Entry tags:
they teach you stuff in grad school
turns out you learn stuff in a PhD. I was sent to present to the senior VP. I was grumpy about this -- it was at 5pm, which is normally family time. But it was important to show the top people that our team was productive. I briefly considered letting Linda-the-junior-engineer do it and then realized this was unfair. Sophie said I could take the time, so off I went.
It went great. I was able to say the things I wanted to say, and I believe my audience understood them. Some of the VP-level guests were heckling with questions like "have you considered doing a complicated thing using the stuff my team makes instead of the simple thing you did?" And, ha, this is child's play for a systems PhD. "We would integrate your thing at this point in our system," I said.
My teammates [including my more-senior teammates] praised me for my magnificent handling of the questions and endorsed the substance of my design approach. (I believe in doing the simplest thing first, and then using experience of the full system to decide which bits would most benefit from complexity.)
It went great. I was able to say the things I wanted to say, and I believe my audience understood them. Some of the VP-level guests were heckling with questions like "have you considered doing a complicated thing using the stuff my team makes instead of the simple thing you did?" And, ha, this is child's play for a systems PhD. "We would integrate your thing at this point in our system," I said.
My teammates [including my more-senior teammates] praised me for my magnificent handling of the questions and endorsed the substance of my design approach. (I believe in doing the simplest thing first, and then using experience of the full system to decide which bits would most benefit from complexity.)
(no subject)
I am sad I have so few people's DWs to read. Let me know if you are a friend or a friend-of-friends?
more war
I can't look away from the war.
When I was a child, the house was full of Cold-War era books and there were cold-war games and suchlike. So "mechanized warfare between BMPs, T-72s, and Javelin missiles" was a concept I have been aware of for more than 25 years. I never expected to see it in real life but it has an uncomfortable familiarity.
Sp far the Ukrainians seem to be hanging on. They are still losing ground and most experts do expect Russia to somehow win. But gosh this is going badly for the Russians; they aren't gaining ground quickly, they are taking a lot of casualties and we have open-source intelligence showing huge vehicle losses.
It's become increasingly common to acknowledge "ha ha yes this might become a global thermonuclear war."
When I was a child, the house was full of Cold-War era books and there were cold-war games and suchlike. So "mechanized warfare between BMPs, T-72s, and Javelin missiles" was a concept I have been aware of for more than 25 years. I never expected to see it in real life but it has an uncomfortable familiarity.
Sp far the Ukrainians seem to be hanging on. They are still losing ground and most experts do expect Russia to somehow win. But gosh this is going badly for the Russians; they aren't gaining ground quickly, they are taking a lot of casualties and we have open-source intelligence showing huge vehicle losses.
It's become increasingly common to acknowledge "ha ha yes this might become a global thermonuclear war."
Entry tags:
not quite not WW3
All during January and the first three weeks of February, we kept seeing news stories about how Putin was poised to invade Ukraine. I was fairly early convinced to "this is for real"; it seemed implausible that Putin would move all those troops and then have demands (NATO out of Poland) that were impossible to meet. Surprisingly many people thought this was a bluff, or believed Putin when he claimed "exercises are over, troops pulling out."
I had the sense the Russian goals were maximalist; too many troops spread out all along the border and no plausible strategy for limited gains. I had been saying to anybody who would listen "this is nuts, Ukraine is a big place, even 200k Russian troops aren't enough; how can they protect their supply lines or occupy the country?" But I and most people were imagining this in terms of occupation and insurgency. I think I'd have given 25% chance of them winning, 25% chance fighting to a near-draw, 25% successful insurgency, and 25% occupation by Russia.
On Monday the 21st, Putin "recognized" the Donbas states and started moving in troops. He gave a speech that spooked everybody, to the effect of "what a great shame it was that the Russian empire broke up." And this was spooky because it implied that the Baltic states and Finland were as much at risk as Ukraine. There were a few days of tense diplomacy. Twitter was increasingly agitated; Wednesday night, Sophie and I went out to eat with the kids and were glued to our phones. The buzz was "tonight's the night, around 4am." And sure enough, shortly after 4am Moscow time (9pm here) the missiles started falling in Ukraine. It was eerily predictable.
The next day, I was not very productive at work. It started to become clear that things were not going all right for the Russians; we had several reports of paratroop landings being beaten off; reports of Russian planes shot down, etc.
It's now Sunday. Much of this is now for the history books. The Ukrainians have been fighting ferociously; the western world has lined up behind fairly harsh sanctions on Russia, and impressive commitments of arms to Ukraine. At this point I think it's more likely than not that the Ukrainian government is still there at the end of the war; they have a good chance of straight-up winning. I think more like 1/3 chance of straight-up victory and 1/3 chance of a negotiated settlement where they keep most of their territory and sovereignty. At most 1/3 of being bludgeoned into surrender by Russian atrocities or firepower.
[deliberately not locked]
I had the sense the Russian goals were maximalist; too many troops spread out all along the border and no plausible strategy for limited gains. I had been saying to anybody who would listen "this is nuts, Ukraine is a big place, even 200k Russian troops aren't enough; how can they protect their supply lines or occupy the country?" But I and most people were imagining this in terms of occupation and insurgency. I think I'd have given 25% chance of them winning, 25% chance fighting to a near-draw, 25% successful insurgency, and 25% occupation by Russia.
On Monday the 21st, Putin "recognized" the Donbas states and started moving in troops. He gave a speech that spooked everybody, to the effect of "what a great shame it was that the Russian empire broke up." And this was spooky because it implied that the Baltic states and Finland were as much at risk as Ukraine. There were a few days of tense diplomacy. Twitter was increasingly agitated; Wednesday night, Sophie and I went out to eat with the kids and were glued to our phones. The buzz was "tonight's the night, around 4am." And sure enough, shortly after 4am Moscow time (9pm here) the missiles started falling in Ukraine. It was eerily predictable.
The next day, I was not very productive at work. It started to become clear that things were not going all right for the Russians; we had several reports of paratroop landings being beaten off; reports of Russian planes shot down, etc.
It's now Sunday. Much of this is now for the history books. The Ukrainians have been fighting ferociously; the western world has lined up behind fairly harsh sanctions on Russia, and impressive commitments of arms to Ukraine. At this point I think it's more likely than not that the Ukrainian government is still there at the end of the war; they have a good chance of straight-up winning. I think more like 1/3 chance of straight-up victory and 1/3 chance of a negotiated settlement where they keep most of their territory and sovereignty. At most 1/3 of being bludgeoned into surrender by Russian atrocities or firepower.
[deliberately not locked]
Entry tags:
Nebraska and the eclipse
Sophie and I are in Lincoln, Nebraska. We got here this past Friday and have been visiting with Kate-my-ex and her partner Brett -- they are both faculty at Doane university, a small liberal arts college.
This weekend, we went to the Strategic Air Power museum (formerly the SAC museum). It was an interesting collection. They have a lot of airplanes -- including a B52 and a B-36, which normally don't fit in museums. They have a few interesting artifacts -- the original Red Phone, Curtis LeMay's desk, etc. What they don't have is a coherent story or much in the way of description of the life and work of SAC -- nothing about how things worked or what people did all day, or much about the doctrine and technology underpinning the aircraft. I thought it was worth visiting but if you don't know a fair bit about what you're seeing it might be disappointing.
In astronomical news, the moon is about to occult the sun. (AKA, the Great American solar eclipse is about to start!) Weather conditions are moderate -- some light clouds but the sun is shining through them okay. So we should see quite a bit if things get no worse in the next 90 minutes.
This weekend, we went to the Strategic Air Power museum (formerly the SAC museum). It was an interesting collection. They have a lot of airplanes -- including a B52 and a B-36, which normally don't fit in museums. They have a few interesting artifacts -- the original Red Phone, Curtis LeMay's desk, etc. What they don't have is a coherent story or much in the way of description of the life and work of SAC -- nothing about how things worked or what people did all day, or much about the doctrine and technology underpinning the aircraft. I thought it was worth visiting but if you don't know a fair bit about what you're seeing it might be disappointing.
In astronomical news, the moon is about to occult the sun. (AKA, the Great American solar eclipse is about to start!) Weather conditions are moderate -- some light clouds but the sun is shining through them okay. So we should see quite a bit if things get no worse in the next 90 minutes.
games and history
Ever since I was about 10, I've had a fondness for history-themed computer games. Somehow I still find time for it in my life, but I enjoy them in slightly different ways at this point.
I find that I often understand history much better as a result of gaming. Partly looking at the game leaves me curious about the situation being depicted so I do my reading. But also, a game forces you to think in detail and think from the perspective of a particular actor. And that often draws your attention to constraints that you would otherwise not have seen.
I just started playing Matrix Games' enormous and complex "War in the Pacific" game. This is a simulation of WW2 in the pacific, at the detail of individual ships and battalions. It does reasonably well at managing the pieces -- your battalions group into regiments and divisions, your ships form task forces -- but the complexity is staggering. And my sense is that the creators have done a great deal of archival work to get details of ship and unit locations, strengths, armaments, etc.
And the game has drawn my attention to several things I didn't notice.
First, it left me with a new-found appreciation of land-based airpower. I saw a nice summary of this in one of the books I got inspired to read. The pacific war was first an air war, then a naval war, and only last a land war. Since mostly the war was fought on small islands far from major industrial regions, ground forces without naval supply would quickly lose all combat effectiveness. But running convoys through areas with hostile air power was suicide. Therefore, the war was basically fought over control of key air base locations from which sea control could be exerted.
Popular histories often emphasize the sea battles and heroism on the ground without forcing the reader's attention to this dynamic. But when you play a reasonably accurate game, this becomes obvious. After having a few of your convoys savaged by Bettys early in the war, you learn that you *must* have air control to move your cargoes.
Second, I understand much better what the war was fought over. Looking at the map, you notice that basically the thing Japan was trying to do was conquer the Dutch East Indies and Burma, with the Philippines thrown in as appetizer. And they basically achieved that within the first six months, and kept most of it for the whole war. Their challenge after the first six months was just to hang on.
I find that I often understand history much better as a result of gaming. Partly looking at the game leaves me curious about the situation being depicted so I do my reading. But also, a game forces you to think in detail and think from the perspective of a particular actor. And that often draws your attention to constraints that you would otherwise not have seen.
I just started playing Matrix Games' enormous and complex "War in the Pacific" game. This is a simulation of WW2 in the pacific, at the detail of individual ships and battalions. It does reasonably well at managing the pieces -- your battalions group into regiments and divisions, your ships form task forces -- but the complexity is staggering. And my sense is that the creators have done a great deal of archival work to get details of ship and unit locations, strengths, armaments, etc.
And the game has drawn my attention to several things I didn't notice.
First, it left me with a new-found appreciation of land-based airpower. I saw a nice summary of this in one of the books I got inspired to read. The pacific war was first an air war, then a naval war, and only last a land war. Since mostly the war was fought on small islands far from major industrial regions, ground forces without naval supply would quickly lose all combat effectiveness. But running convoys through areas with hostile air power was suicide. Therefore, the war was basically fought over control of key air base locations from which sea control could be exerted.
Popular histories often emphasize the sea battles and heroism on the ground without forcing the reader's attention to this dynamic. But when you play a reasonably accurate game, this becomes obvious. After having a few of your convoys savaged by Bettys early in the war, you learn that you *must* have air control to move your cargoes.
Second, I understand much better what the war was fought over. Looking at the map, you notice that basically the thing Japan was trying to do was conquer the Dutch East Indies and Burma, with the Philippines thrown in as appetizer. And they basically achieved that within the first six months, and kept most of it for the whole war. Their challenge after the first six months was just to hang on.
Entry tags:
financial advice
The other day I met up with an acquaintance to talk about financial advisors. She used to be one and was nominally just explaining what they do, but was one step short of blinking out “don’t do it” in morse code. The impression I got was that given my financial goals, I don't need any advice picking investments, and they would not get a sufficiently bigger return to justify the cost of hiring them and the overhead of picking / monitoring them.
The thing I really want advice on is what to do with my company stock, and for that I think I want a tax accountant, not a planner. Any suggestions?
The thing I really want advice on is what to do with my company stock, and for that I think I want a tax accountant, not a planner. Any suggestions?
finding friends?
How do I find friends here? I am skittish splashing a dreamwidth link around on FB/Twitter.
hello, world!
I think it's time to move here. I expect most entries to be friend-locked, but if I know you in person, please do feel free to ask. It's mostly going to be stuff that I wouldn't show to employers or strangers, but not going to involve confessions of felony or anything very sordid.
campin' out
Hi all.
Due to the potential sudden death of livejournal, I'm establishing a presence here. Feel free to friend me.
Due to the potential sudden death of livejournal, I'm establishing a presence here. Feel free to friend me.