SlideshowThe Wit & Wisdom of David Hughes

David Hughes, in Action

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
kq4ym 11/21/2017 | 10:58:53 AM
Re: Crumbs Yes, imagine that scenario if all the transport vehicles just died. Or all the power stations in an area. Quite a lot of question and answers awaiting to solve the complex issues and tradeoffs to be considered in systems design.
mendyk 11/10/2017 | 2:12:00 PM
Re: Crumbs There are trees, and there is a forest. There's a glass of water, and there's an ocean.
brooks7 11/10/2017 | 2:08:45 PM
Re: Crumbs Actually it is an old thing the "automation of thinking".  Has been happening for about 30 years in the CAD/CAM world.  Heck I wrote an Automatic Test Program Generator in 1980.


mendyk 11/10/2017 | 9:39:12 AM
Re: Crumbs There are exceptions to every generality. For every Wozniak, there are 100 non-Wozniaks. Or maybe 117 of them. And they basically work from the same playbook. As for this iteration of automation being different, it will be when the degree of automation allows for autonomous operation of networks. That's not something that will happen for a while, but it will happen. The focus of automation -- not just nonmanual labor but also thinking -- also makes this different, but that's not specific to telecom. As for outsourcing, you get what you pay for. I wouldn't trust a mission-essential job to temps. I'm not even sure the CXO playbook would advocate for that.
brooks7 11/10/2017 | 2:18:39 AM
Re: Crumbs Dennis,

It is that last bit that I would argue with.  That is a pretty broad brush to paint say Steve Wozniak with.  Employment is a business transaction.  An employee (including the CEO) is selling their time and effort for the money they make.  Good leaders recognize good employees and work to retain them when they can.  But circumstance does not mean that this is a permanent thing.  It is like any other contract.  Unfortunately, people talk about "loyalty" to a corporation.  The purpose of a corporation is to make the shareholders money.  Any notions beyond that are just invalid.  Why would some shareholder in some mutual fund care anything about any person at the company?  All of that is lies that we like to tell ourselves.  The best public venue for that is the NFL.  The day that a player is no longer useful, he is cut.  If there is public sentiment for him (which might lead to lowered revenue if he is upset), then the team might ease him out of his job.  I assume that is why they sign indivdual contracts, otherwise teams would have to go through the entire process that normal employers do to fire someone.

And you have posted about automation and job loss in other threads.  In at least one of those, you considered this automation different than other examples.

And there is a completely simple way to deal with retention issues.  Outsource the work if people quit so that you have a better flexible staffing model.  Since none of the work that they do does not matter in the long term, the loss of the IP to the subcontractor really doesn't matter.  Which, by the way, is one of the huge advantages that the cable guys have had.  


Duh! 11/9/2017 | 2:56:44 PM
Re: Crumbs As long as we have TCP slow-start and congestion avoidance, latency is a proxy for throughput. In an era of 1G access/100+G transport, prop delay is the overwhelmingly dominant source of latency: 4.9 µs/km.
mendyk 11/9/2017 | 9:39:45 AM
Re: Crumbs Not sure where you get the "this is different" message. In this specific case, you are pulling in a limited number of people who are going to enable the automation that will let your company ultimately reduce its headcount in a significant way (theoretically). If your concern is that you won't be able to retain the people who will make that transition possible, then you need to figure out a way to retain those people. It's pretty simple -- and has almost no chance of being adopted because people in management tend to have close to zero respect for the people whose work makes their own jobs possible. And they tend to have very limited abilities to solve problems creatively.
brooks7 11/9/2017 | 1:34:07 AM
Re: Crumbs That is an optimization Carol.  They better be able to drive when the network is completely dead or they will go noplace - literally.  So they might be connected, but completely 100% functional disconnected.  Imagnine a DDOS attack stopping all cars in the US.  See what I mean?


Carol Wilson 11/8/2017 | 11:23:46 PM
Re: Crumbs Self-driving cars  will also be connected cars. Traffic and safety information will still have to come into the car, from external sources.  
brooks7 11/8/2017 | 7:45:32 PM
Re: Crumbs Of course, if you put the computer in the car then you don't have to worry about the hiccup in comms driving your car into the wall (in other words, self driving cars MUST be self-contained).


Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Sign In