The cover letter I wish I could send to firms to find one worth working for...

 The cover letter I wish I could send to a corporation and get a reply to: 

+ + + + +

To get to a point--figuring-out the highest-value position I could apply to OR creating a role that is even higher value for [your company, or for yours and several other companies that can all benefit--so that you can distribute the costs of my salary rather than having to sustain my rather odd sort of value], I'm going to share the following and would like your honest (even brutal) feedback or advice:

I work in an aerospace firm. Succinctly, the only times I've ever been in trouble or written up is, surprisingly **for doing my job.** 

If I keep my head down, suggest nothing, pretend to work for 7 of the 8 hours (since my job can be automated away and I have as far as I can within the limits/restrictions/policies of IT), and violate many policies rather than reporting things, I become someone who is "lovely, who never causes trouble, and makes us all so very happy!" But it puts everyone and everything at risk, and actaully SLOWS and delays work throughout the firm overall. I know I can't be the only one who knows this...

Often, people aren't even keeping track of their own standards and policies, and by doing your job (such as following a policy that interacts with your role to report securities violations, such as purchases of IT parts from non-OEM non-traceable suppliers, which could explose internal systems, government data, etc., to the internet, very very easily), you can step on "the wrong toes." 

As even Elon surely knows, a lot of the industry is a total wreck of political entrepreneurs forming alliances and arbitrarily applying or ignoring their own rules...

and destroying their morale, productivity, and potential for rigor (such as sanitized, properly formatted "inputs and outputs" which, to systems engineers, are key for rapid processing--whether in-computers or in-process of operations). 

I think to myself often, "maybe I'm just crazy", then go talk to the many-decades-long experienced people with impressive resumes and skills and degrees (who are often some of the only people with the necessary certifications IN THE COUNTRY to fulfill their role), who tell me,

"no, you're not crazy--we're all thinking about quitting, it's all falling apart."

Tell managers any of this...and they aren't even aware of what you're talking about. About technical matters, they'll tell you, "I'm not interested in that technology stuff!" (From the mouths of managers at companies with "Technology!" and "Aerospace!" in their names!) 

This has led to a couple of phenomena I like to summarize thus:

* we can send spacecraft billions of miles into space operational for decades, but can't keep the network shares or printers running;

* we can send those spacecraft up (as above), but at prices from 4x to 100x the price it needs to be;

* the people with skills are no longer in managerial positions, and know everything that will go wrong before it happens; decision-makers lack all the necessary skills and familiarity with the work, and seem to nothing that will go wrong before it does, then panic;

* problems that take 5 minutes to design a solution conceptually, for anyone particular to get all the relevant details to think it through, and two hours for a competent (e.g. Unix) engineer, to save $100,000-MILLION$ of dollars per day, "have been under discussion in meetings by management FOR TWENTY YEARS" <--this is a real example and a quote by a coworker I showed a solution on the back of a napkin one day, with a glint in his eye and a grin that I was so naive to think that management was actually interested or capable of getting things done. This company gets "top" ratings in many areas for performance/compliance/etc. under audits... Oh God... 

+ + + + 

At a superficial level, my trouble has been the [lack of] degree: I studied pre-med and bio (molecular, genetic, etc.), while minoring in language items and being VERY interested in computing (computational bio, etc.). I had to withdraw for health issues that were odd (probably triggered by my "garden level" apartment getting the ground around it soaked in record rains...) 

But going deeper, I realize by looking-around, that even the degreed folks...simply can't get things done. They silo, CYA, and play games all day, every day, over decades. Even opening saying "this is all just very stupid, stupid!" 

Notably, decisions that get made are usually only under duress when a crisis (that was very foreseeable to the people actually doing work) finally becomes apparent or real. And they're half-baked and don't fully solve the problem: typically, they just stack process and tooling that is complex (overly complex when made, vastly lacking in the information to make it to really solve all the issues) on top of already complex processes and tooling...none of it integrated well (if at all). They also STEAL solutions (that they've typically already rejected them), and since they're underspecified as a result, then tell those they stole them from "no they aren't what you suggested at all!" to avoid EVA-payouts (mandated by company policies). Which is theft/fraud, demoralizing, and ensures that "everyone learns...to keep their mouths shut and not help", damaging the performance and share price that could otherwise be.

This has brought me to think several "crazy" things: 

(1) Tech, tooling, and processes need to be removed from the hands of business managers. This is the stuff for the interested, and the industrial engineers--whom they often have tasked with vastly underwhelming tasks like "document workflows so we can talk about them in meetings." 

This may or may not be the case for technically minded, interested, or engineer-background managers.

(2) Corporations set-up innnovation committees to review suggestions and ideas...

which are always taken-over by a cabal of middle-managers to...kill the same ideas they kill when their subordinates tell them directly. They STRANGLE innovations--then they put crosshairs on their employees' backs when they find out (through those committees, whose staffers typically aren't disclosed to the corporation!) those employees attempt to follow process (and route around them) via submissions that are encouraged "for EVA" (and so there can be made a song and dance if shareholders ask if such processes exist to insure innovation can occur and support or improve the stock price). 

These things need to (a) be staffed independently, and probably (b) more like skunkworks of big companies--as in "run as a separate subsidiary of the company", by people without relationships with the managers and people in the main company: then good ideas can be a cause for that subsidiary to steal those folks who submit them to fully document, design, detail, etc. for the end product and iterate. 

(3) Corps. also need to be forced to adopt systems and tooling that mean if a manager tries to block subordinates from improving things...employees can do it anyway, unmonitored by their direct supers, and with the results being made available to the appropriate people (who are chosen NOT to be alliance-makers of "let's scratch each others' back" middle managers--such as in the skunkworks-subsidiary). 

(4) Middle-managerial strangulation of innovations and innovators demoralizes the workfroce. 

The smartest firms in the world would be those which...set-up unprecedented incentivizations to drive any capable and willing employee to full-bore dedicate themselves to improvements and innovations: like "you can keep it and we'll pay for it at below-market rates, sell-away once it's complete enough and we'll help you get there and invest in ways that you thing are good and help you." I see...ALL THE TIME...situations that employees who knew they could build-out a life/business for themselves would totally jump-into and fix, replace poorly performing crap, and drastically cut costs and raise throughput, quality, productivity, etc. 

(5) Corps. need the following, which you rarely (never) see: 

Chief innovators, Innovation officers, and an analogy to "warrant officers": the "warrant manager." 

The Warrant Officer is a kind of Marine which has the power to "just fix things" and not have to worry about having reports or supervising or answering for any inferiors.

They *can* have inferiors, but basically they're technical specialists charged with making things better. 

I've never seen such a thing in a company -- which is a major shame. Warrant officers aren't messed with by other officers in the military because they're too important and competent and protected. 

People with insights, capacity to innovate, and do amazing things are found everywhere in corporate America...yet they're strangled, targeted, hated, and driven-out by middle managers. It would be extremely smart to have upper-level corporate powers identify, elevate, and empower such people--and put everyone else into the dread of God himself for daring attack, question, meddle with, etc. such people. "They meddle with YOU and report to ME, you understand!?" 

Similarly, you see endless very-defined roles and analytic work...without ever seeing "we need artists with technical chops sufficient to approach and innovate in completely novel ways, change the world and game altogether, and crush all our competition in a legal way so we can cheer shareholders by holding up the skulls of our enemies over the wailing of their women! Feel free to keep the work--just transform our operations so we can focus on the core mission. Additional rewards if you can also sell to other firms so the costs are shared with them in transforming things for us." 

(6) Corps. need to adopt systems that provide what I call "surfacing": 

things that need to be known above middle management should bubble-up or float-up to be evident--like the fat of milk, or foam of a soda. If these always become evident, and nobody told upper-management about them before they became evident, then upper management (of the kind that cares for performance and progress > progressive posturing and politiking) knows there are heads in middle-management to roll, because middle management wasn't taking care of the problems, but filtering-out the information that upper management needed to know (1) the problems were there and (2) the middle managers didn't really know how to solve them. 

(7) Corps. should be encouraged to pay people for performance and innovations, and in some cases, well enough coupled with "warnings" that the following is true: 

(a) people who fill the role scan save-up for a rainey day knowing that, at any moment, their position could be terminatd: they're there to perform--once they can't, they should be expected to replace themselves and leave, elevate someone else and take another role, or remove themselves and go get more skills and education...

controversial, I know, but are we all here on the earth to pretend we're doing work FOR DECADES, call the kissing-up done in this process a "career", then leave the world a worse place? People who aren't improving things are by definition...driving inflation and waste and decay. At the freakin' least, invest in some farm equipment and efficiencies and feed people...rather than pretending and leaching off the poor, caring bastards that keep these decrepit institutions going in spite of the managers.

(8) Firms need their own auditors that are AGGRESSIVE (about process, not toward the Stockholm-stircken staff) inspection and re-engineering. Government auditors  (I know this because my old roommate was hired under the Obama admin in a drive to try to fix this issue and make people actually do their job as auditors:) need to be friendly to insure they have employment options once they move on. This means their suppliers are riddled with inefficiencies--unnecessary and that SEEM 'standard' across industry, that are solvable and would drastically reduce problems, errors, delays, and prices if fixed. 

(9) Investors could make a killing just by looking into the dysfunctions of firms that otherwise perform well enough, buying enough of those firms to be able to dictate things to them, then doing internal investigations within, finding the autistic types inside that somehow haven't been fired yet, and task them with going about fixing those dysfunctions. Many firms that seem alright to the outside world do only because things are now soooo dysfunctional, but still have excellence in one way or another that could be enhanced, and performance to be doubled and tripled. Often, they can be dismembered into a variety of constituents, have functions replace or outsourced, and made far, far more valuable--but execs and managers would never do it because it may reduce their prestige/legacies or the status they seek to build and maintain (less people under their mismanagement = less status). 

I don't think these are nonsense idealisms. I think these are matters of keeping fiduciary responsibility to shareholders as stewards of their capital, and driving awesomeness rather than demoralized middling nonsense among a mass of zombies--as has become all too common. No wonder why firms can't pay dividends... I'm always thinking to myself, "should I REALLY be buying stock on our stock purchase plan, or should I just dump money into crypto? Yeah...crypto." 

If your company is not filled with POSes like the above, and instead agrees, then, PLEASE contact me--I'll work in a damn janitorial position for all I care.

I've done IT, constantly tinker with tech, iterate (on whatever I'm allowed to use at work) to build better tools (than our IT/software engineering...which is freaking terrifying) all within policy of using only what they allow us to or to download (from the internal software center/repo), and have OCD about improving processes and flow of material goods and logistics, etc. I'm not afraid even of using my own pay to build and do things--because who freaking wants to deal with the same solvable ****ing problems day after day, rather than make them go away, forever and completely, with good solutions (accounting for the eventualities by...taking time to think them through instead of sitting in meetings all damn day). 

Regards, 

John [Surname here]

Restoring Sinecures for Oddball Geniuses Whom Society Otherwise Doesn't Tolerate

Some feller named John Duda askes a curious question (here, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/johndudavt_business-college-retire-ugcPost-6874704010268479489-d9ZY) 

You are 18 years old and have $1 Million. 💸

What would you do?  

These kinds of thought experiments (not to mention, probes into people's psyche's, aspirations, values, etc.) really are among the actually-amusing posts people can make online vs. their always-smiles event pictures and snaps of cats or other amusements that are, while great to elevate the day, mostly noise that steals time and attention when, you know from behind-the-scenes, they and so many others are struggling immensely and perhaps ought to focus more hardcore on learning or accomplishing something... 

My Answer: 

I would work to restore "the sinecures occupied by curious/creative thinkers" station [caveat: the video/creator linked to calls himself "jolly heretic for good reason]

in the world. Because it is very intelligent/creative/unusual people, who came into positions that functioned as sinecures, who invented/elevated so much of our lives. (And, generally speaking, few know of or are aware of this, or why it is we have so little "real" (Thiel's "world of atoms" vs. the "world of bits") creativity/invention/discovery anymore.) Because "grant" culture through bureaucracies simply cannot do this for us and won't. 

This would be a multi-step process:

(1) "Travel" somewhere 

(a) stable enough but wildly different: it's known that the effect on the brain is immense in terms of neurogenesis and making new connections; having done this a little bit, this has also been my experience: travel is immensely stimulating and beneficial to your brain and cognition;

(b) economically vibrant with "value" prices;

(c) with people who are outgoing (enough, at least with effort);

(2) Rent (remember "value" prices) and "hunker down": 

Day-to-day consisting of effortful work that is ignored because "too hard" or "too long-shot" etc. to anyone capital-conscious (35 yr-old middle managers watching budgets for higher-ups and with a car+house payment + child expenses etc.) but which needs to get done:

particular interest being areas almost entirely ignored (hard to market/monetize traditionally) that are exceptionally interesting to the vast majority of people. 

(The field of options is limitless and not hard: talk/go be those people/get into those people's situations and shoes...like moving-in next door...) 

First step is to generate a large list of things, then order them via priority for mapping values (the higher the value, the higher the motivation, the higher the likelihood they get done). 

Second step is to arrange them via overlap/interlinks--perhaps various problems are dependent on solving others, so one can take the "stairway to heaven" (so to speak) to something in the top of your priorities by moving through the "lower" (perhaps more foundational) layers. In this way the motivation can be leveraged to apply to a broad range of problems. 

Third step is to get cracking: the interesting part being a $1000000 in this context goes pretty far since problems like these tend to be more of a "think deeply and try cheap experiments" kind of issue and, once you've actually solved them, either you surprise people (willing to poney-up ca$h when they're things nobody else thought of/would have dared try because you wouldn't think you could) or you get a lot of people's support (in the internet age with Patreon, communities, et cetera) given (as mentioned) they're broadly appealing to many.

If your money is a pool like this, it'll fuel you being capable of focusing/staying dedicated/undistracted for a long time. (Real experience with this in opposite land: I've learned to code in several languages multiple times, only to be dragged away from those efforts due to immense demand at work that lasts for 3-4 months.) 

Once you've found and solved at least one or two problems, monetize at least one / get support, and build some tooling for your own needs. Turn around and use the time saved to pick someone else with a very similar mindset/set of values who the world could use just being liberated from busy-work and the usual demands, and set them up with continuous revenue to do similarly--work on things nobody else is paying any attention/for which there is no direct, immediate perceptible incentive for others to work on. Stipulate as part of their support that in a few years, after they have solved a thing or two, they shall do the same with someone else (or three).


Notably, I haven't actually said "start a business": that's not the ultimate priority--the world ultimately suffered immensely when we lost a bunch of overly-wealed curious guys in the gentry, aristocracies, or sinecures of the old empires who occupied their gluttonous immensity of free time pursuing oddities like "why do apples fall" or "maybe I can apply the mathematics I've conjured for predicting Christ's return to describe motion in space" and so on... a $1000000 used well puts you into that same sort of care-free stratosphere, and directed by cares regarding the people and needs around you, means you can live a far more interesting and useful life provided you do not burn through the hoard. Starting businesses might be required, but should be offshoots of the labors--things you have in mind for when the times are right for insurance for building-up means to support others. 

As an aside, I helped a Maker Space for a while (before the pandemic killed it) for a similar reason--those places actually encourage people to "just come in and explore through projects and interacting with other people building/trying stuff, don't sweat it!" and "level up" those participants through time in marvelous ways. The problem however being (as the linked video gets at), most people simply do not have all that much time to really pursue things deeply. And you don't get many Newtons, even if you have 1000s of candidates, if they're constantly in need of work and their options for that are corps and business that are "as usual" in our day and age.

(Though let's also be real: mostly, people like Newton--who was known as a crazy in some ways--are likely on the streets rather than doing serious work. In fact, I've met a few--one, a former colleague with people the likes of Stephen Hawking, was a former regular at a Starbucks in a Barnes & Noble where he traded lessons and tutoring in physics, mathematics, or the history of either or of any human symbole you wan't to know about, for coffee, confections, and books. 

Similarly, if you read about the life/character of the man behind "Chaos [Theory]", you know that he would never be tolerated in any business or institution these days--he likewise would be on the streets. That man, however, is why we have advanced thinking in physics, optical and wireless electronics, and accurate physical modeling, among many other fruits of his labors. Today, men like him would immediately be seen as "unprofessional" and "crazy" rather than "he stinks a little and he's astoundingly intelligent...better give him a salary and just ask him to report on results.") 

= Measure "Twice", Cut "Code" Once

= Measure Twice [Thousands of times Considerations], Cut Code [Implement] Once

A rather non-understood, never-tried principle is "measure twice, cut once." 

This because everyone needs to look busy to keep the suits feeling comfortable and happy that they aren't "wasting capital" on the wages of the bozos that couldn't possibly make decisions and do stuff unsupervised.

(I won't argue with that: having been an inexperienced bozo myself, I'll just move-on if I cannot do anything and learn through [small/reasonable] mistakes allowed [and expected because anybody trying to do anything that could be of value, by definition, must be unqualified and therefore inevitably destined to suffer errors and setbacks].. I'm also a weirdo, of course: I can be "never have been paid and rewarded better" but losing know-how/skills/not learning and unhappy, but have to live in SE Asia to survive because I'm earning peanuts, but having the time of my life because the work/hustle is so demanding/challenging and I know the rewards will come later if I don't first start. (This has happened. Sorta. But it's more interesting to just say it's happened so: "this has happened."))  

Most of our "educated" today seem to have suffered negligence: educators ignored their liberal educations in their progressive educations, such that the "brain bugs" that afflict and condemn human mindsets and thinking to the middle ages (at best) on average are not overcome through the tools available for liberty. Possibly due to the associations with arguments about how many angels can fit (or dance) upon the head of a needle. 

>HARD< STEM has an interesting property in it: liberal arts can somewhat be inferred. Comparatively studied and deeply pondered (as opposed to going to get **** faced at all the college parties frequently), >HARD< topics in STEM have this side-effect of re-wiring your brain because you realize that in the physical world almost everything is *COUNTER* intuitive to our natural minds: minds that are wired for a social domain that's more about conforming to often-insane mobs through history (moods of nations and tribes, whims of kings, etc.), and not for physical problems, mathematical physics, achievments beyond "conquering the other guys and stealing their **** before forcing them into grueling obeisance and tribute-surrendering on the backs of their children's futures." 

So most of management is filled with people who, it never fails, are impressed by that guy who codes 10,000 lines--"look how productive he is! Too bad I can't read this, but this is amazing!" Or who seems to be looking very busy.

The guy reading comic books with the neckbeard and Hawaiian pattern isn't someone they like much...of course, if you run a bookstore and you take that guy seriously, he'll hand you Amazon on a silver platter. And possibly the control systems for your rockets, too.

Or he'll just make sure your computers never crash and don't get viruses. If you don't make purchasing decisions for him after your fine dinner with the smooth-talking Microsoft consultant Saleman, and try to get him to keep the technological equivalents of the popular-conception Chevrolet Nova sputtering-along all day to do what pocket calculators from the late 1960's could be made to perform blisteringly fast and well, in the 1970's.

On the other hand, that guy who seems like he's taking weeks staring at the wall that you hate...but who always seems to be right (that ****ing ****head ***hole ***n him!) and is ignored most of the time but keeps proving right... 

he's probably deeply thinking through your problems. Actually, probably has been for years--even before he met you. Bastard be stealin' wages! (As you're benefiting from years or decades of deep thought: indeed, thinking in these people is refined into what is among the ULTIMATE of skills. We just don't generally evaluate/realize/price this one, despite that it's "game changing" if allowed to enter use.)

Of course, the solutions might be so brain-dead simple after the fact--and consider so many potential problems and edge cases and cases you just haven't heard of--that what you implement can be done by a 12 year old and will just never break, whereas anyone else doing it would lead to a multi-year project, hyper-complex, by the odds a likely failure, demoralization and loss of capacity and capital and the associated time and attentions and opportunity costs: Or...you could go to the ant [look to the can-hack-its] you sluggard, learn from their ways and become wise  [use cell phone location data + overlay on google maps, and build something like [that ride share company] with almost nothing initially invested and build a multi-billion dollar revenue-mongering global empire. (You can build the serious infrastructures that require much more than simple...later.)

Of course, these kinds of people (who sit, stare at the wall, and think until they can surface the "cut once" methods that wrap-up innumerable considerations) tend to learn...who they're dealing with. 

The passionate ones tend to move around till they find allies and the right minds to work with. The rest (or those who have other things to contend with) play the games. "Sure, I can use/learn/apply Java and $SUPPORT it for you successfully!" 

$SUPPORT = debug this thing from now till eternity for you and it will never be a reliable or satisfying experience because it CAN'T 

Styles & Approaches : & Beyond Mere Entrepreneurial-Minded People

= Two Examples of Company Culture:

(1) A while back I worked inside to build one of the greats of startups--we flipped a switch to go from a few cities to 200 overnight.

This meant we had to have tools--notice I didn't say, necessarily, "systems"--at our disposal that could be rapidly "played with" to figure them out, reliable in behavior, documented, and that we could stand-up, tear-down, or link-together as we pleased. 

Overnight we had to develop our own infrastructure: 

an ever-updating documentary repository with information on the issues, policies, controversies, advice related to, and problems across the thousands of jurisdictions; 

a ticketing system for handling customers issues (at least two very different classes of customer at first, and these rapidly diversified); 

and on and on and on and...

KEY was people we examined for possessing normally contradictory traits ("S-Curve" personalities), both creative and able to execute (at least, on what they were interested in--we hired like minds in this regard who could variously specialize or focus on problems as they arose and just handle them), 

AND LETTING THEM (after all, they were closely examined before hiring--basically, non-sauve people who would normally get rejected at any "normal" and "respectable" company...GIMME) 

simply go off and handle them (there was no technically-illiterate manager exclaiming "why is he obsessing over that stupid script when we have thousands of emails in the queue", which if there was would often get an answer like "this script will address everyone in that queue with a tailored message, so it won't look cookie-cutter." 

People were key to this--but interestingly, so was the nature of the technologies we chose. If we had chose wrong, we'd be locked-in to what businesses typically are: a mire of unreliable, insecurable, inflexible, highly complex, systems that invite Russian h4ck325 to ransomware your systems! 

(A problem I'm sure you've noticed keeps happening, over and over.) 

These systems meant anyone with an idea could try (in a sandbox to start, of course, so they didn't deploy some change that broke a globally operating system), iterate/refine, and implement solutions. It was the physical manifestation of 709-explained philosophy of the Borg in Star Trek Voyager (when confronted with why she was diverting power, she explained that in the Borg, if you saw a need or problem, you just took what you needed and fixed it). [I'm not even a Star Trek much anymore by the way, but some of you might be and "get/grok" this.]

This culture died when the Ivy-grads took over. And with it, our progress and innovative capacity--it rapidly fled the jurisdiction upon seeing the "respectable" people coming!

(2) Somehow I went from startups in SiValley

(not even a computer scientist! Though I notice few--even computer scientists--are apparently aware that "computer science" was originally "the science of processes", and if it's actual computer science, it's applicable in the REAL world--not just boxes: with potential for 1000's or millions of times the efficiencies available/seen now (no AI required)), 

to aerospace. Slow, methodical, careful/cautious--and damn good too!

Since we don't want planes falling out of the skies, and we want them to be reliable 

(er... https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/ 

...it'll get better eventually, but there's a lot going on in that fearsome monster!) 

And mostly Ivy grads running the place--necessary to know the manners of D.C. and co.

Also corporate, inflexible. Seemingly ancient in thinking and processes for operations (that support the engineering and manufacturing)--vast firms in some ways more like mom and pop shops. 

Secure systems, but not so sophisticated--complex they are, just not sophisticated. 

RIGIDITY. Rigidity that means change and process innovations **to operations** that support things (the processes that generate things aren't meant here--they're fine and awe-inspiring, when you're allowed to know anything, that is), just grind to a halt most of the time in terms of advance/progress. 

And no surprise here: small companies tend to be like this. Big companies are companies that were small themselves and are rooted in the same problems of human nature, hierarchy/social games, limits to the human brain and how to do things...

And here's the funny part: imagine you walk into a room of really (no, REALLY) smart people. They've talked for TWENTY YEARS about some operational problem/need, and they're trying to get consensus, collaborative approaches, "on the same wavelength", and "all our stakeholders to buy-in." 

You from hack-it/entrepreneur-startup-land look at this and, not knowing better (yet), say 

"oh, you can solve this in 5 minutes with [x,y,z] and I can tell you the guy to pull from which department to do it now in front of us if you like?" (total talk time: 20seconds to 2 minutes) 

You, nobody-bozo in "what does he do again?" position in some location none of them have even seen.

It's not big, doesn't require some gargantuan proposal plan, political maneuvering, anyone's buy-in, consulting anyone, collaboration or opinions, making people feel good...you just get **** done. Or you provide an easy recipe to do so--likely the latter, as you just. don't. start. meddling. with. the. computers. without permission. (Did I mention, your solution also includes considerations like security etc. baked-in already?) 

Protip: don't do this. Even if it would save millions or billions, it doesn't typically go-over well. And people try to kill it. Fast and hard.

Another protip: if you're like this and find yourself in an environment like mine, listen and learn--every opportunity to try, reflect, adjust, repeat, and pick-up the manners and understanding of these (as above, genuinely REALLY smart people) is a good idea.

= What COULD be: 

You know, THIS happens ALL THE TIME in firms, large and small: "those" people (who speak-up like a damn bullhorn with something so elegant and clear and reasonable that it just must die) aren't heard. They don't know (without experience) that it's embarrassing, inconvenient, maybe a threat to years of prior negotiations and works (about which a lot of people may feel...uneasy already, and now threatened too for participating.) 

"Those" [problem] people...they're not academics-first or from affluent backgrounds (or if they are, they're rebels or autistics). They're often silently keeping things rolling along when there is literally an ocean of details you need to make decisions, but you must be in the trenches to know those details to have a sufficient informed mind to make the decisions, and they don't have the power to technically make those decisions...

Not really tooting my horn, but for a long, long time I was this guy--every company I've been in, I've solved some major problem or another, but being this guy also means few to nobody notices! Maybe your manager, who looks good if you're getting, quote, "IMPOSSIBLE" KPI's, but that's about all--and he's not going to recommend that you go anywhere like up in that situation!

= Applications

Smart people can be tactically savage returns-getters and problems-preventers if hired. Given the right tools (with which to build solutions and tools--which by nature don't just encourage, but facilitate, and stay out of the way of, them doing so) they can build global enterprises in almost no time, if you have a herd of these people (aka know where to look, how to look/examine, etc.) 

I've seen many mention getting the entrepreneurial and smart people who can just make things happen and that's good: awareness is rising (that business is for, you know, primarily achieving missions and objectives and avoiding problems and liabilities and making problems and stuff) that hiring never-done-drudgery degree-holders leads to...a lot of meetings and politics and things not happening. 

Yet there's little awareness of how to AMPLIFY the effectiveness of these people to be transformative--without, for example, being a startup with a few billion$ to spend at will. 

For me, that's the real problem and one I hope to make an ongoing project of interest--technical, social, etc., when I have a little time and success. 

= Current Work

Right now, my primary work is...getting attention just enough to amplify the potential and capacity in aerospace. 

It's been...glacial. Processes etc. meant for suggesting solutions and such, like speaking-up in the meeting of those talking about something for 20 years, just don't work. How can a committee of people who know nothing about technical things, evaluate technical things? Or let's say your IT chief is a major holder of certifications only in a certain set of technologies--why would he swap for other things that might improve the org, but put his feet on less familiar ground and potentially open-up space for others to have some sway or influence or promotion (and competitive) potential? 

In other words, you have to...make friends, connect with and learn from people and find...movers and "back-door" people with authority to go-around the processes in place (and advertised) for "solutions" and "bright ideas" and "innovative suggestions" and all that other nonsense. 

More recently, I've found such people, so we're beginning our (inevitable) meetings to implement a few things as tiny trials with huge-win potential, so that the results can blow out of the water any attempts for shutting-down those efforts before anyone even tries.

= why this?

I saw a somewhat-like mind on a certain professional site who was talking about how it paid big to hire smart, entrepreneurially-minded people to run their areas and let them be. I have no idea if, like me, he's really a guy who likes sharing experience/background (especially WILDLY divergent from your own--so hopefully you can infer new things), but I figured I would share with him--that is what this short meander through a tale of two businesses/industries is about.

To him, "you're on the right track (I think), and I would suggest some oddball-reading" (that is, "oddball" if you're not a software guy, but worth it):

"The Cathedral and the Bazaar", 

"The Mythical Man-Month", 

something on Unix Philosophy, like, http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html), 

and https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html 

(Note, Stallman--author of the last link's resource/article, has made controverted/controversial statements in the past, so many have hard feelings about him--he's likely Asperg as hell, so I wish people took that into consideration (and thought, "well...we should bug his associates to keep a more careful lid/eye/leash on him for his own good"), and he single-handedly insured software was opened-up for educational purposes and the freedom to try, play, modify, and see what happens--the right way to learn(TM)--so that anyone who wanted could actually learn engineering, software, and computer science without being extraordinarily wealth and connected.) 

These are software resources but not only software resources: they're about principles discovered that provide for extraordinary engineering and decision-making, generally. 

Of course, if you can't make heads or tails of them, but think you have some oddball problem that oddballs could handle, bug me any time. You know how to message me. (For comfort: I also stood-up the logistics operations for one of these large firms, so I'm familiar with just how "not-for-bozos" your line of business is.) 

Besides the information (I'm fascinated with learning about things that bore a lot of people), I'm actively collecting contacts--friends, networks, savagely smart types, cobelligerents, passionates, etc., as doing so lets me get to know people I can brains-pick and be inspired by (when they bother me about something, and force me to think about their needs/problems, which I may never have even considered were possible before), and potentially bother one day about doing something really cool (that is, when I find something really cool to do: I've already helped others transform the world economy and logistics once, so right now the next big thing seems somewhat hard to imagine--as Peter Thiel likes to put it, it's likely nothing anybody else has already done.)

Short Thought

The most important "computing" is how you form your "mind": when young, it's formed by the environment--people and messages around you.

Likely, people then become trapped by this thing that was formed--directed by their mind, rather than directing their minds.

What is interesting is how little it takes to change it, if you don't metaphorically remain trapped or obligated to it.

You figure-out some small thing that affects something in mind, it riples throughout everything else.

I grew up among what America calls "Evangelicals." I'll still fiercely fight people for unfairly besmirching them.

These folks taught you things like "America is/was a Christian nation."

Through time, however, I began to see that much of what passes among most of those who misappropriate that label to themselves as "Christianity" was not, in any sense of the historic term, its various canons (including "The" Canon aka Scriptures), very "Christian" at all. Or rather, not so compatible with it.

And heck, their own metrics people often say they find the same thing, repeatedly through the years.

Or they say that their guide etc. is "The Bible", only for you to figure out as you learn and pay attention, it is not: a lot of what passes for "Christian" nowadays, for example, is actually "Roman Catholic." Even among non-Roman Catholics. Or as some might put it, "Latin Christianity."

And don't get me wrong, older folks in my mother's half of the family were Roman Catholics, great peopole, often great influences and caring, moral mentors and guides worth being mentored and influenced by.

But when you're among mostly supposed "Protestant" "Bible-Believing Christians" and you realize "weird, even after centuries of 'Reformation' they still hold as 'Bible' or 'Christian' things that are really 'Rome'!" And then they argue with Catholics about things...

And the Catholics will (rightly) point-out, "you say such and such about us, but all these things you assume as natural or normal to the west... you know, we CREATED those things you're assuming are natural or 'western'"...

And they respond "puhleeze, that's not Roman, it's just Christian!"

Which is not me stepping into the "Catholics vs." debate (at all), but pointing-out: minds were formed, and they're set, and they don't know who formed them. They're computing from pressupositions, basically, and ironically despite the work on "presuppositionalism" being work by Protestants, Protestants are often terrible at recognizing their own.

But in part because their "values" or norms come out of Catholic society, with some refinements, or changes in society and faith from the Protestant revolution, and since Catholicism had become the thing to Reform from, it can't be credited, or is assumed not to be the originator of, "our" norms, values, etc...

The biggest computing problem you find is blindness to your assumptions, that your thinking often isn't logical, factual, etc., but "motivated", and that you're often rationalizing to a position, not conclucing it on the basis of grounds, evidences, or other objectively superior things to your own priors.

Then something completely incompatible revises one small part that everything else is built upon, and there are ripples.

And if you're weird enough, you actually take notice rather than rationalizing it as in cognitive dissonance with "actually, it's not REALLY different, because..."

Intead, you go "I've grown, learned, changed views."

And that seems to be what people hardly every do anymore!

I mean, that they hardly do without being "motivated", e.g. you have these people who leave their faith/religion because they want some vice or sinful thing. Then they defend themselves with "I didn't yada yada, actually I GREW..."

And people roll their eyes.

You see similar in the university educated--"I didn't just imbibe and conform to an intellectual clique or school, I..."

Too often without being able to really found their new ideas--the Higher Learning--on anything.

But if you had grown-up in the environment I did, where lefties were supposedly these awful things, and been told, "you'll grow up to appreciate work by the likes of Elizabeth Anderson, have friends and good acquaintances and chat buddies and...and...who are all 'lefty loons'", you would say "noooo way!"

Or if you had and were told "you'll soon understand that 'name it and claim it' and 'prosperity gospel' thinking is utter nonsense'", you would have replied "you must be nuts! I couldn't abandon faith like that!"

Of course, any of ye old faithful, Jew or Christian, would have been able to immediately see, and tell such a person, why it was that it is nonsense, and that abandoning such isn't unfaithful.

Likewise, today there are many who see anything associated with genetics and either think (if on the left) "eugenic Nazi monsters!" or (if on the right) "Darwinist/evolutionist idols!!!"

A darn shame too. Molecular genetics (and its implications) allows predictions that are leverageable into medicine and treatment of very unfortunate people who need help! And not even necessarily requiring experimentation and confirmation first--which thanks to the "Right to Try" legislation, means that otherwise guaranteed-dead people going forward can at least be provided attempts to save their lives!

Where it scares people is in "social" predictions, or predictions about ethnicities and demographics--like if a group has a lot of the "warrior gene", which is something bad to talk about, as opposed to "this group has high frequency of the broken allele for blue eyes": so people are willing to try to silence and throw-out an area of knowledge as "evil", despite that they will necessarily throw-away the good: we used to teach people "you often have to accept some bad to get the good."

They don't imagine things like "you know, genes aren't the ultimate end-behaviors, but LACK of 'bad' might create phenotypes that actually tell us someone will lack very necessary and desirable behaviors!" e.g. if you don't have (much of) the warrior gene, maybe you'll be too domesticated! (People in my day of studying this stuff were worried all too much about that kind of thing being more represented in minorities, meanwhile I had friends (more light-skinned than I) who it was a struggle to take steps just to assert/help themselves or ask a girl out--described by others who knew them as 'puppy dogs on two legs': having 'bad' doesn't mean "BAD", lacking 'bad' definitely doesn't mean "GOOD"--and knowing the applications means being able to predict, and work with people, to get the good out of whatever they did or did not get, rather than being screwed because nobody will talk about and figure-out how to help them.)

"Bad" can be mitigated--but not if you throw out the good. "Bad" may not be bad, but "how you use it." If you don't take the good (that requries some bad), you just have not-good. And if you don't get what could be bad that you could use, you have to find something else to use, or you'll...just get bad.

And that's where I'll end the rant, summarizing the two main points:

(1) our minds are often preformed for and direct us, rather than being tools; small refinements to a truth or real thing, however, can help free us as they ripple through the larger structure which has bound us.

(2) we're overly cautious at times about 'badthink' and willing to throw away all the good over the feeling of a little potential bad; we need to learn to accept some bad with the good, and then just mitigate the bad;

(3) it's not obvious what is good or bad, it's not as though innate things tend to be bad or good;

(4) a thing may not be necessarily either bad or good itself or in consequence, but may be tenditious without recognizing their trade-offs and working to mold and direct them in good ways or compensating.

Computing, Brands, and Helping Hands

Just a thought. One of the interesting uses of a platform like this is as a place to stash notes, and make them searchable with a powerful search engine: desktop search, after all, has been junk for a long time--the stuff worth using died in the 2000's for most end-users' use cases. Of course, since these are also sites, they are at times thought of as brands or topical channels that people can come visit. So when you use them as a dump you fear "I'll drive someone off!" Then when I think about it, however, it's interesting that a lot of what drives people to a site is random posts--that they are then connected to by a search on a search engine... So I think the brand/ing/ed thinking is a short-sighted and incorrect on the web, in many ways (even when search engines somewhat prefer it!), as if you post useful things and people get connected to it, that's great! Put another way, people interested in "coputing", making, problem solving, and so on, aren't exactly focused on business as usual (if at all). So I think I'll use this little blog as a place to post useful things--topics, collections of sources, findings, etc., so I can search for them. Then if others potentially can use that posted information, great! And not worry.

Groupon and Denny's a Duo Misleading People?

This may be yet another case of .

The deal is here (until it's possibly taken down or revised): https://www.groupon.com/deals/dennys-17416112

The screenshot they cannot change I've taken is here: https://screencast.com/t/1lgtT6V4m

And the details ("Fine Print" and "About" sections) of the deal here: https://screencast.com/t/1lgtT6V4m

Notice that About section too--it speaks of the many (>1,000) Franchise locations.

Now, take a look at the details of the buy page: https://screencast.com/t/0XWfvTj1X

Notice: nothing about limits. Just "Denny's." (Same is true if you scroll-down, I've just not put the documents retained into the public screenshot since I don't want to put any credit card details online!)

Just to be thorough, here is what you see on "My Groupons" after making this purchase: https://screencast.com/t/DszA4giDydR

But something strange happens. You notice on the "My Groupons" page, when you click "View Details",
https://screencast.com/t/Soe4KfLeqoT

You see this: https://screencast.com/t/eJezqXnex

Notice on the right: https://screencast.com/t/eJezqXnex

The "Fine Print", of course, says the same on this page--no mention of limits to one Denny's or another: https://screencast.com/t/lQAXuSYi

To keep being thorough, in that box to the right, "Company Website" links to...http://www.dennys.com/, the generic site.

So the confusion becomes, what's with the inconsistent details? Why does the location say that Denny's is the merchant (the generic, overall brand/franchise corporation) with what you can see but, when you go back to double-look, then hover-over "Denny's" in the location area, there it points you to a "merchant map"which happens to have an address that is not generic which is...beneath all the other details on your screen, including the fine print--and the "About" section suggesting this is for Denny's overall, not a specific location or franchise???

https://screencast.com/t/t9Vupl3po

For special insight, here is how a location-specific (details commented on screenshot) add posted to Groupon usually appears:

https://screencast.com/t/t9Vupl3po

Is this not misleading and illegal? Yet another example of illegal practices what Groupon has been in trouble with authorities over before?


I hate to immediately be a bit confrontational but it's not like they conspire with retailers to intentionally mislead people as to whether they are getting a deal by showing higher prices than the norm and "discounting" to a price that's greater than the normal one or anything--followed by given psychopathic-signalling quasi-responses which you would get from political consultants' communications manuals...<oh wait, yes Groupon does do this>. And much more:

# Others Documenting how Groupon Manipulates through the Interface: It's like we're back in the bad old days of all the fine print being super-fine, hidden or on another page, or in a slightly-off gray to the newspaper gray to be...practically invisible.

# And MOOORE:

62 Times Groupon Mislead its Customers

5 Reasons Customers are Turning Against Groupon

ASA Bans Misleading Groupon Ads

I think I'll be reporting this to a few agencies who have oversight over this kind of thing...

Swap HTML or Adding an ID (Swap HTML & Content Using Recommended Javascript Methods not Working)

[to-do's: 

1. re-integrate references into body content,

2. whatever to-do's you've strewn about below, 

3. change prose for new environment

...] 

I've encountered an issue I see is a recurring issue inquired about on Stack*, and thought I ought to aggregate several of them, show how I've used them, chronicle findings, and ask why they may not be working so I can get something going.

To be more to the point: _You can skip to "**The Section of HTML I want to Modify**"_ **and** then _**to point "(6)"**_ for the one approach I think is most important/should work (it's even recommended here on stack, sans my added line trying to tack-on an ID in an "
But otherwise, I figure putting these together means a good opportunity for (a) documenting someone attempting each of these, (b) inviting people to throw their expertise onto this topic, (c) go for the "complete" consideration (the kind you find in their policy on what questions to ask--particularly, completely documenting the problem and several common recommendations/approach that get given to solve it, linked below), (d) go for the "Good/Great Subjective" also mentioned in several of Stack's resources. 

Just not on stack since the first reply I got was a tl;dr. O_O I've therefore taken to adding this to my blog instead of Stack* and shortening the question there. Good thing I kept my text file from prior to posting over there. :D

Background

I'm learning Javascript the insane way (reading a book--try to apply what you just read to some problem you have; add some documentation online, and try to make it work this time...) and flailing about wildly like a dying octopus (or something). Then reading more, and more, and more....

It's proving fruitful to discovering things I don't know. (And to ever-getting-nearer-but-not-quite.)

Like why the following isn't working. And it's the "why's" that are most interesting/needed. (And I didn't type that statement after reading Stack's resources, either.) Note the very important-est point: there is no "ID" to target with "getElementByID", which is actually the what--the outcome--we want to end-up with:

The section of HTML I want to modify:

 id="TicketPseudoReply" class="pseudo_reply">

                 href="" id="FwdButton" rel="note-button" data-note-type="reply" data-domhelper-name="reply-button" data-replyto-handle="">Reply / 
                   href="" id="FwdButton" rel="note-button" data-note-type="fwd" data-domhelper-name="fwd-button">Forward /
                ** href="#" rel="note-button" data-note-type="note" data-domhelper-name="note-button">Add note**
            

I'm seeking either of the following:

Replace a string with a new string,

 href="#" rel="note-button" data-note-type="note" data-domhelper-name="note-button">Add note

With

 **ID="clickEnabledNoteButton"** href="#" rel="note-button" data-note-type="note" data-domhelper-name="note-button">Add note

OR

 id="TicketPseudoReply" class="pseudo_reply">

                 href="" id="FwdButton" rel="note-button" data-note-type="reply" data-domhelper-name="reply-button" data-replyto-handle="">Reply / 
                   href="" id="FwdButton" rel="note-button" data-note-type="fwd" data-domhelper-name="fwd-button">Forward /
                 **ID="clickEnabledNoteButton"** href="#" rel="note-button" data-note-type="note" data-domhelper-name="note-button">Add note
            

I've tried a few different methods:

(1) Replace Str

Tried to use string replace but that didn't work, and read something about this not being allowed?

 [to-do: put examples (that you lost) here later]

(2) Find Replace Script

[to-do: add the links to the resources describing the problem that led to its creation, possibly as a footnote attached to a short "___ encountering ___ problem, decided ___[footnote number in superscript]".]

I grabbed

https://github.com/padolsey/findAndReplaceDOMText/blob/master/src/findAndReplaceDOMText.js

 which is as a script which was made to address more than just my problem (more specific to script: http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/replacing-text-in-the-dom-solved/),

and then

var = findAndReplaceDOMText(a, {
  find: 'Add note',
  replace: 'Add note'
  }
);

Also with "...(document.body," and other settings). Also tried by inserting "\" before all the double-quotes.

(3)  Parent. & ElementsByTag + setAttribute

I tried to leverage something recommended elsewhere,

var parent = document.getElementByID('id-setting');
var element = parent.GetElementsByTagName('tag')[index-#];

and append "setAttribute" to a third, thus:

var parentOne = document.getElementById('TicketPseudoReply');
var elementClick = parentOne.GetElementsByTagName('a')[2];

elementClick.setAttribute("id", "clickEnabledNoteButton");

[to-do: determine if latter line was inspired by http://stackoverflow.com/questions/710275/how-to-add-update-an-attribute-to-an-html-element-using-javascript  ??? ]

(4)  InnerHTML

I've seen one answer that was considered functional ,

Javascript Replace Text in the HTML Body[1]

document.body.innerHTML = document.body.innerHTML.replace('hello', 'hi');

but that didn't seem to work with HTML strings--[great resource linked][2] through. Basically, this was the second or third method tried.

(5)  Crip DOM -Walking

 I saw one that involved "walking the dom",

function walkText(node) {
  if (node.nodeType == 3) {
    node.data = node.data.replace(/foo/g, "bar");
  }
  if (node.nodeType == 1 && node.nodeName != "SCRIPT") {
    for (var i = 0; i < node.childNodes.length; i++) {
      walkText(node.childNodes[i]);
    }
  }
}
walkText(document.body);

How to replace all occurrences of a string in a HTML page using Javascript[3]

which is basically (at least at first) unintelligible to a newb but:

(a) I believe because of "node"? that is, it may mean "use 'a'" for my case, but one isn't sure, and

(b) it's also difficult to think of using this to walk through all the elements when you just want one,

(c) but you wonder if it's to generate an enumeration for other use,

(d) the "[...].nodeType == 3 and ==1 lines are great for leading you to another great resource[4] but get you wondering whether "element" is used to mean both the element sign and all its attirbutes together(???).

And if c, then can this invoked with

walkText(document.body.a) or walkText(a)  OR ???

be combined with the

var parentOne...

attempt from above to get things going?

(6) The Best Recommended?

Then I remembered something[5] about using what I did in the var = parentOne only if there is one element (why???) so I try the top-rated answer[6]:

function findThirdDescendant(parent, tagname) {
  parent = document.getElementByID(parent);
  var descendants = parent.getElementsByTagName(tagname);
      if ( descendants.length )
      return descendants[2];
  return null;
}

var elementClick = findThirdDescendant("TicketPseudoReply", "a");

elementClick.setAttribute("id", "clickEnabledNoteButton");

But the underlying HTML I want to attack remains the same: still no "ID=clickEnabledNoteButton". x*D

At this point, I wrote,

 with this much time gone, I've learned a lot, but really need to get this next step done...and find myself not really knowing whether I ought continuing trying something like this function here,

-snipped and put into post linked below for reasons explained below-

or just ask for help.

Your superior wisdom (even if very mean) is very much appreciated and shall be paid forward (part of the reasons I wrote this process down so thoroughly--so others struggling can use the record). ;) I'm also sure that answers not just about how to fix my incompetent tries but the "why's" about these issues would provide a lot of illuminate for many more than just myself.

References (mostly stack) Cited [to-do: modify this back to something suitable for a single-resource-location] :

http://cmpstuff.blogspot.com/2016/05/references-cited-on-stack-question-yet.html

Enumerated "[1]", "[2]", "[3]" ... like the text above in that post.

There rather than here because <10 rep./new people aren't allowed to post >2 links.

For good reasons.[7](also in the post linked)