RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/9/2011 10:40:31 PM

BenevolentM

Posts: 3394
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're an engineer and you don't understand the concept that sometimes it is impossible to define or measure all the variables of something before hand?

The more important variables will usually be understood in advance. The point is, the government appears to have no interest in actually achieving their stated goals. In engineering the stated goal, is the goal. You were hired to build a bridge, then that is what you are going to set yourself out to do. Putting it another way, you aren't two faced about it.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 21

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 12:49:52 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

In bridges inconstant variables are dealt with using either flexible materials or expansion joints. I think the point of the OP is that they leave it so open and imprecise that the latitude afforded is excessive. It would be analogous to using an eighteen inch expansion joint every 1½ car lengths on a seventy five yard long bridge. Almost no precison is required.

It was said that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but extremely fine. I guess the working parts are all worn out now.

T

(in reply to BenevolentM)

Post #: 22

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 12:54:41 AM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

In bridges inconstant variables are dealt with using either flexible materials or expansion joints. I think the point of the OP is that they leave it so open and imprecise that the latitude afforded is excessive. It would be analogous to using an eighteen inch expansion joint every 1½ car lengths on a seventy five yard long bridge. Almost no precison is required.

It was said that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but extremely fine. I guess the working parts are all worn out now.

T

What the hell is an "inconstant variable"? Is that, like, a variable that varies?

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 23

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 12:59:35 AM

gungadin09

Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
...I bet my left nut that fallen civilizations had one thing in common. They didn't see it coming...

Argue that.

Well, technically, healthy civilizations don't see it coming either, because it isn't coming. (lol)

i think nobody sees their own doom coming, regardless of whether they SHOULD. But, i take Your point.

Getting back to Steven's point:

- i don't think the OP intended to deny the presence of multiple variables (constant or otherwise)on public policy, to speculate about whether engineers would do a better (or worse) job running the country, to assert that it's not possible for various experts to have various opinions about the effectiveness and fiscal impact of a bill, to claim that politicians should NOT try to inform the public about where the money comes from, etc.

i believe He is merely claiming that politicians should not DELIBERATELY CONFUSE the matter by doing their math in such a way as to make it impossible for the public to assign any real meaning to the results; thereby allowing the politicians to interpret them (the results) in whichever way best suits their needs. Or, in other words, accusing the politicians of "doctoring" their own math for the purpose of deceiving and confusing the public. Giving the public a magic show instead of real numbers. Rendering it impossible to make an informed decision based on facts.

pam

< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 1/10/2011 1:32:15 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 24

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 1:08:25 AM

BenevolentM

Posts: 3394
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

In bridges inconstant variables are dealt with using either flexible materials or expansion joints. I think the point of the OP is that they leave it so open and imprecise that the latitude afforded is excessive. It would be analogous to using an eighteen inch expansion joint every 1½ car lengths on a seventy five yard long bridge. Almost no precison is required.

I am wondering if such a bridge would be stable. The system is working, but for reasons that are mysterious. I do not feel your analogy to be a good one. Its more like how a honey bee is able to fly.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 25

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 1:10:11 AM

RapierFugue

Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peacefulplace

Call me crazy (and you wouldn't be the first--har, har, har), but this seems to be something inherent in American thinking right now. There are no absolutes. Nothing can be proven. Question everything, even if there is rational evidence for it (global warming, anyone? Evolution?). I'm sure it's enough to make an engineer's head explode. Or any rational person's, for that matter. Regardless of the language used, until Americans begin thinking clearly instead of blindly following ideology, this "fuzzy math" is here to stay in this brave new world.

It's not just America ... I've noticed the same trend towards vagueness and "the costs can't be fully known at this juncture" stuff here (UK) as well, and it's becoming more frequent. PMQ (Prime Minister's Questions) used to be a session where the Opposition asked pertinent questions of the PM, usually in order to showcase what they perceived as errors or omissions - now it's just a political handbagging session.

It is (IMHO) all related to the "spin" vocabulary, as Steven referenced initially; an example: last year a new computer system was implemented which took online returns of VAT (which all businesses, large and small, must submit on a quarterly basis). Previously, one could submit these figures (vital for taxation income) either on paper, via the post, or online, via the Government's web portal. Except, of course, whoever did the scalability testing ballsed it up, so when the system went to online only, for all businesses, there were significant issues for a number of users. This was immediately blamed on a “computer error”. So that's ok then ... except ...

Whoa! Hold on a second! Computers don't make “errors” – they do what their hardware and software tell them to do, which in turn is directed by human endeavour. In other words, if you design and build a crappy system, or a good system in a crappy way, then yes, obviously, the computers involved will shit themselves and go for a bit of a lie-down. But to blame a human error (in testing and deployment terms) on a computer is a bit like blaming an iceberg for sinking the Titanic; it wasn’t the iceberg’s fault, it’s just a sodding enormous chunk of ice; it was a series of errors in systems, designs and processes on the ship itself that caused the problem.

Now of course you can say “it’s just semantics, it doesn't matter”, but I've noticed the language government uses to describe its own failings is now (and I mean, over the course of the last few governments, so not an exclusively left or right wing thing) routinely “spun” to shift blame for failure onto elements the government can claim to have little or no control over. That's fundamentally wrong; where you have power and authority without responsibility you're well on your way to either anarchy or a dictatorship, depending on which extreme it moves towards. People have a right to expect their government to be as transparent in its endeavours as humanly possible, and the fact this doesn't happen anymore (I can’t recall the last time I saw a minister resign on a matter of principle, for example) is cause for concern.

(in reply to peacefulplace)

Post #: 26

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 1:17:30 AM

BenevolentM

Posts: 3394
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

What the hell is an "inconstant variable"? Is that, like, a variable that varies?

The terminology is not as nonsensical as you might think. There are few constants in nature. There are a handful of physical constants that have been identified by physicists and that is about it. Apart from the physical constants the degree in which something is a constant or variable is simply a matter of degree. Even rocks over millions of years will bend like taffy, but this is not a relevant concern when you are building a bridge. These are your constant variables. As a factual matter it is a variable, but one that is stable enough where you can realistically ignore this fact. An inconstant variable is one that you cannot ignore.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 27

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 1:36:37 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

UFR ( yes, a new acronym ! )

"Is that, like, a variable that varies? "

Exactly.

"i think nobody sees their own doom coming, regardless of whether they SHOULD."

Should they ? Now there's a question that cuts a different kerf.

"The system is working, but for reasons that are mysterious."

Not really. Tricky numbers, slants and spins, outright prevarication. Of course it is puzzling until we delve into who gets what for saying what.

"I've noticed the same trend towards vagueness and "the costs can't be fully known at this juncture" stuff here "

Try getting a business loan like that. There is alot of it going around, nobody knows anything I guess. I could walk in there and say : I am going to hire fifty people at this much each, buy fifty computers, get T1 and a network up, set it up in a suite of offices that will cost $____ per month, utilities are estimated at $___. Revenue will come from __________ and the expectations due to initial research indicates that within ___ months we will be at the break even point. Cut the variables out. Sure there are some, but they do not even try, in fact I think it's possible, as DS seems to assert, that they specifically try not to, thus leaving the door open for abuse. With an open ended budget wouldn't you ? I probably would. Right now it is my job to be precise, but for others that is not the case.

One way is to operate a government for profit. In fact it is the only way. But then they pretend to not operate for profit. Cut past that, and you'll get a glimpse of the real chase.

T

(in reply to RapierFugue)

Post #: 28

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 1:46:16 AM

RapierFugue

Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
With an open ended budget wouldn't you ? I probably would. Right now it is my job to be precise, but for others that is not the case.

I'm just one of those funny, old fashioned dinosaurs who thinks we should hold our governments to a higher standard, not a lower one.

It used to be (here, not sure how it works in the US) that, when a major system went in, that it had to be within at least the same postal district and decade as the original estimate; if it wasn't, the minister responsible was held accountable, and would be fired, and they (the politicians) knew that, and thus tended to do their best to help things along. Now it's "well yes it's 100 million over budget and 5 years late but there are good reasons for that so no I don't think I'll be resigning anytime soon". Nowadays you only have to resign if you get caught with your trousers down or your hand in the till.

ETA: And sometimes, not even then.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 29

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 2:12:24 AM

gungadin09

Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"i think nobody sees their own doom coming, regardless of whether they SHOULD."

Should they ? Now there's a question that cuts a different kerf.

Damn You and Your SAT words that i have to look up.... DAAAAAAAAMMMNNN YOOOOOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pam

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 30

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 3:10:28 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

- i don't think the OP intended to deny the presence of multiple variables (constant or otherwise)on public policy, to speculate about whether engineers would do a better (or worse) job running the country, to assert that it's not possible for various experts to have various opinions about the effectiveness and fiscal impact of a bill, to claim that politicians should NOT try to inform the public about where the money comes from, etc.

i believe He is merely claiming that politicians should not DELIBERATELY CONFUSE the matter by doing their math in such a way as to make it impossible for the public to assign any real meaning to the results; thereby allowing the politicians to interpret them (the results) in whichever way best suits their needs. Or, in other words, accusing the politicians of "doctoring" their own math for the purpose of deceiving and confusing the public. Giving the public a magic show instead of real numbers. Rendering it impossible to make an informed decision based on facts.

pam

Beauty AND brains together in one package. *Sigh*....

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to gungadin09)

Post #: 31

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 4:06:47 AM

gungadin09

Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

i'm wondering if Steven thinks the situation is any better in other countries?

pam

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 32

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 4:46:31 AM

RapierFugue

Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

i'm wondering if Steven thinks the situation is any better in other countries?

I can't speak for Steven, but I've done business with the UK, US and several European governments (while working for various companies); the US government was by far the most bloated in the “spin and woolly math” area – there was (on the 2 projects I worked on, one in a senior capacity) a general attitude of “we’ll get figures on that for you when we’ve got more details”, despite some of the numbers being pre-requisites for producing an accurate (or even semi-accurate) project plan. And, most of the time, those figures never made an appearance; this was fine by us as we were billing in a “time & materials” model, but the departments concerned probably flushed about an extra 15-20% down the drain by forcing us to work in a “make it up as you go along” fashion.

The UK government were worst in the “pointless governance* hoops you have to jump through before you can get anywhere” area – they made life as difficult as possible for no clearly demonstrable return, and even when you can demonstrate, with examples, that their own system is working against them they absolutely will not, ever, change the process to either save money or time; no-one in authority wants to engage in any meaningful way with the companies they're doing business with.

Overall, I’d say the easiest and most accurate overall were, oddly (and I wouldn’t have picked this one ahead of time) the Portuguese, who I found exceptionally easy to deal with, and who seemed to come to the table with very clear ideas and very accurately worked-out budgets for everything, down to a fairly fine level of detail. Where grey areas existed they made intelligent estimates, and labelled them as such (so there was a clear understanding of what was higher risk and what wasn't) and as a result projects with them tended to be delivered on time and to budget.

Occupying the middle ground there were Germans (great planning but slow to react when anything didn't go the way they thought it was going to, i.e. not great at moving fast and thinking on their feet, but still efficient and hard-working nonetheless) and the Italians (doing business with the Italian government wasn't quite as chaotic as I thought it would be, but it wasn't a picnic either) and the French (difficult to start with, but fine once you'd established the relationships needed to drive something through. In other words, it’s who you know, not what you know. Also very good at seniors removing blockers to change, a.k.a. applying a boot to someone’s arse when they were being deliberately difficult. But always remember to let a French person get the credit for each and every thing or they tend to get a bit sulky).

*I'm all for good governance, but the UK’s bloated conditions for private companies to meet before they’ll start talking to you are, in some sectors, beyond a joke. It’s like someone bought a job-lot of red tape sometime in the mid-80s, and we’re still working our way through it now. The system is also hugely biased in favour of large companies – for some reason UK governments seem to see working with larger corporations as a way of de-risking projects, when in practice it’s usually anything but.

(in reply to gungadin09)

Post #: 33

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 5:24:54 AM

gungadin09

Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue

...I've done business with the UK, US and several European governments (while working for various companies); the US government was by far the most bloated in the “spin and woolly math” area – there was...a general attitude of “we’ll get figures on that for you when we’ve got more details”, despite some of the numbers being pre-requisites for producing an accurate (or even semi-accurate) project plan. And, most of the time, those figures never made an appearance; this was fine by us as we were billing in a “time & materials” model, but the departments concerned probably flushed about an extra 15-20% down the drain by forcing us to work in a “make it up as you go along” fashion...

That would seem to indicate a problem with professionalism or efficiency, rather than "spinning" the math in order to deceive. Am i misunderstanding You?

At the risk of starting another nationalistic flame war, i am curious to know peoples' opinions about whether politicians in the U.S. are more, less, or equally likely to present the public with misdirected math IN ORDER TO MANIPULATE THEM.

pam

< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 1/10/2011 5:29:36 AM >

(in reply to RapierFugue)

Post #: 34

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 5:32:03 AM

RapierFugue

Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
That would seem to indicate a problem with professionalism, rather than "spinning" the math in order to deceive. Am i misunderstanding You?

I couldn't say, since I'm not aware of what you are, and are not, understanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
At the risk of starting another nationalistic flame war, i am curious to know peoples' opinions about whether politicians in the U.S. are more, less, or equally likely to present the public with misdirected math IN ORDER TO MANIPULATE THEM.[/color]

My experience is that the US government uses woolly maths in order to deceive those holding the purse strings as to how much given projects are likely to cost, by a combination of idiocy and obfuscation. My experience is, further, that they are more likely to do this more often than other governments I've had experience of dealing with. I really can’t make it any clearly than that without access to a whiteboard. Although I could probably bung together a PowerPoint presentation in an hour or so, but I don't think either of us wants that ;)

(in reply to gungadin09)

Post #: 35

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 5:36:05 AM

gungadin09

Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

Thank You. That was the clarification i was looking for.

pam

(in reply to RapierFugue)

Post #: 36

RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. - 1/10/2011 12:32:40 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

UFR

The direction of this intercourse reminds me of something I read about many years ago. It was about foreign automakers and how they could deliver a product at a lower cost, even with comparable quality. The author asserted that American companies used cost driven pricing while Japanese companies used price driven costing.

It's not as cryptic as it sounds. The way I read it, here an engineer was tasked to design an automobile. After all the costs are added up, and the profit margin determined, they generated the price of the new car. Alternately a Japanese manufacturer puts the engineer on building it for a certain cost. "We are going to sell these for $XXXX, they must run, stop, turn, have lights, a heater and a radio would be nice, and it can't fall apart too soon as we will have a warranty. Get it done for this much. If you can get it done satisfactorily for less, we might just find you a nice bonus".

When impelled by market forces to turn a profit, you can control costs. You simply refuse to pay more than what is alloted for whatever, be it labor or components. It is that simple. Henry Ford did not invent the car, he made it because he invented the affordable car. Imagine his thoughts more in layman's terms - "They are raking me over the coals for steel, glass, just about every damn thing. Fukum, I'll make all that myself". Period.

Nowadays hardly anyone has the gonads to operate that way. Just pass the cost on to the customer. Much easier in a captive market, and if there ever was a truly captive market, it is those who are governed, and supposedly served, by what amounts to the only game in town. How could we expect any different result ?

T

(in reply to gungadin09)

Post #: 37

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.096