https://www.outsideonline.com/2405421/how-to-modify-crossover-vehicle-off-road
https://gizmodo.com/how-i-turned-my-subaru-outback-into-a-real-adventuremob-1716068985
https://www.outsideonline.com/2405421/how-to-modify-crossover-vehicle-off-road
Wednesday, October 7, 2020
Predictions year 2 (and a month)
A year ago (and a month) I wrote about some predictions about the company after a major shake up. Some things have changed.
The President became the CEO after a period of time and was very forth coming in terms of what happened with the previous CEO and COO. Did actually get 6M for the company. During this time though several very important engineers left the company (fr, w, j, n part time), but haven't replaced them. Towards the middle of the year a new CEO was brought in to lead the team. Someone highly regarded by current CEO but basically just a serial CEO. First hires were more director levels. CTO hired a good QA dev, but next hires were again director types.
Now, more thanks to the previous CEO's hard work, installing a pilot version of the product at a big company. Initial pilot has been rocky due to several issues. Was quite a strange production leading up to the release, lots of know errors and issues being glossed over with one engineer even saying "Are they aware of the very large number of issues?" Current CEO angrily got after the CTO about the significant issues the customer was facing after spending a large sum of money. Tone of the meeting at first was more positive and encouraged to work to get the system fixed. After CEO's outburst, tone was much more defeated. To CTO's credit, he down played the 'grim' take on the situation and rallied the software team to start addressing some of the more significant issues. This type of deployment is also something the rest of the team has already endured with other customers, with the last deployment being almost issue free.
Big shift in attitude when new software director came on as well, CTO has practically kowtow'ed to this unknown, shifting the way the team is doing things (which is to be expected, it is a new software director). But the biggest issue that he's yet another clinger-on instead of one of the many engineers we need to replace the missing engineers and to increase the company in general. Granted that j has been replaced, but the other software engineers have not.
Predictions going forward. Short term, more annoyances around Jira tickets, demanding that we enter more info. Further harassment about taking time off (unfortunately when HR rightly stated that next Monday is a holiday, CTO jumped in to remind every to 'keep the pedal to the metal' and that we have a lot of work to do, possibly trying to impress the new Director for some reason?).
Some other things that I'm kicking myself about. When I started this company I had agreed to 155 a year. They said they wanted to do it differently with 150 and 5 bonus. That 5k bonus never materialized and in the second year my pay stayed at 150 and with out a raise for two years. I negotiated a 'cola' raise of 2% but should have been doing that each year. I did again request a raise last month and 5% for the whole team has now been approved and will be effective the end of this month, but that only brings me to the original 155.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Emacs for C++
Started working with C++ recently in order to work with ROS. Had to make some changes to Emacs to make it work better with c++.
package installed rtags then built the rtags backend:
At the point of running `cmake -DCMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS=1 .` ran into issues where it couldn't find `clang-c/Index.h`, On Ubuntu 16.04 (old desktop machine) even after running `apt install libclang-dev`. This was because it was installing only libclang-3.8-dev. libclang-6.0-dev needs to be installed with `apt install libclang-6.0-dev` in order to get the rtags backend to compile completely.
On laptop with Ubuntu 20.04, just installing libclang-dev worked. In fact, specifically installing libclang-6.0-dev caused more problems.
package installed rtags then built the rtags backend:
At the point of running `cmake -DCMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS=1 .` ran into issues where it couldn't find `clang-c/Index.h`, On Ubuntu 16.04 (old desktop machine) even after running `apt install libclang-dev`. This was because it was installing only libclang-3.8-dev. libclang-6.0-dev needs to be installed with `apt install libclang-6.0-dev` in order to get the rtags backend to compile completely.
On laptop with Ubuntu 20.04, just installing libclang-dev worked. In fact, specifically installing libclang-6.0-dev caused more problems.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Interesting approach to bin packing problem and traveling sales man problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem (aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a73/5b0159c689c6fe3bc6d3e676d9b8c6475edb.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization_algorithms
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1226090
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a73/5b0159c689c6fe3bc6d3e676d9b8c6475edb.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization_algorithms
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1226090
Friday, September 6, 2019
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Predictions of now year old job
A year and a few months ago I posted some predictions of the new company I joined. Some things have changed since then.
CEO and COO have been removed. New CFO and President pulled in from the board. All very sudden like. Guestimates at before change runway were ~6 months, President claims that they're bringing in 6 million. We have a ~5M annual burn rate so from this point we have another year from May (so ~20 months from now). They have already started to implement 'cost-saving' measures in that they're 'bringing the whole team under one roof', in that they are closing the second office and moving everyone into the much smaller 'fraternatory'. Could start downsizing in order to cut more costs.
President is socially ungraceful. They're going to be quickly disliked by the majority of the team, partially just due to change, partially just due to demeanor.
President doesn't seem like they know how to run a business, clearly stating that they were happy with the company because they 'walked past the office while out getting drinks with a friend and saw that there were people here working', indicating a typical backward expectation that 'more is more' in terms of hours to productivity. This could lead to a push for more work-theatrics such as being at a desk at certain hours or being seen at the office doing 'stuff'. Could implement more pedantic policies around agile/scrum and jira boards. Vacation time could be more closely scrutinized. Definitely will be more 'calibration' of current team members, with members ranked and judged, which could lead to layoffs. Software calibration:
w/n
l/r
z/f/g/fr
lp/p
a/j/e/jd
If layoffs are implemented, they will probably exploit the fact that most of the eng-team here are grossly underpaid and offer them seemingly huge bonuses contingent on them staying on for another year. The bonuses will only come up to the equivalent that they would make if they were making roughly market value for their skills.
President has stated that they have investments in ~300 companies, which at least looking at crunchbase, is a lot. Most firms only have investments of 10-30 companies. 300 could indicate a spammer approach to investment, which would indicate a desire for quick returns and a short-term 'day trader' approach to investments.
President states that they are impressed by the quality of the team (which is very good), but still could 'install' people into the team that they feels can 'fill gaps' that they believe exist within the team. Could 'install' people into spots vacated by downsized members.
CEO and COO have been removed. New CFO and President pulled in from the board. All very sudden like. Guestimates at before change runway were ~6 months, President claims that they're bringing in 6 million. We have a ~5M annual burn rate so from this point we have another year from May (so ~20 months from now). They have already started to implement 'cost-saving' measures in that they're 'bringing the whole team under one roof', in that they are closing the second office and moving everyone into the much smaller 'fraternatory'. Could start downsizing in order to cut more costs.
President is socially ungraceful. They're going to be quickly disliked by the majority of the team, partially just due to change, partially just due to demeanor.
President doesn't seem like they know how to run a business, clearly stating that they were happy with the company because they 'walked past the office while out getting drinks with a friend and saw that there were people here working', indicating a typical backward expectation that 'more is more' in terms of hours to productivity. This could lead to a push for more work-theatrics such as being at a desk at certain hours or being seen at the office doing 'stuff'. Could implement more pedantic policies around agile/scrum and jira boards. Vacation time could be more closely scrutinized. Definitely will be more 'calibration' of current team members, with members ranked and judged, which could lead to layoffs. Software calibration:
w/n
l/r
z/f/g/fr
lp/p
a/j/e/jd
If layoffs are implemented, they will probably exploit the fact that most of the eng-team here are grossly underpaid and offer them seemingly huge bonuses contingent on them staying on for another year. The bonuses will only come up to the equivalent that they would make if they were making roughly market value for their skills.
President has stated that they have investments in ~300 companies, which at least looking at crunchbase, is a lot. Most firms only have investments of 10-30 companies. 300 could indicate a spammer approach to investment, which would indicate a desire for quick returns and a short-term 'day trader' approach to investments.
President states that they are impressed by the quality of the team (which is very good), but still could 'install' people into the team that they feels can 'fill gaps' that they believe exist within the team. Could 'install' people into spots vacated by downsized members.
Friday, August 2, 2019
Annoying social ills as explained by an educational psychologist
source
Why are some people deliberately mean and rude?
Being mean is often described as the deliberate intention to be hurtful. While some meanness can be attributed to organic causes such as personality disorders or differences in cultural norms, most explanations of mean behavior can be ascribed to a feeling of personal dissatisfaction with ourselves and how we are perceived by others. For instance, individuals may develop low self-esteem because they doubt their capabilities. In turn, they project their negative feelings onto other people to feel better about themselves. The consequences of spiteful and hurtful actions are immense with research indicating that “incivility” decreases work effort, increases turnover, lowers productivity, and inhibits performance (Pearson & Porath, 2005).
Lack of self-control is also related to the exhibition of hurtful behaviors. Like most aspects of human existence, sustained task effort and motivation to achieve a challenging goal gradually diminishes unless we allow time to recover and replenish (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). This means repeated attempts to control our potentially inappropriate behavior will gradually weaken, resulting in the eventual loss of self-control. If you have unruly children, annoying colleagues or a nagging partner, you certainly know what I mean as evidenced by the idiom “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Eventually, we lose our patience and emotion prevails, resulting in what many people will perceive as being mean-spirited, rude, or uncivil.
Why do some people always think they are right?
Do you know someone who regardless of the subject or type of experience has what appears to that particular individual as a highly informed and educated opinion? Often labeled as “know-it-alls,” these individuals are super-confident in offering irrefutable expert advice even in the face of disproving evidence. In a scientific sense, being an expert in multiple areas is nearly impossible and requires 10,000 hours for topic mastery to develop (Ericsson & Charness, 2000). However, the rigid thinker who believes they are always right contends to know more than the type of information you can Google. Their purported knowledge applies to various types of everyday experience, including opinion-based things such as the best way to cook a burger, what’s the ideal route from Boston to NY, or why their favorite TV show is better than yours.
Sometimes referred to as “absolutist” thinkers (Buehl & Alexander, 2001) these individuals operate under the maxim of “my way or the highway,” showing little interest in changing perspectives, often passionately refuting the ideas of others. The absolutist is firmly convinced there is only one way of doing things, their way. The inflexible thinking and presumption of certainty happens when individuals portray “myside bias” (Stanovich & West, 2008), which happens when individuals stake claims and evaluate outcomes in favor of existing opinions, not upon the actual results observed or available evidence. The only way to debate these folks is with irrefutable evidence from bonafide experts. Don’t get your hopes up though, absolutists rarely admit being wrong, and any apparent change in opinion is often short-lived!
Why do some people take pleasure in the anguish of others?
Schadenfreude (a German word) is generally defined as achieving pleasure based on the misfortune of others (Ouwerkerk et al., 2018). While absolutist thinkers may debate that anyone really feels good when others suffer, neurological evidence confirms that our brains’ pleasure centers are activated when we feel superior. Examples of superiority include winning at a game when others lose (Dvash et al., 2010), or when we think we have more or better worldly possessions than someone else (Takahashi et al., 2009). Survey evidence aligns with the neurological findings and suggests that the success of reality television is based on the joy we get when seeing contestants lose (e.g. American Idol, Dijk et. al., 2012) or when high-status celebrities make fools of themselves (known as the "tall poppy syndrome," Feather, 1989).
The most common explanation for schadenfreude is that the misfortune of others enhances a person’s positive self-views. All individuals have an innate need to feel competent and worthy and comparatively seeing someone worse off fortifies our lofty self-impressions (Taylor & Brown, 1988). The superiority effect is more pronounced when misfortune befalls an outgroup (another race or culture than our own), and especially when a low self-esteem individual has doubts about their own group dominance (Ouwerkerk et al., 2018). Many times, individuals evaluate their worth through direct comparison to others. If the evaluation turns out poorly, low self-esteem may follow, which amplifies schadenfreude. Individuals who see themselves negatively are more prone to feeling inferior when making “upward” comparisons, thus they forgo envy and feel empowered when high-powered or wealthy individuals are scandalized (e.g., Jeffery Epstein) and hit rock bottom (van Dijk et al., 2015; Wantanabe, 2016).
Why do politics enrage people?
Have you ever been irritated by something you heard on the news or read on social media? Invariably, we know someone who was either “defriended” on Facebook or who went berserk on social media because someone harbors opposing political, religious, or cultural beliefs. Topics like Donald Trump, abortion, or immigration policy consistently generate strong opinions. However, for some people nothing matters more than ardently defending their politics and convincing adversaries that their point of view is superior and should be embraced. The dominance of our beliefs (defined as knowledge that is unsupported by scientific evidence) is so influential that it determines where we focus our attention and on what information we consider the fact. Subsequently, our beliefs steer us toward material and people that support our opinions and flatter our preferred culture, while ignoring or negating opposing views (Appiah et al., 2013).
A primary reason people will ardently defend their beliefs is that beliefs comprise a substantial portion of our personal and professional identities. This means that when we evaluate who we are and how we want to be viewed by others, certain values and morals take priority. While there are substantial between-person differences concerning what we choose to include as part of our identities, one thing is for sure--people passionately defend their perspectives and for some disagreement is a personal attack akin to insulting one’s mother. A strong social identity allows a person to relate to others with similar points of view, promotes positive assessments of their unique perspectives, and satisfies the basic human need to affiliate and be embraced by harmonious, like-minded others (Hogg, Abrams, & Brewer, 2017).
Why do people procrastinate?
Speaking of beliefs, people have beliefs about procrastination too, including beliefs about why they defer important tasks and if deferral is or is not a productive work strategy. Some people swear that procrastination enhances their work product and makes them more productive because there is no time to relax. Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson (2007) asked students about the reasons for their delay tactics and found that procrastination was often planned because students believed that task deferment promoted a more efficient thinking process and the pressure of tight deadlines motivated performance. However, little if any scientific evidence supports the contention that procrastination of work or academic tasks results in better outcomes compared to slow, deliberate, and paced investment of effort over time.
Causes of procrastination include lack of topic interest, limited topic knowledge, or rejection of the controlling environments imposed by deadlines. While these explanations have merit, the root cause of procrastination is based more on the self-assessment of our capabilities and the potential development of doubt concerning what we can accomplish. Very few individuals are satisfied when self-evaluations come up short, which in turn decreases feelings of self-worth. When evaluating self-worth, individuals often stake their personal reputations based not upon what they specifically achieve, but on subjective reactions to their accomplishments. The person who procrastinates and fails often blames the failure on waiting too long to start a task and not on the questionable evaluation of their capabilities.
Hoffman (2015) revealed that procrastination acts as a psychological mask, taking pressure away from negative self-evaluations. The strategy allows the individual to “save face” by shifting blame for outcomes to factors external to the self. If the individual fails at the task or misses the deadline, the person rationalizes the disappointment as being caused by the procrastination and thinks “if I didn’t wait until the last minute, I would have done much better.” If the individual succeeds, feelings of self-worth are elevated because desired results were achieved despite putting off the task. Regardless of the outcome, elevated self-worth remains largely intact.
Making a difference
Thus, while educational psychology effectively answers many specialized and process-oriented questions such as the best way to teach mathematics to a group of restless fourth graders, how to design instruction to motivate disinterested learners, or how to decrease anxiety when preparing for a high-stakes presentation, the profession also reveals the motivation and thinking of people in a variety of everyday situations. Anyone considering a career in the profession should also realize that educational psychologists are also often experts in collecting and analyzing data in order to make evidence-based decisions. If you have a love for learning, enjoy teaching others and want to make the world a better place, maybe a career in educational psychology is just right for you!
Why are some people deliberately mean and rude?
Being mean is often described as the deliberate intention to be hurtful. While some meanness can be attributed to organic causes such as personality disorders or differences in cultural norms, most explanations of mean behavior can be ascribed to a feeling of personal dissatisfaction with ourselves and how we are perceived by others. For instance, individuals may develop low self-esteem because they doubt their capabilities. In turn, they project their negative feelings onto other people to feel better about themselves. The consequences of spiteful and hurtful actions are immense with research indicating that “incivility” decreases work effort, increases turnover, lowers productivity, and inhibits performance (Pearson & Porath, 2005).
Why do some people always think they are right?
Do you know someone who regardless of the subject or type of experience has what appears to that particular individual as a highly informed and educated opinion? Often labeled as “know-it-alls,” these individuals are super-confident in offering irrefutable expert advice even in the face of disproving evidence. In a scientific sense, being an expert in multiple areas is nearly impossible and requires 10,000 hours for topic mastery to develop (Ericsson & Charness, 2000). However, the rigid thinker who believes they are always right contends to know more than the type of information you can Google. Their purported knowledge applies to various types of everyday experience, including opinion-based things such as the best way to cook a burger, what’s the ideal route from Boston to NY, or why their favorite TV show is better than yours.
Why do some people take pleasure in the anguish of others?
Schadenfreude (a German word) is generally defined as achieving pleasure based on the misfortune of others (Ouwerkerk et al., 2018). While absolutist thinkers may debate that anyone really feels good when others suffer, neurological evidence confirms that our brains’ pleasure centers are activated when we feel superior. Examples of superiority include winning at a game when others lose (Dvash et al., 2010), or when we think we have more or better worldly possessions than someone else (Takahashi et al., 2009). Survey evidence aligns with the neurological findings and suggests that the success of reality television is based on the joy we get when seeing contestants lose (e.g. American Idol, Dijk et. al., 2012) or when high-status celebrities make fools of themselves (known as the "tall poppy syndrome," Feather, 1989).
Why do politics enrage people?
Have you ever been irritated by something you heard on the news or read on social media? Invariably, we know someone who was either “defriended” on Facebook or who went berserk on social media because someone harbors opposing political, religious, or cultural beliefs. Topics like Donald Trump, abortion, or immigration policy consistently generate strong opinions. However, for some people nothing matters more than ardently defending their politics and convincing adversaries that their point of view is superior and should be embraced. The dominance of our beliefs (defined as knowledge that is unsupported by scientific evidence) is so influential that it determines where we focus our attention and on what information we consider the fact. Subsequently, our beliefs steer us toward material and people that support our opinions and flatter our preferred culture, while ignoring or negating opposing views (Appiah et al., 2013).
A primary reason people will ardently defend their beliefs is that beliefs comprise a substantial portion of our personal and professional identities. This means that when we evaluate who we are and how we want to be viewed by others, certain values and morals take priority. While there are substantial between-person differences concerning what we choose to include as part of our identities, one thing is for sure--people passionately defend their perspectives and for some disagreement is a personal attack akin to insulting one’s mother. A strong social identity allows a person to relate to others with similar points of view, promotes positive assessments of their unique perspectives, and satisfies the basic human need to affiliate and be embraced by harmonious, like-minded others (Hogg, Abrams, & Brewer, 2017).
Speaking of beliefs, people have beliefs about procrastination too, including beliefs about why they defer important tasks and if deferral is or is not a productive work strategy. Some people swear that procrastination enhances their work product and makes them more productive because there is no time to relax. Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson (2007) asked students about the reasons for their delay tactics and found that procrastination was often planned because students believed that task deferment promoted a more efficient thinking process and the pressure of tight deadlines motivated performance. However, little if any scientific evidence supports the contention that procrastination of work or academic tasks results in better outcomes compared to slow, deliberate, and paced investment of effort over time.
Causes of procrastination include lack of topic interest, limited topic knowledge, or rejection of the controlling environments imposed by deadlines. While these explanations have merit, the root cause of procrastination is based more on the self-assessment of our capabilities and the potential development of doubt concerning what we can accomplish. Very few individuals are satisfied when self-evaluations come up short, which in turn decreases feelings of self-worth. When evaluating self-worth, individuals often stake their personal reputations based not upon what they specifically achieve, but on subjective reactions to their accomplishments. The person who procrastinates and fails often blames the failure on waiting too long to start a task and not on the questionable evaluation of their capabilities.
Hoffman (2015) revealed that procrastination acts as a psychological mask, taking pressure away from negative self-evaluations. The strategy allows the individual to “save face” by shifting blame for outcomes to factors external to the self. If the individual fails at the task or misses the deadline, the person rationalizes the disappointment as being caused by the procrastination and thinks “if I didn’t wait until the last minute, I would have done much better.” If the individual succeeds, feelings of self-worth are elevated because desired results were achieved despite putting off the task. Regardless of the outcome, elevated self-worth remains largely intact.
Making a difference
Thus, while educational psychology effectively answers many specialized and process-oriented questions such as the best way to teach mathematics to a group of restless fourth graders, how to design instruction to motivate disinterested learners, or how to decrease anxiety when preparing for a high-stakes presentation, the profession also reveals the motivation and thinking of people in a variety of everyday situations. Anyone considering a career in the profession should also realize that educational psychologists are also often experts in collecting and analyzing data in order to make evidence-based decisions. If you have a love for learning, enjoy teaching others and want to make the world a better place, maybe a career in educational psychology is just right for you!
References
Appiah, O., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Alter, S. (2013). Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation: Effects of news valence, character race, and recipient race on selective news reading. Journal of Communication, 63, 517–534. doi:10.1111/jcom.12032
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (4), 385-418.
Dvash, J., Gilam, G., Ben-Ze’ev, A., Hendler, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The envious brain: The neural basis of social comparison. Human Brain Mapping, NA–NA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20972.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)