies not only on the awesomeness of their technology, but on their likelihood of survival.

Honesty and self-awareness are the keys to success.  Good luck to all!

Striving for objectivity

Tags: , , ,

Being accused of being a shill for a company is pretty common for anyone who writes in tech these days.  Writers don’t even have to express an opinion to earn such epithets; simply reporting facts will earn spittle-flecked outrage if someone doesn’t like the facts presented.  Welcome to the internet era.

I am a writer.  I write for technology magazines, directly for vendors, and sometimes for other organizations themselves directly engaged with vendors.  One of the most frequent questions I get is how I maintain any sense of neutrality or objectivity with such an arrangement.

Five years ago I would have been terrified to write about any of this.  Content marketing was still something of a secret.  It was a badly kept secret that marketing types blogged about ceaselessly, but still largely a secret kept from readers.

Today, it’s the middle of 2017.  We are smack int he middle of the era of “fake news”.  There are powerful forces – billionaires and even the mechanisms of entire nations – devoted to destroying the credibility of journalists, analysts and new outlets everywhere.

How these news outlets survive matters.  How marketing works in the 21st century can’t be something we all pretend we don’t know.  Keeping schtum makes everything appear far more sinister than it really is.

Journalists, analysts and writers of all kinds need to get paid.  News organizations, magazines and everyone else who publishes content advertise in order to bring in money.  And yes, you guessed it, traditional display advertising isn’t bringing in the money it used to.

None of this means that writers, editors and publishers don’t value objectivity.  Many – and I personally hope it’s accurate to say most – of us think about bias, objectivity and neutrality a lot.  I know I certainly do.  So this brings us back to the original question: how does someone like me maintain any semblance of objectivity?

I am biased

I start by admitting I’m not objective.  Objectivity is an unattainable goal; all any of us can do is strive for objectivity and hope that.  This starts with understanding ourselves.

I have biases, just like anyone else.  I work hard on self-awareness to not only understand my biases, but get to the root the cause of them.  I am very much a champion of the end user and the small business.  I see “the little guy” as the one whose interests are never met and I tend to be pretty hard on vendors whose only interest is large enterprises.

Being aware of this, I can temper my own natural responses by getting better information from others who work in large environments, who don’t live daily with the budgetary constraints of small organizations and so forth.  For the most part, I know when my own idealism needs tempering.  That’s the start of writing in as objective a manner as possible.

Another part of objectivity is to put the time in to learn.  One reason that lobbying, for example, is so effective in today’s democracies – even when the politicians themselves are trying hard not to be corrupt – is that knowledge is power.

Knowledge isn’t merely power to those who have it.  Imparting knowledge is also a means of exercising power.  A politician drafting legislation can only consider the points of view to which they have been exposed.

The same is true for journalists.  If all we know about a given technology segment is a single vendor’s solution or approach, then we are unwittingly “captured” by that vendor.  To become more objective we need to understand the problem space we’re writing about as completely as possible.

The problem space

Talking about problem spaces in technology writing gets muddled.  Individual technologies can solve multiple problems, and many organizations have similar – but not identical – problems.  Consider, for example datacenter networking.

Ethernet is easily the dominant networking technology in today’s datacenters, though there is still plenty of Fibre Channel and Infiniband to be found.  This is a completely different problem space from WAN networking, where we might talk about SONET/SDH versus OTN.

Datacenter and WAN networking differ in more ways than the individual technologies used.  For example, they have completely different assumptions about link oversubscription.  The east-west versus north-south discussion is very different in both and discussions about asynchronous versus synchronous traffic delivery can quickly veer away from technical considerations and get deeply mired in some very heavy international political and economic considerations.

While datacenter networking and WAN networking are both networking, and both have a number of similar issues to address, they are completely different problem spaces.  This concept of a problem space is very important to any discussion about a writer’s attempt at objectivity.

Subject matter expertise

As a technology writer, even knowing enough about the topic to define the problem space as separate from the various adjacent ones puts you ahead of the pack.  You’re significantly less likely to be subject to bias due to a single vendor’s briefing, and you probably won’t do silly things like write scaremongering pieces about robot apocalypse just because Facebook’s chatbots invented their own language.

Many writers are assigned to a “beat”.  If you’re taking a skilled practitioner and teaching them to write, they come with pre-canned expertise on specific problem spaces.  A network engineer that can write in a coherent fashion becomes a pretty obvious choice to be assigned to the networking beat.

Coalface experience isn’t the only way to earn a reputation for objectivity on a given beat.  Many folks are old school journalists; they overcome the knowledge barrier through constant exposure to a single problem space, or to a set of intimately interlinked problem spaces.

I am more of an edge case.  I am a small business systems administrator.  By necessity, I learned a great deal about a great many problem spaces in IT.  I spent fifteen years as a generalist until, about five years ago, I had to make a choice between writing and full time systems administration.

In my case, the breadth of IT simply became too large for any one individual to learn it all, especially whilst actively putting out fires every day.  Being a generalist is something I enjoy.  I crave knowledge, so I decided to become a technology writer instead.

Most of the time, there is reasonable money to be made writing commercial content (blogs, whitepapers, etc).  It’s highly variable (2016 was an awful year), but in general a living can be made at it.

More importantly, a living can be made writing commercial content without having to write 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.  In fact, one can usually get away with writing only about 10% of the work week.  The rest is spent – by me at least – learning.

I do briefings with vendors.  I test products in my lab.  I administer client networks; not because of the money they bring in (which isn’t much), but because they offer me legitimacy as a practitioner, and a place to hone my skills.

This puts me in a different position than many technology journalists.  Instead of being a practitioner who writes on the side, or a full time journalist dedicated to a specific beat I am closer to a professional student moonlighting as a tech writer.

Instead of waiting tables I write commercial content for vendors to pay the bills.  Instead of painting or sculpting as an art, I write opinion pieces and analyses for tech magazines.

And now you understand why I’m such a disappointment to my parents.

Thought leadership

Of course, knowledge’s power in helping the attempt at objectivity isn’t limited to subject matter expertise.  Understanding how the business side of things works is hugely important too.  Being someone who writes for technology magazines as well as directly for vendors makes this doubly important for me, because I am constantly on the razor’s edge of bias towards vendors I work closely with.

As discussed above, getting access to an audience in order to impart knowledge is a key part of getting whatever it is you want accomplished.  This isn’t only true when talking about politics or influencing journalists, its critical when we talk about marketing to end customers.

One needn’t lie to customers in order to sell one’s products, and doing so is almost always a terrible plan.  Telling the truth is far easier in the long run, and more importantly it is usually all that’s required to sell one’s product.  If your product solves a real world need then defining that problem space and demonstrating that your product answers the problems of that problem space is more than enough to keep you in shoes.

This is increasingly the province of thought leadership, which is a specific subset of content marketing.  The short version of thought leadership is that it involves getting subject matter experts – the more well-known and well respected, the better – to write about the problem space in question.

Thought leadership drives market education.  Once the potential customer base is educated about the problem space vendors can move on to the product differentiation stage which is more about sales and less about marketing.

In tech, marketing educates, sales differentiates.

Editorial versus commercial content

Commercial content isn’t limited to writing content directly for vendors. Thought leadership programs can be (and are) run through tech magazines themselves, but there is nowhere near the level of deep process engagement provided by a commercial content writer directly contracted to the vendor.

Going through the internal sales processes of the technology magazines, with their highly firewalled editorial/commercial divide, is the only way vendor can get any sort of content posted to their sites.  Vendors regularly try to bribe writers directly, but we are both ethically and contractually obligated not to do this.  (Additional reading: my page on the Editorial Firewall.)

What’s important to note, however, is that pursuing engagements with the tech magazines directly doesn’t present the vendor with much say over the content.  Let’s look at a generic version of how this works in practice, with the understand that the exact details vary from publishing house to publishing house and that this doesn’t represent any particular organization’s individual approach.

1) Vendor engages with publisher’s sales team and asks for a thought leadership program

2) Publisher tells editor “we are looking for 6 pieces based broadly on topic Y”

3) Editor creates and returns a list of topic ideas, or asks a subject matter expert writer to do so

4) Topics are selected and then writers for each topic are assigned by the editor

5) Writers do research, write whatever they want on the topic and hand it in

Right about here individual publications start to diverge widely.  Some magazines don’t allow vendors to reject articles, others do.

If an article is rejected okay, then the publisher will (usually) pay the writer anyways and a new writer will be selected to write a replacement piece, though some publishers will instead choose to arrange a briefing with the writer so that the writer can correct any misunderstandings they have.

Generally, rewrites because the writer is “off message” but factually correct aren’t allowed.

It is useful to call out the importance of the editor here.  Editors I have worked with are grumpy, distrustful of commercial content in general and paranoid about objectivity.  They don’t get paid to make vendors happy, they get paid to the readership happy.

Also, if something ends up being factually incorrect, they’re the ones who have to spend days in meetings with the lawyers.  Editors don’t care about your marketing message, and that’s a truly excellent thing for everyone involved.

Some examples

Another constraint on thought leadership through tech magazines is that tech magazines don’t allow blatantly commercial content to be placed directly into published content.  Some examples are helpful here:

A thought leadership content run could, for example, contain 6 pieces on why 100 gigabit Ethernet is important to practitioners and businesses alike.  Here is what a sample thought leadership run might look like:

1) Converged Ethernet: what it is and why you care?

2) Now that NVMe is a thing, networking is a hard bottleneck for virtualized systems

3) An analysis of network utilization rates in the modern datacenter

4) Advantages of hyperconvergence and why 10GbE is no longer enough

5) Poll + analysis of results: Who is deploying 100GbE, where and why?

6) 100GbE cabling: it’s not as scary as you think

At most publishers, none of these articles would mention the commissioning vendor unless the writer had a really good reason to include them.  Examples of a good reason would be that the writer is doing a comparative analysis of the whole of the problem space, or the only vendor in the problem space at the moment is the commissioning vendor.

As a general rule, editors will not allow the commissioned thought leadership pieces contain a discussion of how the vendor solves the problems inherent to the problem space in question.  There is some fudge factor allowed: a general discussion of how the problems could be solved would be allowed.  Specific looks at how a specific vendor solves a problem would not be.

Where this might get confusing for some is that it isn’t unusual for subject matter experts to write deep dives into a particular vendor’s approach to a technology, but when they do so it is not usually part of any paid program.  It’s because the writer, on their own initiative, decided to do so as a regular piece of editorial content, and they’ll usually have a good reason for it.  For example, because a given vendor solves a problem in a particularly interesting way.

Sticking to our networking theme, one might have run across a number of editorial pieces on how the use of RDMA in networking and specifically how Microsoft implemented it.  The press this implementation received was because Microsoft’s market share at the time was overwhelming, RDMA was relatively new, the numbers achieved were impressive and the numbers without RDMA were significantly less so.  Microsoft didn’t have to pay people to write about the awesomeness of their specific RDMA implementation: the tech press did it with minimal prompting.

Product differentiation isn’t news.  It’s not analysis.  It’s not education.  It’s not even opinion.  Product differentiation is pure sales.  It gives editors gas, and rightly so.

Advertising

This doesn’t mean that tech magazines don’t do vendor awareness or placement.  Some tech magazines might run display advertising along with the thought leadership pieces.  They may run blatant content marketing, but with a “sponsored content” warning on it.

Some publishers even offer the ability to bundle up editorially published thought leadership pieces along with some connective text into an ebook that the vendor can distribute, adding an “insert” at the end that contains a much more sales focused “here is how our products solve all the problems outlined in the ebook”.  Note that the insert would never be circulated by the tech magazine as editorial content and would be called out explicitly as sponsored content in the ebook version.  That editorial firewall thing again.

Many tech magazines offer “lead gen” programs in one form or another.  These are attached to webinars, newsletters/e-mail blasts, surveys or other forms of mixed media engagement.  People who sign up for these events get their information given to the vendor, and the vendor’s sales teams follow up.  This is more typical when the driving force is not market education (marketing) but product differentiation (sales).

Even here, however, tech magazines can separate editorial content from commercial content.  For example, the vendor might get the contact info of everyone signing up for a webinar, but may not have control over the content in the webinar.  The content may be left to a “panel of experts” recruited by the tech magazine.  Similarly, while surveys may net leads for the vendor, the analysis based on the survey results may be completely under editorial control, and the vendor may not get much (if any) input into that.

Vendor involvement in these forms of advertising is much clearer than vendor involvement in thought leadership programs, which is probably why there is so much FUD surrounding thought leadership.  Thought leadership can be – and is – done badly, or even deceitfully by unethical publications.  Fortunately, in tech at least, most of the magazines seem to be utterly paranoid about strict editorial firewalls, as do a great many of the writers and the blogging community at large.

The utility of content marketing

Thought leadership, both as seen in tech magazines and when the content is written for and distributed by vendors, is usually about market education.  It works on the assumption that one’s product is good enough that anyone who fully understands the problems they are facing and the potential solutions will leap at the chance to buy the vendor’s product.

Readers get utility from this sort of writing because they get to “peek around the corner”.  It’s great to be able to get a look at problems experienced by enough organizations that startups are beginning to appear and larger vendors are taking note – before they impact you.  Today, for example, 100GbE is only just starting to take off, and there is lots of room to write some articles about the triggers for considering 100GbE, and the real world considerations of deploying it in established datacenters.

Direct engagement with tech magazines are something of a gamble for vendors, but they usually pay off.  If the editor approves the piece, and it is factually correct, the writer gets paid no matter what the piece says.  The writer’s duty is to the truth, not to the vendor.

For many vendors looking to engage in content marketing this isn’t a particularly big issue.  They want thought leadership specifically because defining the problem space is the hardest part of marketing.  It requires subject matter experts, preferably those who have experience as practitioners, and who can write about a topic in an engaging manner.

This then is how and why I make money.  I get paid not to bamboozle or to shill, not to obfuscate or confuse.  I get paid to learn, and to pass that knowledge on to others.  Not all vendors think this is valuable, but even those vendors who prefer more classical approaches to marketing help me get paid.

We are all lucky – writers, vendors and especially readers – that there are still magazines and news outlets for every aspect of life that put the time and effort into establishing and maintaining an editorial firewall.  The more that “alternate facts” are the norm (in marketing, and society in general), the higher the value ascribed to the truth, and our first duty must always be to the truth.

No, Trump voters aren’t okay.

Tags:

A post-election sentiment of rapprochement and forgiveness seems to be espoused by some, now that the American election is over.  It is typified by this statement from Ian Noble: “Need to get away from the culture of calling people with different views names, it just leads to polarisation and topics that should get discussed, don’t. Need more respect for people having different views and not jumping to the conclusion that they must be a bad person.”

As much as I am usually in agreement with this type of sentiment (see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/07/tabs_versus_spaces_and_bullying_in_it/), I must dissent in this case.

We’re not talking about the Americans having elected someone reasonable like Kasich, with whom we simply happen to have a disagreement about some minor politics and/or economics.  Donald Trump is a fucking monster.  He has repeatedly threatened to use his influence to seek revenge on those who have called him names, accused him of criminal endeavours, and so forth.

Donald Trump has pandered directly to – and promised many horrifying things to – white supremacists, neo-nazis and other powerful bigotry groups.  He has promised to eliminate freedom of the press, enable police brutality by codifying it in law, normalize torture, pull back on commitments to NATO and other world peace efforts, repeal critical climate change agreements and to export all of this (and much, much more) as part of foreign policy via demands in international treaties.

And that’s just the stuff I can remember.

Trump has repeatedly asked aides – apparently very seriously – why the US doesn’t use nuclear weapons on its enemies.  He categorically refused to rule out using nuclear weapons on Europe if they don’t do what he says.

I’m sorry, Ian, for all that I personally believe we need to learn to play nice and stop acting like bullies, Trump is a goddamned monster, and all of us around the world are going to regret this decision by America a whole lot.  Mostly likely double plus regret when you smoosh in the fact that the UK has a fascist in power now too.

This isn’t a joke.  This isn’t a “love thy neighbour” kind of thing.  This is the point where, if you live near/in a large city or a point of military interest, you spend the next four years hoping that nobody starts a war that ends up with a flash of radiation and your face melting off as you scream your burbling, bubbling last whilst you agonizingly experience the worst death mankind has yet imagined.

That’s a thing – a very, very real thing – that my generation simply didn’t have to contemplate until now.  Raised after the cold war, during a time of relative peace, we never had to honestly contemplate the idea of that kind of war.  The Americans – my country’s supposedly closest allies – just elected the sort of man who casually tosses off the idea of starting exactly those kinds of wars.

I don’t believe that being all lovey dovey with the people who elected him is really the appropriate response here.  I don’t think this is a small gap that can be bridged with some beers and nice feelings.

There is a gap in belief, in understanding of the world, our perceptions of consequences, of risk, a gap in how we value human life itself that is so fundamental, so very clearly core to our personalities that it likely cannot be bridged.

To believe that those who elected Trump have values anything at all like mine I must also believe that they either can not learn from the past, they will not learn from the past, or they have willfully chosen to disbelieve mountains of evidence about how he and his compatriots both lead and treat others.  Regardless of which of those is true, I can’t bridge that gap.

I understand entirely the discontent with the system.  I even sympathize with those who feel trapped, lost, slipped through the cracks and more.  I hate many aspects of political correctness, I think a lot of liberal policies – especially in academia – are a bridge too far, and I too feel my white male privilege under attack.  It’s not a feeling I like.

But I can’t shake the hand of the Trump voter.  I can’t treat them – or this election – like it’s just some gentleman’s disagreement.

I’m sorry, sir, but the people who elected Trump are the enemy.   Hate me for saying or believing this if you must, but the next two years, where Trump has carte blanche due to a fully republican senate and house that just realized he is the future of their party, and where he has control over potentially a lot of key supreme court seats, will be terrible.  Not only for the United States, but for all the rest of us as well.

For the next two years, when America farts in bed, the rest of us are going to get blow into a wall with gale force winds.

  • Author:
  • Published: Oct 5th, 2016
  • Category: Idle Ponderings
  • Comments: Comments Off on The secret antagonist in Luke Cage

The secret antagonist in Luke Cage

Tags: , ,

Like many of you, I’ve just finished watching Luke Cage.  Personally, I consider it some of the best television every made.  The characters are compelling, the plot was decent, the acting was beyond great and the show was littered with subtle attention to detail that made it memorable.  Unfortunately, Luke Cage also revealed something truly terrible about humanity.

[SPOILER ALERT: The following contains spoilers about season 1 of Luke Cage]

Unlike many other shows, Luke Cage doesn’t have a single, central villain.  The show instead centers around three primary antagonists: Cottonmouth, Diamondback and Black Mariah.  There is also a fourth (meta)antagonist is who makes everything truly horrible.

Cottonmouth, who is cousin to Black Mariah is a pretty straight forward gangster.  He is simultaneously repulsively amoral and oddly sympathetic.  Like The Operative in Serenity, he is aware that he is a monster.  Moreover, in rare moments of seemingly earnest introspection he seems to genuinely be interested in using the power and wealth he obtains to make his scrap of nowhere a better place.

Again, like The Operative, Cottonmouth seems cognizant of the fact that he will not be welcome in any “better place” he creates.  He is aware that his methods are amoral, unethical and unwelcome.  Unlike The Operative, however, Cottonmouth has a desire for personal wealth, power and “respect”, which undermine his noble goals and make him vulnerable to an obsession with Luke Cage that ultimately destroys him.

If Cottonmouth is a villain that seems reasonably typical, he’s also easily the most complex.  The writing and the acting both cause Cottonmouth to strain against the tropes that bound the character and there are real moments of insight into the complexity of human thought and motivation.

The other two of the show’s villains are straight up tropes.  Diamondback is the completely unhinged psychopath with daddy issues hellbent on murdering Luke Cage.  Black Mariah is Lady MacBeth.

The fourth antagonist

Diamondback cooks up a special bullet called the Judas which is designed specifically to kill enhanced individuals like Luke Cage.  When two of the bullets fail to kill Cage, he and Black Mariah cook up a scheme to sell a slightly toned down version of the bullets to the New York Police Department (NYPD) and have them mow Cage in their stead.

This makes perfect sense for the characters: above all, Diamondback wants Cage destroyed.  Black Mariah wants ever more political power: selling these weapons will provide both funding and a political feather in her cap.  This reveals to us the fourth antagonist: the human race itself.

The secret to the Judas bullets is that they are made from Chitauri metal.  The Chitauri are the aliens who invaded Earth and attacked New York in The Avengers.

To me, this represents the existential horror of the show.  Judas bullets are manufactured from scavenged Chitauri metal for the sole purpose of killing the very people that saved the Earth from that invasion.

That’s horrible in and of itself, however, the various politicians fall all over themselves to buy the things, and there are police officers who simply cannot wait to use them.  To the point that when a police officer is begged by one character to save Luke Cage by using the Judas bullets on Diamondback (who was very close to killing Cage), the police officer, with a cold and menacing sneer, replies simply “no”.

Perhaps what bothers me most is not even the eagerness of a scared public to design weapons to kill their saviours.  I do understand that the public is being depicted as feeling powerless in a world that now contains enhanced individuals.

What shocks and appalls me are the reactions of real world viewers of Luke Cage to this phenomenon.  many have said to me they felt the villains of the show were weak, or mundane.  That the plot was too simple.  They never even considered the idea that the real villain was our own collective willingness to bend our ethics to breaking out of nothing more than irrational fear.

Real world viewers of Luke Cage, by and large, don’t seem to have stopped to consider the cold calculation of Black Mariah’s promotion and sale of the Judas Bullets, nor that her use of existential fear of enhanced individuals is far more damaging with much longer term repercussions than the violence and bullying of Cottonmouth and Diamondback.

The fact we are so inured to that sort of fearmongering that we barely even notice it is shameful.  That we no longer see see xenophobia and those who whip it up as “compelling” shows the true horror of Luke Cage: we ourselves are the true villains of the piece.

On Left LIbertarianism

Tags: , , , , ,

Recently, I self identified as a left libertarian.  I have been asked what a “left libertarian” is.  This is a frequent question by those who associate libertarianism with social conservatism and the right of the single-axis political spectrum.

The following is my personal take on politics, the concepts of libertarianism and essentially “who I am”.  Please understand that others will, of course, define terms differently, depending on how it suits their worldview.  (Words appear to have no absolute meanings in the age of the internet.)

The political spectrum as I understand it

To be able to understand what I mean when I say left libertarianism, some background and terminology need to take place.  The political spectrum is really broken down into three axes.  Social (progressive <-> conservative), economic (laissez faire <-> planned) and intervention (libertarian <-> authoritarian).

Social progressives believe that everyone is equal and we should not be allowed to group people and then discriminate against them.  Discrimination can be in the form of organization, economic isolation, refusal of service or physical or psychological harm.  I am strongly socially progressive, as are most left libertarians.

Social regressives believe that some people are worth more than others and/or that we should have the right to group people and then discriminate against them.  This is a strongly authoritarian view on both the left and the right.  They differ mainly on who they’d like to be the outgroup.

Authoritarians – whether left or right – believe that state power should be used to enforce moral beliefs.  This ties in closely with social regression.  Outlaw abortions, outlaw homosexuality, so on and so forth.  The authoritarian left, for example, typically has strong moral beliefs regarding things like GMOs, nuclear power and so forth.

Looks like you've had a little too much to think

Libertarians – whether left or right – believe that the state should interfere in the life of the individual as little as humanly possible.  Libertarians believe that, by and large, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do

Left libertarians and right libertarians tend to split predominantly upon along economic grounds.  Both groups believe strongly in market economies, but left libertarians believe in regulated markets for some verticals, with state control of certain key industries.  Most right libertarians believe very hard core in Randian laissez faire economics.

Three views of libertarianism

Personally, I view the difference as that between those who believe in evidence-based legislation and regulation and those who believe in an ideologically “pure” form of capitalism that is for all intents and purposes a religion.

There is another form of so-called “right libertarian” that isn’t libertarian at all.  These false right libertarians are actually nothing more than hypocritical authoritarian bigots using the term “libertarian” to refer to freedom only for the group with which they self-identify.

These false right libertarians are violently against anyone interfering in their lives or telling them what to do, but demand the “right” to dictate what others may/may not do.  The classic example is the individual who protests the building of a mosque but rallies to demand Christian prayers be said every day in school.  Or the individual who protests against public social services for children but demands women not have the right to an abortion.

Believing in “one rule for us, another for them” isn’t libertarianism.  It is bigotry and authoritarianism.

My own beliefs

As a left libertarian I believe that some services are “natural monopolies” that can only be provided either by the state, or by the free market in the context of a heavily regulated environment.  These would include things like national defense, fire protection, education, utilities (power/heat/telecommunications) food (see: lethal pet food, poisoned baby food, etc), parks and recreation, social security/basic income and health care.

We pay taxes and we receive these services.  We also pay taxes to ensure oversight and regulation in areas commerce where industry has proven they are willing to overlook externalities in their business model.  These include things like environmental regulation.  (Not poisoning our drinking water is usually good, and not something industry has a history of giving fvcks about.)

Here is the field in which I grow my fvucks. Look upon it and see that it is barren

In essence, the “left” part of left libertarianism means that I understand important concepts like The Prisoner’s Dilemma, The Tragedy Of The Commons and that both corporations and individuals are not rational actors in an economic sense.  (The myth of “enlightened self interest” is just that.)

Thus the existence of a social contract whereby we voluntarily surrender part of our individual freedom – in the form of taxes – in order to receive a greater benefit collectively than we could ever achieve through individual irrational investment and uncoordinated selfishness.  (My hobby: getting a bunch of left libertarians together so we can all argue about what parts of that social contract are required.)

What sets me (and other left libertarians) apart from other “leftists” is that I emphatically and overwhelmingly believe that, where not absolutely necessary for the state to intervene, the state should keep its nose out of all of our business.  I don’t believe the state should be used to force others to comply with a particular group’s moral beliefs.  Regardless of the group.

Let’s look at some examples.

The war on drugs: taken in moderation, many – if not most – illicit substances have benefits for the majority of people.  The problem, however, is that they can do very bad things to a minority.  Education – not prohibition – is the answer here.  Portugal has proven this.  America’s prison system has shown what happens under the prohibition model.

Censorship: this is a complicated topic.  For the most part, I believe in freedom of speech.  The big exception is incitement of violence.  At some point speech does become a very real and present threat to public safety and action should be taken.  In accordance with my libertarian view speech should be pretty extreme before the state steps in to censor it.  Extreme enough that even in nations of a billion people (such as India) they can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Insurance: Insurance is an example not a lot of people think about when talking about libertarianism, but it serves as a great example of where different interpretations can and do clash.  For the right libertarian the ideological purity of unregulated capitalism holds primacy, so they would allow insurance companies to discriminate based on gender, etc.  As a left libertarian, I believe that equality holds primacy and thus accept regulation of the insurance industry to ensure everyone is treated equally.

Spying: I believe governments shouldn’t spy on their people.  Nor on the civilian population of allies.  Too often has this sort of power been used not to protect against existential threats such as terrorism, but to seek out political dissidents and silence them.  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  That vigilance is not the burden of the state, seeking to protect its own power, but the burden of the individual to protect against the undue expansion and misuse of state power.

Removing planks from the house of privacy to build the fence of false security

I could go on for quite some time, but I think you get the drift.

Thoughts on localism

Government encroachment on individuals is arguably more impactful the smaller you go.  The condo board has a greater chance of interfering in your daily life than the federal government.  Similarly, the condo board is far more likely to be interested in what you, personally, are up to than would be your federal government.

Here – as with anywhere else – the discussion is one of balance between the common good and the rights of the individual.

For example, it is rational and supported by evidence that laws exist requiring individuals and corporations to shovel any public sidewalks on their property within X hours of a snowfall.  This is a clear health and safety issue.  Left unchecked, unshoveled walks become icy and dangerous.

Part of the social contract is that we give up our “right” to be lazy douchecanoes and shovel our walks for the common good.  There are other possible ways this social contract could be handled.  Taxes for shoveling could be levied communally and all public walks be handled by the municipality.

What is irrational and not backed by evidence is a social policy of leaving the walks unshoveled, or leaving it up to the individual to shovel “if they feel like it”.  Such a social policy would also be highly discriminatory.  While young, wealthy and able-bodied individuals might be able to afford the right clothing and tools to safely navigate a city of unshoveled walks, a significant percentage of the population could not.

Thus a minor surrender of individual liberty (a requirement to shovel walks or the paying of taxes to have them shoveled) results in greater liberty for the majority and prevents an unacceptable instance of “one rule for us, another rule for them”.

A converse example is that of condo board regulations against air conditioners.  Most cities have laws about volume levels emanating from individual properties.  X decibels until 11pm, for example, and then Y decibels until 8am.  Assuming that these laws were implemented as the result of a rational and evidence-based approach then condo boards should have no call to ban air conditioners that do not breach these laws as there is no evidence to support a rational appeal for restricting the individual for the common good.

Despite this, almost all condo boards claim the right to control the installation of air conditioners.  Some will allow you your air conditioner if you “get permission”.  The granting of this permission is all to often arbitrary and rational for denial or acceptance unevenly applied.  This is abuse of power.

Some condo boards will simply allow no air conditioners at all, though not because of noise regulation; they instead use aesthetics as a rationale.

All of these condo board examples are what I would consider unacceptable infringements upon individual liberty, despite the fact that they are occurring from the most local source of extra-household authority I can think of.  Locality doesn’t guarantee fairness, justice, equality or even that the individual has an equal (or any) say.

The condo board example was picked deliberately because it is a controversial edge case.  When we buy a condo we are presumed to be fully aware of the rules.  If the rules are put in place we are presumed to have a say in the creation of those rules.

Anyone who has bought into a condo and lived with the arbitrary rulemaking and enforcement typical of such entities will know that both full initial disclosure on purchase and ability to affect the creation/enforcement of rules are actually rarely true.

The very personal scope of impact combined with the statistical likelihood of both mild corruption and a lack of any effective oversight make condo boards a great place to stop and ponder about the level of regulatory intervention in the lives of individuals that is acceptable.

Skeptical child smoking a pipe.

As you might expect, a narrative that points out the susceptibility of local regulatory bodies to overreach doesn’t play well with the false “right libertarians” who are actually bigoted authoritarians.   These frequently champion localism blindly specifically because it allows the creation of enclaves of exclusion.

False right libertarians view keeping outgroups away from them and the places they want to be as an important part of their personal liberty and thus typically demand the ability to discriminate and restrict others based upon local legislation.

The localism issue is also a point of contention for true right libertarians.  They are typically very much against government interference in the life of the individual.  Yet part of what they view as the rights of the individual is the right to voluntarily form groups, cliques and so forth that decide what the rules of everyday life are going to be.

Unfortunately, in reality, we don’t all get to choice which groups we’re part of and thus the rules to which we are subject.  This is what causes me depart from the own-group-centric view of right libertarians.

The right to choose

As a left libertarian, I am sympathetic to the right libertarian viewpoint, but also bear in mind the rights of those who don’t get to choose.

The false right libertarian concerns himself with the idea that your right to swing ends at the tip of his nose.

The true right libertarian believes that not only does your right to swing ends at the tip of his nose, but that his right to swing ends at the tip of your nose.

The left libertarian believes that not only are our rights to swing bounded by the tips of one another’s noses, but also concerns himself with the fact most of us don’t have a say in the rules, regulations and laws under which we live.

As this discussion is about my own beliefs, I will use myself as an example.  I am a Canadian.  I did not choose to be a Canadian.  My nationality, citizenship, all of its attendant laws, social contracts, international perceptions and more were thrust upon me.

I was born in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, and I have never been in a position where I could live anywhere else.  I have never had the money to move.  If I wanted a job (generally considered requisite to reliably obtain shelter and food so as to survive our winters) I had to get an education, and ultimately a car.  This required crushing debt that I am still paying.

I did not vote for the people who created Canada’s constitution, nor the overwhelming majority of our laws.  I had no say in the creation of the regulations and so forth that govern much of my life.

If I do not obey these laws, then I will be fined or even ordered to jail.  If I don’t pay the fines or I refuse to voluntarily go to jail then people with guns will give me a choice: go to jail or die.  I live under laws imposed upon me under threat of death.

What is important to remember is that those who come after me will also live under laws imposed upon them under threat of death.  Laws that my decisions will affect.  Whether those decisions be action (such as voting, protesting, agitating, etc) or apathy, my choices have played will play a role in creating or affirming laws.  Or, through apathy, simply not altering the extant.

The importance of apathy cannot be overstated.  I firmly believe that – politically, at least – silence is consent.  Choosing not to speak out when confronted with the unethical, corrupt, egregious or atrocious is to condone those acts.  The future is shaped at least in part through our acts of will.

Homer fiddling on an ipad while the plant melts down

Currently, this idea of the rule of law is the most stable society we know of, so it is unlikely to change any time in the next several generations.  While it is easy to chafe at the restrictions imposed by this societal structure, we also bear the burden of responsibility for shaping the regulatory environment of the future.

I thusly concern myself with electing people who will agitate for the lowest possible number of laws.  I strive for laws that will intrude as little as possible into our lives while still bearing in mind that those laws impact not only myself and people “like me”, but everyone to whom they apply.

We will never make perfect laws.  We will never find the perfect balance.  We can never perfectly predict the future.  The best we can do is use a strongly rational and evidence-based approach and hope that we get it right most of the time.  Science, logic, evidence and compassion are the best tools we currently have at our disposal.

Equality and evidence then are key.  For myself to feel that laws are just, but also so that the legacy I am creating is fair, just and honest.  Freedom for me and for thee; today and forever more.

That is what it means – to me at least – to be a left libertarian.

On Canada’s future

TAGS: None

Canada is considering replacing it’s current First Past The Post electoral system with some form of proportional representation. The topic is, to say the least, controversial. I have some thoughts.

Political Background

A consultation process has been put together to provide a recommendation to the current Liberal government who will then either choose to implement that recommendation, or not. The Conservative party is agitating for a referendum before a proportional representation system is put into place. The Liberals are unwilling to commit to a referendum.

If proportional representation is passed the Conservative party – but not necessarily conservatives – lose out.  A referendum on the topic is the last ditch hope of the Conservatives to preserve the First Past The Post system, and they will do anything to avoid any form of proportional representation.

Traditionally I have been a very strong believer in referendums. I certainly wanted them for a lot of the legislation the Harper government forced upon us, however, the Conservatives were vociferously and vehemently against referendums whilst in power.  Now a referendum is their best change to obtain and retain power in the future.

This, right here, is the crux of the whole debate. The electoral system we choose determines who gets into power.

If the politics of 21st century Western nations can be said to be have a single shining thread it is one of stark – and increasingly violent – partisan polarization. Once a party gets power compromise is verboten, and those who voted for other parties simply do not get representation.

It is easy to look to the United States’ gridlocked congress and see any number of politicians acting like spoilt children. Tantrums occur regularly and threats of “shutting down the government” through inaction are the new normal.

The political equivalent of holding one’s breath until they pass out, however, is not a uniquely American approach to governance. The iron fist and the terrible twos are political duopoly of the now in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, the Netherlands, etc. Pull on that thread and you can unravel the tapestry of any Western nation.

Cons

Moving away from First Past The Post potentially changes which groups of individuals receive how much representation dramatically. Canada’s current system massively over-represents people in rural areas.

Around 20% of Canadians live in rural areas. Around 45% of Canadians live in urban agglomerations of more than 1 million people. That leaves 35%-ish of people in urban areas of less than 1 million people.

Between 25% and 30% of the Canadian population is estimated to so hard core a Conservative voter that, if you painted a pig blue and ran it in the election they’d vote it in to office. This statistic is actually really consistent across most western nations, with the exception of the US and Australia.

By and large rural voters vote Conservative. More to the point, most of them form the hard core of the conservative base: staunch and intractable social conservatives. Let’s call a spade a spade and say that the % of non-conservative rural voters is functionally a rounding error and that 20% of that 25%-30% of hard core conservative voters is rural.

The percentage of intractable core Conservative voters among individuals in urban agglomerations has been estimated at less than 5% of the urban agglomeration population, and that’s pretty much all in Calgary. We’ll call that 2.5% of the total Canadian population.

That leaves between 2.5% and 7.5% of the Canadian population who live in urban areas of less than 1 million people as the unmovable block of Conservative voters. In other words, the more rural you get, the more Conservative you get. Common knowledge, perhaps, but the statistics matter in this debate.

In today’s First Past The Post system 39% of the votes, if they’re the right votes, will get you 55% of the seats and 100% of the power.

If proportional representation of a % of the vote = % of the seats = % of the power system is adopted, then the Conservative party can no longer be assured of 100% of the power by moving towards the center only enough to convince 9% of Canadians that they’re the party likely to do the least amount of damage.

Under proportional representation if the conservatives what iron glove-levels of absolute power they will have to adopt more moderate views, and that risks severely alienating their socially conservative base. The conservative party is not monolithic. It has split before (remember the Reform party) and it threatens to do so again on a regular basis. (See: Conservatives and Wild Rose in Alberta.)

Why proportional representation?

Dispensing with political correctness (personal blogs are great that way), the reason that proportional representation is required is that the 20% of the population not living in cities don’t get to wield so much power that get to dictate what the 80% of women who live in cities can do with their bodies. I’m sorry if that’s a little forward, but after so much theoretical talk, a practical example is required.

By the same token, I’m pretty sure city folk have no business telling rural folk they can’t own guns.  Tyranny of the majority is no more acceptable than tyranny of the minority.  The balancing act is what we call politics.

Done right, proportional representation has a very beneficial side effect: it forces compromise. Ruling unopposed with an iron fist requires actually convincing the majority of a nation to elect you. In a Westminster-based multi-party parliamentary democracy that’s not exactly easy, and good luck to you with that in Canada.

Change happens slower, but to be perfectly blunt about it, that’s fine. The irresponsible overgrown children we keep electing to misgovern us end up having a significant portion of their lawmaking undone by the courts anyways, making the heedless rush to foist unconstitutional social change pointless expensive anyways.

Taking the extra time to make sure that laws will pass legal muster and don’t alienate over half the nation is a good thing, and something we are only likely to get from an electoral system that makes minority governments the likely outcome.

Why not proportional representation?

The biggest reason not to desire proportional representation is that huge chunks of Canada have almost nobody in them. What about those ridings up north with less than 100,000 people that get their own Minister of Parliament? Do their voices disappear?

Rural voters also deserve to be heard. You or I may disagree greatly with their views, but they are human beings and they deserve a voice in their government. Their beliefs deserve to be considered, and their struggles, failures, problems and triumphs all deserve just as much airtime in parliament as that of any other Canadian.

Cross purposes

The problem nobody wants to talk about is that minority groups aren’t represented by today’s system. When was the last time parliament really gave a bent damn about what happens in the Territories?

How many Canadians know about the horrors our government visited upon indigenous peoples through the Residential Schools system? Did you know that the last Residential School didn’t close until 1996>? Or that the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement wasn’t agreed to until 2005 and that our government didn’t apologize until 2008?

Okay, so it’s easy to point at indigenous peoples and say they’re marginalized. A whole lot of Canadians really don’t care about that, hence why they’re marginalized. But the system not serving minorities hasn’t exactly been doing wonders for the white rural voters either!

The whole reason that the Reform party came into existence – and why it keeps threatening to re-emerge – is that rural voters regularly feel they aren’t adequately represented by the Conservative party. And the truth of it is, they’re right!

25%-30% of the population being hard-core social conservative is between 14% and 9% shy of actually being able to form a majority government under First Past the Post and pass whatever laws you want. They don’t get to run things unless they convince others to vote with them.

Those 25%-30% of hard-line conservatives, however, by dint of refusing to ever vote for anyone except the most conservative party don’t actually matter. The only people that matter to whichever Conservative party happens to be dominant is the 9%-14% of voters necessary to gain power. The 25%-30% can be functionally ignored because they aren’t going anywhere.

These are some uncomfortable truths, by the are the real power dynamics that underpin our current electoral system. Having a few MPs for the territories doesn’t get those people representation. They’ve been ignored for ages and will continue to be unless something changes. Similarly, rural voters will continue to be taken for granted unless something changes.

That something is proportional representation.

Minorities represent!

In a proportional representation system minorities become kingmakers. Many on both sides view this as a bad thing; who wants those holding a political view in extreme opposition to theirs to be a “kingmaker”? In truth, however, this isn’t a bad thing.

There are a couple of ways minorities hold power in proportional representation. The first is minority governments. Minority governments don’t have enough votes to make law. Thus they have to find allies in independent members of parliament or with other parties. These alliances can change on an issue-to-issue or topic-to-topic basis.

Coalitions are another way this can work. In a coalition two or more parties agree at the formation of the legislature that they will hammer out a mutual agenda and govern as one. This usually leads to “horse trading”, where party platform items are negotiated amongst the parties in the coalition until an agreed upon set of laws for the term is reached.

Like any good compromise, both minority governments and coalitions result in combinations of laws that nobody really likes, but everyone can live with.

Ultimately, that’s politics. Canada is never going to be a socially conservative unrestricted free market paradise. It isn’t going to be a libertarian utopia or a socialist heaven either. Canada will always be a set of compromises made by the people who live – and lived – within her borders in the hopes that we can all live decent lives and not kill each other over ideological divisions.

Mixed Member Proportional

Some argue that Canada should adopt a Mixed Member Proportional solution which would, in essence, layer a number of new parliamentarians over the existing system. This would allow for individual ridings to elect a member based on a First Past The Post system and one or more representatives from a larger constituency.

In theory this allows small ridings to be represented by someone who, in theory, represents their local needs, cares about the same things they care about and will vote on their behalf. By adding a number of new representatives in much larger proportional constituencies votes from any one region could theoretically look more like the actual vote distribution.

This won’t work.

First off, Mixed Member Proportional will merely increase the number of representatives without really addressing anyone’s concerns. Amidst the much larger parliament those small local voices will be signal lost in the noise.

More the point, Mixed Member Proportional ignores the fact that, without parliamentary reforms that remove the right of party leaders to force MPs to vote along party lines, local MPs are useless. On the rare occasion they dissent against their party they get kicked out and their riding gerrymandered so that they won’t get re-elected.

Speaking of gerrymandering…it’s a huge problem, and it underlies why most of Canada is clamoring for proportional representation anyways. Gerrymandering is about changing the size and shape of ridings in order to change which party the members of that constituency will vote. Once difficult, in today’s era of Big Data analytics gerrymandering to get exactly the result you want is absurdly easy.

Today it is used to make sure that you can get elected with only that 39% of the right voices by the Conservatives, and to try to stretch that number out a bit by everyone else. It is frequently scrutinized and you can only tweak the numbers so much before people scream.

Under Mixed Member Proportional, however, all the focus will be on the proportional representatives, leaving the local ridings to get twisted into bizarre and non-representative configurations largely without notice. A minor concern compared to the rest, but a real one nonetheless.

Single Transferrable Vote

This brings us to Single Transferrable Vote. For reasons that would make this already lengthy blog far too long to read many of the existing Single Transferrable Vote systems are dumb and Canada should not adopt them.

Keeping things short, Canada should probably be looking at adopting a Single Transferrable Vote system with constituency sizes that are between 7 and 9 members. This lowers the threshold of votes for a party to elect a member in that constituency and gives small parties – or independents – a better chance of being elected.

Along with this, Canada should probably adopt an open list Single Transferrable Vote system. The reason is simple: open list gives voters more say in the individual MPs that get elected. Closed list leaves that up the party entirely, and local is complicated enough to make my head hurt something fierce.

Canada has a unique opportunity here to learn from the lessons of other nations. We have the option to choose the shape of our future in a very real, very tangible way.

An open list Single Transferrable Vote proportional representation system has the best chance of ensuring that every Canadian – especially the currently underrepresented, underserved and simply taken-for-granted minorities – have a say.

Yes, it will require that Canadians work together to build the future of our nation such that it benefits all of us instead of taking turns trying to thwart the “other side” like petty children. But isn’t that what being Canadian is about?

So let’s do this Canada. For you. For me. For all of us, wherever we live. It’s time to leave the electoral system of the 18th century in the past where it belongs and forge a new system to meet the needs of the 21st. A Canadian system.

The future is right around the corner.

Tags:

The Liberal party of Canada (the folks currently in charge) had their annual convention this weekend, and voted on fundamental stuff like “the party constitution”, “what should the party do”, etc.

Amongst other things, it is now party policy that the Liberal Party of Canada implement a Guaranteed Minimum Income strategy in Canada. In fact, from all discussions thus far, it looks like this will be a national implementation of Basic Minimum Income.

In theory, this could/would/should replace all other forms of safety net.  No more need for a government-sponsored pension plan, no more need for welfare, income plans for the disabled/ill/mentally ill/etc.   Every single person in Canada gets enough money from the government to pay rent buy food and so forth.

If you want to live somewhere other than a not very nice place in a not very nice part of town, own a car or other things, you must have a job and supplement the government income.  Progressive taxation will work as per normal and the whole thing should be accomplishable without raising taxes.  (A shocking amount of efficiency is possible when you collapse multiple bloated government departments down to one fairly simple one.)

If implemented, this is world changing.  Literally, actually world changing.  Canada would be the first G7 nation to eliminate poverty within its borders.  I could conceivably live to see social change that I would consider “birth of the federation” class advancement in the fundamental decency of socioeconomic policy.

I can only ask: “what took so ****ing long”?

Faith is the enemy of success

TAGS: None

I realize this is highly impolitic to say, in tech it is a really bad idea to be one of those people who allow their faith to guide their every decision.  Believe whatever you want, but the idea that things will work out “just because”, or because a given group/individual/organization was traditionally (or is currently) dominant is patently absurd.

Faith in this context doesn’t mean simply belief in a deity of some variety.  People – especially in tech – become irrationally attached to corporations.  Especially if employed by them.  This attachment becomes faith, as strong as any religious devotion, and just as irrationally immune to logic or evidence.

Just because Microsoft, for example, traditionally dominated the endpoint market doesn’t mean they will forever.  Indeed, by most calculations Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) have a much higher share of the endpoint market than Microsoft.

In response, Redmondian faithful limit the discussion to only talk about traditional desktops and notebooks, because limiting it to that subset of endpoint means that they can continue to believe they are dominant.  They then use their “dominance” to justify all sorts of upsetting things, ranging from compromising the integrity of the Windows Update mechanism (including the Security Updates portion!) to removing the right to control updates, to obscene VDI licensing.

That this fanboyism persists beyond the corporate borders is even more alarming.  It affects customers, partners, ecosystem developers and, sadly even journalists and analysts.  (In my personal opinion this would include Ed Bott as regards Microsoft and Gartner as regards, for example, NetApp.)

I submit to all present that VMware is purposefully fostering this level of Blind Faith.  They are actively attempting to build it not only amongst the customer base – as would be expected from any current competent marketing outfit – but that they are working exceptionally hard to create such an environment amongst their own staff.

This is a problem.

Staff who are blindly loyal to their organization contribute to corporate hubris.  They are incapable of objectively analysing competitors for threats.  They are also trapped in a logic loop where customer needs equate to the product sold, and nothing more.

For many, the foundation of this loop is that customers continue to buy the product(s) in question.  Sales are taken as validation that all is well and that nothing needs to change.  The concept of “they aren’t customers, they’re hostages” is heresy and can’t seem to be considered directly by the mind of the faithful.

For VMware the result is a company where the majority of their staff are simply unable to conceive that their private/hybrid cloud software is wholly inadequate, both in functionality and in pricing.   The minority that speak up are considered trouble makers.  They are either disciplined or subjected to intense peer pressure to keep quiet.

The same holds true for VSAN.  Dogma says it is adequately priced, superior to all opponents and required no major evolution.  Any new functionality that is added – to VSAN, the cloud suite or anything else – is not due to need, desire or requirement.  It is a “gift” to the customer base, developers and ecosystem partners from VMware.

And if those groups aren’t adequately grateful, VMware will retaliate.

We can change names and products and have this conversation about many organizations.  Oracle comes immediately to mind, and is certainly worse about corporate hubris than VMware.  (Though the argument about who is worse, Oracle or Microsoft, could go on for ages.)

Roadmaps can and do exist at these organizations.  They may even address some or all of the concerns that customers or analysts have.  Unfortunately, once a corporation has reached an adequate level of hubris those roadmaps tend to be too little, too late.

Microsoft, for example, is kicking VMware’s ass at private and hybrid cloud ease of use.  The Azure stack should be viewed by VMware as a screaming klaxon of emergency WTF, but it is functionally ignored at all decision-making levels of the organization.  VMware has their nearly impossible to install, configure, administer and use vRealize suite and since that is seeing horrible uptake, clearly the market for private/hybrid clouds is limited.

Boy are they in for a rude awakening!

Similarly, there are still companies out there – from startups to VMware itself – selling (and pricing) hyperconvergence as though it were a product.  It’s not.  It’s a feature.  And all those many and myriad companies that can’t wrap their minds around it are going to get wrecked in very short order.

The examples are many.  The companies and products and failures I can pick on are many.  But it keeps circling back to one thing:

Faith.

The instant you rely on faith to justify your belief in your company’s inevitable and unending dominance you’re done.  You don’t serve your company because you have lost your objectivity and are thus blind to threats.  When the majority of a company – or even just the majority of charismatic influencers who can bring social pressure to bear – at a company relies on faith the whole of the organization’s fate is sealed.

Leave faith behind when attempting analysis.  Of your own company.  Of your competition.  Of anyone.  If you don’t, you may find that the company to which you’ve dedicated your faith is just another name on the list of “might have beens” that litter the history of tech.

© 2009 drink the sweet feeling of the colour zero. All Rights Reserved.

This blog is powered by the Wordpress platform and beach rentals.