Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Thrice-weekly postal deliveries: Pound wise or pound foolish?

I was reading a fascinating article in The Economist about the U.S. Postal Service, and a few things came to mind:

  • Hmm, the comments are delightfully civil and informative!
  • Can I count on one hand the number of postal items I receive quarterly -- perhaps even yearly -- that I actually want?  Why, yes, I probably can!
  • What would happen if the U.S. Postal Service delivered only three days per week (say, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday)?
This latter idea, then, prompted me to wonder the following:
  1. Would this pose an actual hardship on people, and if so, would it (I assume) most likely hit the economically-disadvantaged more heavily?  And if so, in what ways?  Could other factors/proposals mitigate the potential hardship?
  2. What if the U.S. Government got out of postal delivery altogether, perhaps in conjunction with some sort of requirement (stick) or deep incentives (carrot) prompting private delivery companies to continue delivering to loss-leaders (rural areas)?
  3. Is the postal service largely public in most, or even all other industrialized nations?
  4. What about a subsidy or other incentive for households or even apartment complexes which offered to accept minimized or even eliminated postal delivery services?
Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily proposing that pickup from centralized locations be reduced or eliminated.

Your thoughts?

Saturday, January 15, 2011

How employment at prominent tech firms stymies open communication

Let me first get the disclaimers out of the way:

  • I have worked at Google since March, 2006.
  • I do not speak on behalf of Google in this blog, nor do my views necessarily dovetail with those of other Googlers; I've historically held more of a public-facing role than most Googlers, so I have heightened sensitivities.
  • I believe prominent technology firms -- certainly including Google -- contribute many things to the world that improve communications and societal openness.
*  *  *

Do people who work at Google / Yahoo / Microsoft / Facebook resent the fact that they can't genuinely speak up on the Internet and have to do so anonymously, in most cases?
This really hit home for me, and I decided that I'd outline the many ways in which I (and presumably many others) are forbidden from communicating in some ways and -- more commonly -- feel uncomfortable expressing ourselves in specific ways or on a variety of topics.

Stuff I am not allowed to discuss...
This is perhaps the most obvious category, the list of what employees like me are typically forbidden from communicating. 

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Fashion vs. fit

A friend of mine recently posted a note (sorry, not publicly accessible) asking people what they thought about fashion.  She's quite the fashionista... and sadly, I am not.  Here, for your reading pleasure, is the comment I wrote in response to her note:

*  *  *

Sorry, but I pretty much think negatively of "fashion."  I see the stuff people wear on catwalks, for instance, and I want to laugh or gag or both.  I see what "fashionable" people wear, particularly ones who push the envelope, and I think... gah, if my friend/family-member wore something like that, I'd hide in embarrassment.

Now in contrast, there's the concept of fit, which I think is very important (and is something I darn well should be paying better attention to).  Often times, I see what would otherwise be very attractive folks, for instance, wearing clothes that either accentuate a body flaw or failing to wear clothes that accentuate their body strengths.

As a personal example:  I'm pretty short for a guy, so I should apparently not be wearing flashy belts or horizontally striped shirts or other stuff that separate the visual vertical flow of my body, causing me to look shorter.  On a related note, hats and haircuts and glasses and such really ought to be selected according to fit rather than according to the latest fashion to account for differently shaped faces and so on.

These fit considerations, IMHO, are enduring, whereas fashion (or at least my perception of it) is less based in aethetical science and more based upon, ZOMG, [insert name of horrendously overrated actor] is wearing [article of clothing or accessory], so I MUST wear that!!!!!!!!1

In fact, if anything, I find that a slavish attention to fashion results in far too many people looking really awful whereas if these same folks instead focused on better fitting clothing (a custom tailored suit, for instance), they'd look 100x better.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Where is the artistic passion? Thoughts on passion in society

On my blog post yesterday, my friend Righini had commented in part:
[...] i notice how much love you put in everything you do from writings to music, and i'm amazed and my heart feels warmed! What's your secret root? Where do you take all this strength?
I started to write a really, really long reply in the comments, and then realized... hmm, perhaps I should just make this into a post, so here I am! :-)

*  *  *

I truly believe that everyone has enormous passion inside, but this too often gets stifled due to fear, ignorance, lack of inspiration and role models, and lastly, distraction ("SQUIRREL!" :p). Some examples:


Fear of being different
Drawing from Hollywood (eeep!)... on "Glee" there's an athlete who had tons of music in his soul, but was afraid to let it out for fears of being ostracized by peers.

There's a reason in the U.S. that kids playing instruments in band are (usually derisively) called "Band Geeks" or "Choir Fags."  Maybe now it's more cool to be in choir or band, but back when I was in high school, it generally wasn't.  I think kids often repress the expressive depths of their passion (in all forms) because they're afraid of being different, and -- in the case of guys -- quite possibly afraid of being perceived as feminine or even gay.


Sunday, June 27, 2010

Games, sex, funerals just taking too long nowadays

This is an oldie-but-goodie and previously unpublished AdamRant that I drafted, oh, about five years ago.  Neither the trends described nor my indignant stances on the matter seem to have changed all that much, though :-)

*  *  *
[...] "A lot of people are strapped for time, and they don't want to pull out a game if they know it's going to be an hour or more," said Reyne Rice, toy trends specialist at the Toy Industry Association.

Faster games are easier for families to fit into their hectic lives, she said.

"What we call 'time compression' is becoming an overbearing trend in our industry," said Richard Tait, co-founder of board game company Cranium.

With kids' schedules packed with afterschool activities and homework, and the rise in both dual-income and single-parent families, Tait said it is hard for families to find time to play board games -- especially new ones they haven't played before.
[...] 
- AP Newswire article, "The games are getting faster"

Well, folks, in light of this change in our culture, I have invented a surefire winner of a game!  My game -- which I'm so kindly sharing with all of you for free -- is...
- Simple... no rulebook needed!
- Fast... can be done in literally under a minute!
- Cheap... costs only pennies!
- Easy... you don't even have to be in the same room as your competitors!

Ready?  Okay, here goes...
- Each player takes a penny.
- Before flipping it in the air, they call tails or heads.
- If they are correct, they win.  If not, they lose.

If you're feeling really extravagant and have lots of extra time, you can actually do a best two-out-of-three.  And if it's not high tech enough for you, hire someone in India to do a randomized Flash movie of this, so you don't even have to touch a real penny... you can press a button and have it flipped for you!

*  *  *

Okay, on a serious note, this article bummed me out.

The quotes -- almost Onioneque in a way -- are so pathetic, they'd be laughable if they weren't, well, said in earnest.
"We ended up playing for 30 minutes or 40 minutes. It whizzed by."
Oh.  My.  God.  People actually playing something together for over half an hour?  What is this world coming to?  Tell me, dear, did you feel just as guilty about watching inane TV programs for 31.5 hours a week?

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Photos and the physical, nostalgia, and the why

I'm getting ready to move.

Hmm, that sounded more philosophical / metaphysical than I may have intended.

I'm getting ready to move bodies to a new apartment.  Not exactly sure when or where, but already I'm inventory'ing my things, realizing just how little I own (no furniture aside from a bed, dresser, desk, and some bookshelves) and yet how much crap I've accumulated, including both boxes of amorphous stuff and things that, well, should be valuable to me.

A plethora of photo albums.  Yearbooks.  And yet more boxes filled with an assemblage of handwritten letters, high school newspapers and term papers, and the like.

These take up space, the physical, to be frank, more than the mental or emotional.  I don't really think about the distant past all that much, for better or worse.  Don't really have close friends from high school (my fault more than theirs), and -- as a card-carrying geek then as now-- let me just bluntly admit that school days were not necessarily my best of days.

I've already scanned thousands of my old photos, probably close to 100% of them in fact, with the very awesome ScanCafe service.  But these new digital files supplement, rather than replace the physical incarnations.

Or do they?  I was just realizing that -- except for doublechecking that all my pics got appropriately scanned -- I haven't spent more than a handful of minutes over the last years perusing my hardcopy photos.  Have you?  And how about those high school yearbooks?  Ten years after high school, have you given them more than a passing glance?

And whether you answer yes or no... I think a more interesting question is why.  If you still lasciviously / lovingly / longingly linger over your old photos and yearbooks, why?  If not, why not?... and would you actually consider junking them? (or perhaps you already have?)

Very curious to hear your thoughts... :)

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Fall from grace - inevitable?

We create, we destroy.  We build up, we tear town.

People, companies, and relationships amongst them all.

Perhaps on a small and personal scale, it may be possible to maintain strength and joy.  I believe it is.  But can this work on a bigger, louder canvas?  I am not so sure.

How many greats have escaped a fall?  Whose big names or brands have soared to great heights, never to have their wings melted and the fall begin?

If you agree that this trajectory is inevitable, should it be? If you disagree, name names :-D

In the meantime, here are two songs—one more serious, one quite humorous—to set the mood.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Dear FB, Twitter - We want narrowcasting, not just broadcasting!

Earlier this week, I wanted to send a Facebook message to my dancer friends in the Bay Area  to invite them to a local event.  I ended up manually sifting through my entire friends list, since there’s no way to invite or message an intersection of friends.  Similarly, I wanted to post a twitter note to my Google buddies in a particular geographic region, but Twitter doesn’t support any sort of useful narrowcasting, either.

Basically, social service nowadays seem hellbent on having us share our lives and connect with more and more people.  I don’t want that, and I’m betting a lot of you feel the same way:  we want to deepen our relationships with our current friends, share details of our lives with the friends who are most likely interested in those particular details, and so on.

A lot of the brouhaha over FBs aggressive more-sharing push has been over privacy, but in the rush to protest “ZOMG, I don’t want my mom to know THAT!” the complementary concerns of narrowcasting have been largely ignored.  I’m personally a lot less worried about someone finding out something I don’t want them to know about, and far more concerned about burning out my friends with info they find irrelevant and uninteresting.

Is it not madness that I can’t post a note joking about a local politician just to my Mountain View  friends?  This highlights one of a great many situations in which there are no privacy issues (I’m not trying to keep my bad sense of humor a secret from my friends in Europe), but rather that my friends outside MV aren’t likely to care about this topic.  And worse yet, these friends will likely stop reading my posts altogether unless I either post less overall (a bummer!) or magically somehow write entries that are appealing and relevant across my diverse group of friends (pretty impossible).

*  *  *
I think I speak for most of us non-hermit’y types in noting that:
  • Our sphere of acquaintances and friends is growing at an astonishing rate… due to the awesome people we meet online, at work, via friends, from family members, etc.
  • We have an innate desire to stay in touch with many of these folks and to share interesting and relevant stuff with them.
  • Relationships are not symmetrical, nor are the related communications desires!  I may hang on the every brilliant and witty word of a friend, but she may be, um, less fascinated with my mutterings (while still wanting to keep in touch with me overall)
  • There should be easier ways for us to finetune who (and what groups) we share with and who we hear from… beyond the scope of privacy considerations.
    • For instance, it’d be awesome to be able to tell our computer: “I want to share this musing with my friends who love hiking and are within 20 miles of Mountain View” or, conversely, “Highlight messages from friends who live nearby me and aren’t talking about politics.”
But alas, services like Facebook seem to be lately more concerned about giving people a megaphone than letting them share and filter more effectively.  They’re amplifying and extending the noise, which from what I gather, is more likely to alienate people than have them maintain Facebook as part of their daily routine.  And that’s a shame.

*  *  *

What do you think?
- Do you share my interests in narrowcasting?
- Or do I have an unusually large addressbook and/or overly geeky demands re: sharing and filtering?
- Are you familiar with any services that are helping folks connect more deeply vs. broadly?

Sunday, November 29, 2009

A heartwarming story about bridging the culture gap

[I wrote this years ago, but had posted it on a site I no longer maintain; I thought it might be nice to share it with you now.]

As many of you may already know, I spent over a year total in Europe during and immediately after finishing grad school in ‘98. My experiences included an amazing mixture of triumphs, tragedies, laughter, adventure, confusion, and pretty much every other emotion one can have… but compressed in time and on foreign soil.

While I regret not keeping any semblance of a diary during my time in Europe, I still carry a wealth of knowledge and emotions in me… much of which bubbles to the surface at random times. For whatever reason, one event came to mind tonight, and it made me smile.

During my initial 3 month internship in Europe, I was dying to ‘taste’ as much of the continent as I could. My workplace was next to a train station, and nearly every other Friday I’d bring a small suitcase to work, and spin the virtual Europe-roulette-wheel (and consult the weather forecasts) to pick a travel destination for the upcoming weekend. I’d then leave straight from work, typically take an overnight train, spend Saturday and Sunday at my destination, and arrive back—sleepy eyed and exhausted—to work Monday morning.

Spontaneity and adventure sometimes gave way, however, to frustrating circumstances… including nasty weather, obnoxious hostel (and hostile) roommates, and in some cases, lack of an available nearby hostel at all. Such was the case when I arrived in Luxembourg one weekend… forcing me to scour surrounding smaller cities for lodging. When I finally discovered a hostel with vacancies in a far outlying town of the main city, I was none too thrilled to find myself alone at this hostel… except for a gaggle of giggling teenage German tourists from what turned out to be a church group outing. They ate at their reserved table for dinner within the hostel, and I ate, basically alone and lonely, by myself in another corner… understandably not wanting to butt in on a chaperoned group of young’uns.

To my annoyance, they’d occasionally look at me with eyes that seemed to mockingly ask, “What is that weird, tired looking guy doing at OUR hostel?” but aside from that, I ate in peace, and then—noting it was too early to retire for the night despite my fatigue—wandered out into the cobblestone streets to find something to do or see.

There wasn’t much. But lo and behold, before long, I heard a familiar gaggle of giggling a ways behind me, and, almost as if in a cartoon, that very same group of young kids shushed quickly when I peered back at them. Imagine my surprise then, when one of the girls broke from the pack and shyly approached me.

“Hallo,” she said, not quite sure of herself, but with quiet yet visible support from her friends behind her.

Still shocked, I blurted out an American “Hi there” instead of a matching Hallo.

“You’re English?” she asked.

“No,” I replied, “American.”

Her face lit up with a big smile, which compensated for the moment of silence between us.

She told me she was from Germany, which I knew, but I never could have anticipated the next turn in our conversation.

“Are you… by yourself?” she asked? I answered affirmatively, still confused by this situation… and I’ll never forget what came next:

“Do you want to be our friend?”

Such sweetness and innocence and courage! I could have hugged that kid right there. 

Instead, though, I delved into one of the most honest and memorable conversations I had during my time Europe. The friends of this girl, Christina, immediately sensed that I DID welcome a chat with them. And so, as they approached, they fired off a sometimes cacophanous bunch of questions in German for Christina to translate to me, and then waited eagerly for my response and acting-spokeswoman Christina’s translation.

A few of the questions were admittedly ignorant but nonetheless amusing in their simplicity: “Do you [Americans] really eat at McDonald’s all the time?” and “Are all the streets in the States very big?”

Before long, it was clear that most of what these kids knew of America they had gleaned from their exposure to the dominant American media. And that, indeed, scared me. Baywatch is SUPER-big in Germany (and apparently leads at least a few Germans to assume we’re all Malibu-stylin’ and beach going tansters). David Hasselhoff may be a laughingstock amongst some of the ‘hipper’ Germans, but he’s still a beloved actor and recording artist for much of Deutschland. In other words… given what we ‘export’ to Europe, we should all be afraid… be very afraid!

But before long, as the kids got braver with their English and started addressing me directly, I began to delve deeper into their opinions and prejudices.

“So what do you think of Americans?” I asked plainly.

They were none too shy or slow with their responses. “Creative!” “FAT!” “Sportive!” “Lazy!” “Funny!” and “Friendly!” seemed to be relatively agreed-upon adjectives. But the latter one spurred some deeper discussion, with one boy arguing that, “Americans don’t like Germans. They’re friendly to themselves but not to us. From the War.”

I should have been prepared for this. Even at parties with college-aged folk, the issue of the Holocaust often came up. What did Americans think of Germany? Of Germans? Of the War? And why? Was it fair to perpetuate the Guilt? Those that brought up this subject with me often did so almost randomly, over beers and fries, though with sometimes pretty intense curiosity and passion.

This same curiosity, combined with innocence, was so clearly present in these young kids. On one hand, they saw America as everything “cool”... but still so distant geographically and emotionally. There was a marked admiration for, yet confusion about and partially even disdain for Americans, perhaps no different than that reflected by our own general ignorance of other cultures.

But here there was such a heartwarming yearning from them to connect to me, to connect with the America I was an impromptu representative for. They continued asking me questions for nearly an hour, and drew closer to me all the while until I was almost surrounded. “You are nice!” gushed one of the girls out of the blue, prompting some titterings in German that I understood more than they realized.  Not long after this, Christina—by now pretty emboldened and unshy—asked, “Can I have your address?”

“Sure,” I replied, amused and flattered, though I couldn’t help but ask, “Why?”

“Because Julia likes you!” Christina replied with a huge grin, followed by a horrified look on a quickly clued-in Julia, “And she won’t ask you!”

Silly kids. Playful, wondering, movie-watching, tall, short, blonde, brunette, crush-having, sneaker-wearing kids.

At that moment I was reminded… that deep down we’re pretty much all the same, everywhere. There’s a child-like curiosity and goodness in everyone that never really dies. Sometimes it gets hardened a bit or repressed or shouted over, but it’s still there.

I had been tired and lonely and frustrated before I met these kids. And there are certainly times nowadays, too, when I’m feeling like that. But when life accentuates separation and distance, I look back on my encounter in Luxembourg and similar experiences and am reassured that friendship and understanding are still inherently valued. And though I never did hear from Julia, thinking of her and her friends especially makes me smile :-D

Monday, October 12, 2009

Time spent on social networks and the like - I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours

After having fallen hugely behind on browsing my Facebook newsfeed, Friendfeed, etc., I decided to see just how much time I had been spending during those “on top of it” days… and, by extension, how much time it’d take me to keep up each day.

Around 10pm last night, I “cleared out” my Reader, and picked a stopping point in Facebook and Friendfeed, so I could start fresh tonight (Monday) and see just how much would accumulate in 24 hours… and how long it’d take me to get through it.

So here are my numbers:
  • Facebook:  Browsing (and commenting a bit) on a filtered newsfeed of one group of 270 friends:  20 minutes
  • Friendfeed:  Browsing (and commenting/liking a bit) on a selected group comprised of about 80 friends:  8 minutes
  • Twitter:  Browsed through unfiltered/ungrouped list via Brizzly (happy to offer invites to the first ten people who contact me):  12 minutes.
  • Reader:  Browsing through my ??? feeds (and checking out a few original pages + adding a couple comments):  28 minutes (”???” because Reader never was able to load up anything when I clicked on “Manage my subscriptions.”  Bummer!  But I’m guessing I have over 200 feeds, of which probably 100 are updated at least weekly)
Just a bit over an hour.  Not that bad, right?  Except when you realize a few very important things:
  • This is more than an hour every single day, including weekends, holidays, vacation times, etc.
  • Worse yet (and more importantly), this does not include my personal e-mail, which I estimate would take me about an hour daily in and of itself to read and appropriately reply to messages.
  • Nor does this include Wave.  Or Techmeme.  Or online News.  Or really anything else in the vast online world.
  • It certainly doesn’t include the time I should be spending composing thoughtful e-mails to my Grandpa, to my friends near and far, and so on.  500 or so contacts in my addressbook… people that I care about.  If I e-mailed each one just once a month, that’s more than one substantive e-mail every day (in addition to the other replies).
  • And it certainly doesn’t include corporate (work) mail and related stuff, but that’s well beyond the scope of this inquiry, in which I’m trying to pin down this...
How much of my free time do I spend (or would I have to spend each day) on “keeping up” with friends and news online?


*  *  *

Well, now you know, or at least have an idea about my time allocations. 
Where does your time go?
- How much time do you spend each day on Facebook, Twitter, etc.?  (Not sure?  Try what I did, and actually time it!)
- Is that more than you thought?  Less than you thought?  Does it make sense for you?

Curious to hear your numbers and your feelings on this…

[Edited at 1:18am October 13 to add: Twitter stats]

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Tragedy of the social commons

Tonight I was tired.  Tired but—perhaps solely through repeated mental flagellations—ready to be brave.

Tonight at the weekly swing dance, I was going to ask Miss Q to dance.  Extremely talented, very attractive, and admirably most humble, too.  Miss Q, that is.  Darned ambiguous references, but indeed I digress.

Grammatical nits aside… for reasons I cannot quite narrow down for certain, it appears as though my bravery was either contagious or most coincidentally most ill-timed or a combination thereof. You see, that *other* fellow was determined to dance with Miss Q.  And the young man beside him.  And yes, that other chap dashing up beside the both of them.

Miss Q had a queue and a rather constant queue at that.  Oh, not the visible English-style straight version, but rather a discernible one nonetheless.  Ranging from skulking to brazen, star-struck and/or love-struck leads grabbed their opportunity, sometimes with frightening literalness, and Miss Q handled it all with the utmost in grace and good nature.  Was she delighted or annoyed or simply exhausted by all the attention?  I cannot say.  I was quietly and perhaps just a bit more than mildly seething at my ill fortune, and so in this circumstance I cannot fully trust my normally perceptive nature.

But I know this:  of the collective of Miss Qs here and elsewhere on the dancefloor—particularly in this arenas where the Misses outnumber the Misters—there by my estimation must be an aggregate tiredness and frustration on the shoulders of both sexes.  The Misses have nary a rest, much less a chance to do much choosing of their choosing.  They pair with those who are the quickest, the most cunning, the most persistent, the most unsubtlely lurking in the not-so-background, which may or—more likely—may not dovetail with those who are the most talented or otherwise desirable partners.

And, as you surely may have guessed, the disappointment lies not just within the fairer sex here, but rests upon the equally unlucky section of lads.  For we have two choices:  one-up the others in desperate aggressiveness or sit on the side passively ruing our lot and the escalation of hounding-stealing-hoarding that has led to this sorry condition.  Those compelled into the former may succeed on occasion but feel ashamed on the whole of what they’ve been driven to.  And those self-relegated into the latter behavior must simply feel, well, stamped writ-large with a neon ‘L’ upon their forehead.

*  *  *

What does this suggest, other than that I have a dramatic flair for cartooningly exaggerating a seemingly run-of-the-mill situation rather than answering e-mail or getting much needed sleep?

Ah, dear reader, it suggests more than this!  Much more!  For dance is but a metaphor for life!  Or, at minimum, the situation I’ve described above reminds me of social interactions in a much broader sense than just the lead-follow rituals associated with selecting dance partners.

Bars.  Clubs.  Particularly given the most-typical uneven ratios of men (many) to women (few), what we end up with is an ever-escalating atmosphere of urgency, high volume, and desperation, which leads to the all-too-cliched-but-true situation of women massively annoyed by obnoxiously brazen and bad pickup lines and (worse) physical aggression.  And on the other side, an unfortunate mix of mostly puzzled, frustrated, and perhaps even angry men who refuse to raise their bets and behavior (and thus fold)  The women go home and complain to their girlfriends about being besieged by “jerks” all night, and guys complain to their mates about the unfortunate and equally-unfortunately-named “sausage fest” and the lack of opportunities reasonably available.

*  *  *

To clarify, my swing dance experiences are typically many many MANY times better than the hyper-clarified and starkly drawn portrait I’ve painted here.  And for tonight, it was more my own stubbornness (I was set on dancing with one particular woman) that resulted in the sullying of what should have by all other measures been an outstanding night (presence of friends, a strong live band, etc.)  But it made for a good excuse for a blog post and I found myself sincerely drawn (once again) to the parallels between social dancing and the broader arena of meeting and flirting and dating.  Specifically, what I felt I was observing was a miniature version of the tragedy of the social commons which, upon further reflection, might better (albeit less pithily) be described as “The Tragic Inevitability of Behavioral Escalation in the Context of Mixed-Gender Social Environments.”  But the latter—while a title I might be able to sell or rent to thesis'ing Psychology PhD students -- is way too long for a catchy blog title. Almost as piss-poor a title as some musical one might otherwise wisely stumble upon.

Anyway, with all MY pontificating out of the way, what do you think? Do queues of the sort I described lead to women becoming frustrated and less apt to genially interact with guys? Or is this one-upmanship of sorts an expected but altogether benign reflection and self-selection of the assertive vs. the doormats, the latter of whom need to learn to buck up anyway? :-D I look forward to hearing your thoughts, even if those thoughts are, "For the love of Dog, Adam, why do you overanalyze stuff to such a degree, and at 1am no less?!"

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Insane transparency -- Seeing or even setting what your colleagues earn

At Google, we have pretty radical transparency, at least in Engineering where I sit.  With few exceptions, we can all see what every colleague is working on (via the Project Database or “PDB”), what they’ve recently accomplished (via weekly self-composed “Snippets”), and even what their core contributions have been to the company (their Google resume).  Through our performance review system, we can not only review our peers (and have them read exactly what we wrote about their strengths and weaknesses) but even review our bosses.

I think on the whole this transparency is outstanding… ethical and useful.  But one part is missing, right?

- We can see what people are working on.
- We can see how people are performing.
= We can see what they accomplish.

but…

- We CANNOT see what their compensation is.

and beyond that…

- We do not have a direct SAY in their compensation, only quite indirect input into promotions.

Let me make one thing very, very, very clear here:


I believe that total compensation transparency (beyond one’s own private understanding of his or her own salary and compensation mechanisms) IS A BAD IDEA.  Let me repeat that.  I am NOT seriously advocating that companies disclose the salary of each employee within or even outside of the company, nor do I suggest that employees be empowered to set and adjust their peers’ compensation packages.

But… what if?  And why does salary remain so strongly one of the last taboos in this increasingly hip world of transparency?  What is it about human nature which makes us (even me!) shudder at the thought of this specific set of ideas?

*  *  *

Notwithstanding my quite-likely rational revulsion to the idea of compensation transparency, it would seem that there are some good arguments for such openness:
  • This might fix (what rank-and-file consensus would deem) stunningly inappropriate salary packages… on either end of the spectrum.  That do-nothing middle manager?  He’s making WHAT?  Not any more he isn’t!  That super hard worker in internal systems who stays late and doesn’t get the glory of working on glamorous projects?  Totally increase her salary!
  • People would (at least in theory) be paid more along the lines of what they’re currently worth vs. what they had the savviness to negotiate.
  • You could potentially stress out less when asking for a raise because either you’d have full knowledge of where you are on the pay scale or, in the scenario in which peers set your pay, it’d be out of your control.
But I do believe there are far more arguments against radical compensation transparency.
  • Biases based upon “visible wealth” might skew perception and adjustments, resulting in harmful demotivations.  Have you seen the car that manager drives?  She surely doesn’t need more money.  Let’s dock her pay (even though that may drive her out of the company, to the firm’s detriment).
  • That aforementioned super dedicated hard worker in internal systems?  Her low profile and lack of direct revenue impact may cause many to perceive her as less driven, less worthy of compensation star status despite the actual criticalness of her work in the background.
  • Study after study has shown that our perception of and happiness with compensation is driven less by raw numbers or trends or even buying power, but rather keeping up with the Joneses.  In other words, getting a raise of $5000 is apparently not nearly as satisfying as earning $5000 more than one’s teammate.  Can you imagine the drama involved with compensation transparency given this aspect of human nature?!
*  *  *

And here’s an even crazier additional proposal:
What if you could actually set your own pay (again, with the group transparency)?  As in, each quarter or year, literally determine how much you’re paid (though obviously if you asked for $10 million, the company could fire you on the spot due to reasons of insanity).
  • Rich folks who were working just for the love of it could more easily adjust/decline “excessive” salaries.
  • People might temper their pay a bit out of embarrassment, realizing that they really shouldn’t be earning 8x what their equally-worthy colleagues do.
  • People who needed a bit extra short term (for a house payment, etc.) could temporarily front-load their salaries.
  • When an individual employee accomplished an admirable but not very visible achievement, they could again temporarily increase their pay.  Or when they realized that they’d been slacking, they could dock their pay.
  • Or if an individual felt like taking a couple of extra days off, they could take that as “unpaid time” without form filling and bureaucracy.
There’s some precedent for this self-determination at work; Netflix, for instance, lets their employees take vacation “as needed” without a preset limit.  And vacation is a type of compensation, right?

*  *  *

What do you think?  Again, please remember that I’m bringing this topic up not to advocate change but to philosophically examine our thoughts on compensation, transparency, taboos, and so on :-D

Sunday, June 14, 2009

#geekfail -- Valuing immediacy over depth, accuracy, and understanding

Yesterday, I learned about the turmoil in Iran… from the blogosphere.  Some have argued that the immediacy of news on this and other breaking topics is a sign that mainstream media has failed and online media—specifically “real time” components of online media—have triumphed.  I believe such an assumption is not only dead wrong, but dangerous to society.

Today, I can get more information—and more importantly, more *verified* information—about the situation in Iran from mainstream media.  And in a few days, I’ll no doubt be able to get some insightful background information, valuable context, and more-likely-accurate news from weekly magazines.

Even online, let’s compare, one day later:
- http://search.twitter.com/search?q=iran
- http://news.google.com/news?q=iran

Some would argue… but Adam, don’t you want information right now?  How can you wait a day or even a week to learn what’s going on?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!1

To that, I’d reply with the following question:  Why do you value immediacy over depth, accuracy, and understanding?  Or, better yet, what difference will it make in your life to know about the Iranian election mess one day sooner?  Will you be able to change anything?  Help anyone?  What will you and the world lose by waiting a few more hours?

*  *  *

So why do I believe this increasing predilection towards immediacy is actually dangerous, and not just misguided?
  • It’s pressuring news media and politicians to report, respond, and act before they have all the facts, before they’ve had a chance to digest what is correct and what is right.  While I doubt that people with access to nukes won’t be relying on twitter “reporting” to make that crucial decision, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more and more decisions painfully botched due to a reliance upon “what’s happening right now.”
  • While there’s a chicken and egg scenario here, I wouldn’t be surprised if push towards “real time” is further feeding and exacerbating society’s collective ADD, dulling our interests and abilities in long-term thinking and planning.  What are people reading?  What are they thinking about?  If, as we’ve noticed, fewer and fewer people (including me) are taking the time to write (and listen) beyond soundbites, what does this mean for the peaceful progress of our society?
Yes, I know I’m sounding like your grumpy neighbor who perhaps just got on the net (via dialup).  No, I don’t think my griping alone will make a whit of difference. 

But perhaps if enough people say, well, ENOUGH!... immediacy != value, then perhaps the tide will start turning.  Not gonna hold my breath, though.

P.S.—I realize that there IS value in real time.  In the case of disasters (natural and manmade), services like Twitter have helped with the mobilization of protests and rescue efforts and so on.  So for the citizens of Iran, I have no doubt that tweets may well have served as valuable inspiration and coordination.  But this is not news, this is broadcasting.  And for the rest of the world, I stand by my assertions that there was little value in seeing a flurry of micro-messages about events happening in other places of the world except as—and I hate to label it as such—entertainment.  But unsurprisingly the impulse to be entertained, to be un-bored… is now clearly more powerful than the desire to be patiently enlightened.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

On public displays of affection -- but not that kind

Today, we send and receive notes publicly in a way that seems shocking when viewed by communications standards just a decade ago. Expressions of friendship, social plans, etc.
“I miss you!”...
“Hey, are you going to Fred’s party tomorrow?”...
“Save me a dance this Wednesday!”... etc.
Why do we like this, why do we post rather than e-mail? Bonding? Convenience? Insecurity? Is it just an extension of the old “You’re the greatest!” scribblings we got in our high school year books? :-)

I feel torn about this.

On one hand, I must confess to being oft-delighted by both the chance to quickly share warm feelings or make arrangements with friends and acquaintances all over the world, many of whom I might not otherwise have a chance to more formally or personally converse with.  But on the other hand, this almost seems like a narcissistic and lazy version of friendship, and a behavior that’s not particularly seemly in someone who is nearly four decades old.

I’m almost past feeling bad about not handwriting letters anymore.  I still feel awful that I have unreplied-to e-mails in my inbox from dear friends that I’ve put off for “when I have time,” yet here I am writing a blog post.

Have we become a culture of relationship snackers?  Has the ease of publishing, of communicating, of virtual hugging (not to mention cow-throwing) resulted in an exciting and perhaps overall-positive broadening of our social circle… but at the expense of deepening relationships?

What do you think?  Why are we so drawn to this micro- and public communicating?  What does it mean for us?  What does it mean for relationships?

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Dependence on the Internet

Just going through some of my old files, and I came across an unpublished journal/rant thing re: my frustrations upon loss of Internet connectivity.  This was from back in *2001*.  Amazing how some dependent at least I was on the Internet back then!
Okay, I feel as blind as a bat right now.

My internet connection has been flakey for the last week or so, and that’s been frustrating, but now as I write this my connection is completely down, and I feel both furious and helpless.

I’d like to put postage on a few packages I put together for friends, but I can’t print postage when I can’t connect to the Internet, so I’ll have to drive to the post office and wait in line.

A friend from out of town is coming out to visit today, and I promised to take her around to some tourist traps, er, I mean tourist attractions.  But without the net, it’s a lot harder to figure out driving directions, get parking information, find out attraction prices, and so on.  I’m picking her up from the hotel she’s staying at in San Bruno, and I don’t even have a map of that city.  So I’ll have to call the hotel to get directions.  Except that I don’t have the number of the hotel, nor do I have a yellow pages handy.  Guess I’ll have to call Directory Assistance and pay 50 cents.

I was supposed to order some travelers checks and Swedish currency this morning for my trip, but I can’t compare rates online or even order the stuff without my net connection.

I had hoped to research and order some tourist guides on Stockholm and London, but I can’t do that either.

Before heading out with my friend today, I wanted to check on the latest weather report, but that’s a no-go as well.  Guess I’ll have to turn on the radio and sit through a bunch of crap in the meantime.

I wanted to look into some travelers insurance and health insurance for my trip, but I can’t imagine doing that without the Internet.

And of course, I can’t access any of my new e-mail, nor can I send any e-mail, and that drives me nuts.
Heh… wow.  Remember, I wrote this more than eight years ago!  And after re-reading it I got to thinking… my goodness… what would happen if the whole Internet went down for even just a day (particularly a businessday)?  And just to be fair, imagine that the SMS network was down, too, so teens couldn’t text each other.  Would people be panicking in the streets?  Curled up in a ball in bed?  Actually discover a book or sit down to play piano for a while?  Maybe actually talk to other people in cafes instead of clickety-clacking away?  I wonder.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Facebook's Frustrating Friending... and my reluctant choice

I have over 500 Facebook friends.  That’s a statement to help you understand my predicament, not a badge of honor.  Of these, a handful are close friends, a big bunch are “regular” friends, a ton of ‘em are colleagues with which I have varying degrees of social contact and interest, and an even larger ton are “acquaintances or less.”  From that latter category, I still value many of those admittedly “weak ties.”  I may not know someone well, but perhaps she and I connected strongly even after just a brief meetup.  Or… maybe I don’t chat with that one fellow much anymore, but he used to be my best friend in high school and I still care about how he’s doing.

But then there are the other “friends.”  People I met once at a conference and exchanged pleasant pleasantries with.  Someone from college who was the girlfriend of an acquaintance.  Or someone who… uh… who is that guy?

*  *  *

The biggest and most painful flaw in Facebook’s friend-system is that it assumes that two people in a “friendship” see the relationship in the same way… and thus have the same interests (or interest level) in both sharing and learning about each other.  I have no doubt that there are people I’m interested in hearing about (and from), but who absolutely couldn’t give a rodent’s posterior about my latest blatherings or photos.  On a related note, I have work buddies that I enjoy chatting with, but would probably not to subject them to my occasional angst, drinking photos, dating whines, and so on.  As a friend of mine once commented, “You don’t want to see your boss in Speedos” or, more intellectually, many people understandably feel uncomfortable sharing or reading “out of social context.” You get my point.

*  *  *

Sure, Facebook’s “friend lists” can ameliorate some of these issue a bit.  But not completely.  And the UI is so awkward, so confusing, so annoying, it almost makes setting up friend lists more trouble than they’re worth.

What Facebook needs to do is break the friend-reciprocity requirement.  Just because I’m interested in following a person’s photo stream or reading their latest musings doesn’t mean they want to be forcefed AdamInfo.  More specifically, Facebook needs a “subscription” model, just like what we have for blogs, on Twitter, on Friendfeed, and—for crying out loud—in real life. 

Each person has two rights in this far-more-ideal non-reciprocal friends model:
1) The right to set privacy boundaries, dictating who (individually and/or by group) can access what aspects of their space (profile, activity stream, etc.)
2) The right to follow or subscribe to whatever or whoever he or she wants, subject (of course) to any applicable privacy boundaries mentioned in #1… WITHOUT the other person having to indicate the same level of interest.

There’s also a #3, which I find to be a strongly desirable albeit not required component of this model:
3) The right to more keenly control sharing, so that it’s aligned intelligently not only with the interests of the sharer (as in #1), but also with the interests of the potential reader (related to #2).

#3 might seem redundant, but it’s not.

*  *  *

A hypothetical example:

Pat has buddies Fred and Jen.  Fred and Pat are fast friends.  In contrast, Pat has a crush on Jen and want to know everything about her, but she doesn’t have the same interest in Pat.

- Clearly, Jen’s gonna want #1 here.  She doesn’t want Pat to see her stuff at all, so she either blocks him or gives him limited privileges. 
- She may, however, want to keep tabs on the fellow to see if he’s spreading rumors or going from creepy to threatening, so she takes advantage of #2 above.

Under the current model, the latter part wouldn’t be reasonably possible.  Jen would have to friend Pat, and wouldn’t that be awkward?! (and potentially hazardous, by sending absolutely the wrong statement).

So then we have Pat and Fred.  As fast friends, they really want to follow everything of each other.  There should be a system, perhaps not only algorithmic (which I believe FB already has in place) but optional-manual as well, which enables the two to indicate, yes, turn on the firehose; let me know when my best friend sneezes.  Again, Facebook has some functionality along this line, but it doesn’t scale well within an account, it’s confusing, and it’s basically a pain in the ass.

This is where #3 comes into play.  Facebook should enable folks to more easily share smartly… e.g., “pushing” those conference photos or blog entry on technology to colleagues, but not gym buddies or high school chums.  Of note, this is NOT the same as privacy; I’m not suggesting that this should be used as a substitute for effective privacy controls or filtering, nor even that the untargeted folks in the above scenario couldn’t view those items if they wanted.  But rather, it’s an issue of respect and priority; it’s less that those folks would be offended and more that they’d be simply bored.  What I’m calling for is a sharing that respects not only boundaries, but likely interests.

*  *  *

And lastly, we return to the most painful part of Facebook’s current friending model:  the increasing noise to signal ratio.  In other words, when I view my homepage feed, a lot of it is uninteresting to me.  And, alas, I miss tidbits about friends that I am interested in hearing about.  Yes, again, I could use friend lists (and do), but this doesn’t help streamline many other reading or transactional activities on FB; I still have to wade through 500+ names when recommending friends to friends, for instance.

So today I’m finally making that hard choice:  I’m being selfish and reclaiming my addressbook.  I’m removing a not-insignificant-number of folks from my Facebook addressbook (read: de-friending them) not because they stole my girlfriend or poked my eye out with a bb-gun or made me lick Grand Central Station with my tongue (though, indeed, all of those would be good reasons for de-friending), but rather because we don’t really chat so much any more or have drifted apart or never really chatted much socially in the first place,  etc. etc. etc., and the benefit of those weak ties is outweighed by the collective—I hate to use this word—clutter.

Offended?  Blame Facebook.  Or, better, yet, if you’re bummed that I’ve de-friended you, do one or both of the following:
- Contact Facebook and let them know that it’s high time they update their friending system to improve sharing & privacy and reduce awkwardness.
- Follow me on FriendFeed (and, obviously, feel very welcome to engage in conversation with me there).

*  *  *

Thanks for your understanding :-D.  Also, why not share your thoughts below on how Facebook Friending works?

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Environmentalists selling sex

Think green, think sustainable, think sultry and sexy?!  You may laugh, but the “Hot Chix Dig” crew shows that environmentalism is hot, and I’m not just referring to global warming.

So what’s the deal here?  These women believe that awareness is the key to getting people to make real, substantive improvements in the way they treat our planet.  And—as I’m sure you’ll agree—communicating wisdom about conservation and sustainability is a whole lot more engaging (and memorable) when it’s delivered by scantily clad and attractive women.  Or at least it is for straight men and lesbians :-D (hey, ladies, don’t just complain; I bet hotstudsdig.com is still available!)

Not only can you visit the Hot Chix Dig site and learn about xxxxx, you can also buy their 2009 calendar and show off your fine eco-aware sensibilities to your friends and (if you’re in a particularly easy-going workplace) your colleagues.

If you’re curious, you can learn a bit know more about how the site was born, or you can contact the hot chix dig women yourself with questions or feedback.

*  *  *

So why am I writing about this?
  • I personally know and respect the founder of the site (“Avida Verde”).
  • I think it’s an intriguing and pretty humorous idea, selling environmentalism with sex and/or vice versa.
  • I’m curious to hear your thoughts.  What do you think the site will accomplish?  Are you inspired? Offended? Impressed? Annoyed? Something else entirely?
I’ll be happy to alert Avida Verde to any comments below. :-D

Monday, November 3, 2008

Proposition 8 isn't just about civil rights, it's about love and commitment

Hi there,

I don’t tend to post much about politics in this blog, especially nowadays.  But I have something I want to talk to you about that’s more than “just politics.”  It’s about my friends.  It’s about—with semi-apologies to Princess Bride—True Love.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Proposition 8, I’ll quickly fill you in:  It’s a ballot initiative in California that aims to modify the state constitution to eliminate the right of people to marry the one they love if they’re gay or lesbian.

And let me tell you, it has warmed my heart to see gay and lesbian people I know tie the knot… people who are committed, monogamous, dedicated to their communities.  People who care about schools, who care about our country and the world. 

They just want to live out their lives in peace with their loved one.  Pay taxes jointly.  Have full visitation rights if one of them ends up in a hospital.  And, for those whose partner is from outside the U.S., they want to stay in the house they’ve bought together in this very state.

They’re not out to “convert” anyone for goodness sake, despite what some people are trying to scare you into believing.  In fact, I doubt they wish on anyone the challenges and hatred and sometimes even violence they suffered growing up.  I haven’t met a single gay or lesbian person who sees this as “making a statement” or “forcing change” or anything like that.  They just want to be able to love the one they’re with, and have their commitment be recognized fully by both the state and our country.

Perhaps you’re reading this and thinking to yourself, well sure, Adam.  I agree with you.  You’re preaching to the choir!  We used to not let blacks marry whites.  We used to not let people originally from Ireland (and elsewhere) hold jobs amongst us.  Our country has been through so many dark times… the burning of “witches” and the baseless ruining of lives of suspected communists and so on. 

Of course, we’re better now, right?  More and more people, especially young people, know people who are “different” than themselves… work with them, laugh with them, love them.

But I fear that the Yes on Prop 8 people have created uncertainty where there should be clarity and resoluteness.  So let me set the record straight (no pun intended):
  • This proposition will not change what kids are taught in school.
  • It won’t cost you any money.  If anything, it’ll keep more jobs here and maintain / build more revenues via taxes.
  • Churches won’t lose their tax-exempt status.  The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

If you’re straight, voting NO on Prop 8 won’t change your marriage (or for you fellow single folks, your lack of marriage).  Churches can still marry whomever they want.  Parents can still take their kids out of school classes that go against their beliefs.

The only real thing voting NO on Prop 8 will do:
Let two consenting adults marry each other.

*  *  *

Please, let love prevail.  Those of you who are eligible (and haven’t already voted), PLEASE VOTE, and vote No on Prop 8.

Thank you :-).

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

I, Robot

Hello.  Good day.  A little quiet?
I’m feeling a little blue myself.
You know, A little anxious for no particular reason
A little sad that I should feel anxious at this age.
You know, a little self-conscious anxiety resulting in non-specific sadness.
The state that I call blue.


- spoken by the narrator (“Man In Chair”) in the awesome musical “The Drowsy Chaperone
Today I am a little sad because of a small heartbreak.
And a little anxious because, well, I should not be admitting this in public.

Real men
don’t
 do cry.  But real businessmen… the type who are strong, who manage or mentor, who think of respect and solidness and promotions… they are not bloviatingly blathering on a blog, blissfully or blamefully or otherwise.

Think.  Think of someone you look up to at work.  Do you want to know his private foibles, hear of his personal struggles?  Really?  No. You want someone to look up to.  Someone at least a little bit larger than life.  A rock, or minimally a damn large stone.

You have your own problems, and when you want to schadenfreudically delight in someone else’s problems, you have your TV or paper or favorite internet gossip sites within an arm or eyeball’s reach.

When your current or future dear leaders are feeling blue, they ideally do not show you, much less tell you.

Then again, maybe it’s different today.  Maybe the Live Journalers of the modern era will grow up to be respected leaders… warty angst, noserings and all.  Perhaps someday we’ll view an executive’s late night facebookings with indifference rather than annoyance or scorn.

Or maybe not.  Maybe he or she will methodically scrub, hoping the last trace of emotion is gone.  Here, look, a résumé.  A fine, level-headed portfolio indeed!

And only a strong, competitive, safe, and secure heart.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Help me raise money for music-in-schools!

Hey there,

I’m passionate about music, and I bet you are, too.  I’m even more excited about giving kids the opportunity to have their lives enriched through music… especially disadvantaged kids who so desperately need beauty, discipline, and ART in their lives!

I just learned today that one of my all-time favorite music sites, Pandora, is teaming up with the fine philanthropic organization, GlobalGiving, to support non-profits in the area of music-for-kids.  Pandora’s even giving free posters to anyone who donates $10 or more (while supplies last).

Here’s how you can get your donation TRIPLED or even QUADRUPLED!:
1) Visit this information page from Pandora.
2) Donate some money to any of the three organizations listed.
3) Let me know about your donation (organization and amount), either via a comment on this entry, on this Friendfeed thread, or via e-mail (to adam at the domain lasnik.net).
4) Check with your employer to see if they offer donation matching!

I will personally donate a minimum of $50, and up to $250 of my own cash, depending on how much you BLADAM readers donate :-D
In other words, if those of you posting a reply here (or in my e-mail) donate $250, I’ll then donate $250.  And my employer, Google, will match that.  And perhaps your employer will match your contribution, too… making our collective donation in this case between $750 and $1000!


I’ll be making my donation this coming Monday evening, so get your donations in now!
  I’ve extended the deadline until Tuesday, Oct 13, 10pm PST

Let’s shoot for $1,000 together… or even more!

P.S.—If any other folks want to also contribute matching funds as part of this, post a comment here and I’ll add your name and offer below.  Let’s see this effort snowball!

*  *  *

Contributions so far:
- Wysz: $50 (+ his employer matching)—$100
- Jen: $10
- Char: $50 (+ her employer matching)—$100
- Jason: $50 (Jason’s employer may also match)
- Katie: $10
- Valerie: $50
- Greg: $50 (+ his employer matching)—$100
- Edythe: $? (amount of donation unknown)
- Adam: $250 (+ my employer matching)—$500
- Tiffany: $50 (+ her employer matching)—$100

SUBTOTAL: $1,020

BUT WAIT… Greg offered to throw in more money if the pool reached $1,000!

- Greg: another $50 (+ his employer matching)—$100

TOTAL:  $1,120.  WE ROCK! :-D