I have a love/hate relationship with deadlines. At one point I said that the amount of work I do is proportional only to the number of deadlines I have, not proportional to anything else. (I think this is one of the reasons I favour daily 5-minute standups. They allow a daily reset of expectations, along with a deadline to work towards each day.)
So, deadlines proportional to accomplishment. Daily blogging something to show for your year something something etcetera[1]. But today I wanted to talk about the mental clarity that arrives as you’re approaching a deadline.
You have a task/deed to accomplish, you have a fixed time when it is due. As the time gets closer, the light cone[2] of possible ways to solve the problem shrinks. You push aside a large number of extraneous things[3], choose how solved you can get the problem in the time alloted, and get it done.
There’s the standard ‘good, fast, and cheap…pick two’. It feels like a lot of this clarity comes from having chosen the speed. As the time grows shorter, the number of ways you can now spend your mental focus budget on the task becomes manageable.
What is it about the problem that is making you pause? Is your brain working on it in the background? (Does this mean the fallow time is necessary?) Are there parts you can hive off? Can you draw a large diagram? Can you put it in a spreadsheet or table?
Or perhaps the elephant in the room: If it is so difficult to find mental focus, what do you need to change about your environment?
[1]Until writing this I didn’t know that the ampersand ‘&’ was a ligature of ‘et’, and ‘etcetera’ was often written ‘&c.’
[2]Light Cones are also fascinating. I use them often in my mental model.
[3]In undergrad, we used to say that we enjoyed exam time, because we could push everything else away and focus, and not face opprobrium.
It’s the little things that sometimes make a difference. When I was teaching standardized test math so many years ago, I noticed as I was drawing problems on the board, all the little habits that I had picked up. Habits which make solving problems easier, habits which reduce the chance for error.
I think some of this (probably sometimes annoying) attention to detail had carried over to Sprint Planning meetings[1].
Planning Poker is a method for a group to converge on a time estimate for a task or group of tasks. There are a number of ways to do this. The ‘canonical’ way we were taught to do this was to use Fibonacci-numbered cards (1,2,3,,5,Eureka!). This involved a discussion of the task(s) to estimate until everyone had a reasonable idea of their complexity, then each person would choose a number estimate, all of which would be revealed simultaneously, to hopefully reduce bias. The discussion before estimation would not include estimates of how long things were estimated to take, to also try to reduce bias.
While we were running our planning meetings, I noticed that we would start to slip away from this ideal, perhaps because certain things were not important, perhaps because we didn’t see that certain things were important. For example:
We moved from cards to apps, and then to fingers. Using apps for estimation is less annoying than finding the cards each time, but fingers are even faster to find. I/we tried to get around the bias effect by having everyone display their fingers at once, and that worked reasonably well. Even making each person think about their estimate before display can help a lot with reducing the impact of what others might think of them.
One thing I tried which never really caught on when other people were running the meeting was saying ‘A,B,C’ instead of ‘1,2,3’, with the idea that it would be less biasing on the numbers people were choosing. (This may have mostly been an impression of mine, as the moving of the estimate from a mental number to a number of fingers may cement it in a slightly different mental state…)
If one is not careful, and perhaps somewhat impatient in meetings[2], one can start suggesting estimates before they are voted on. It can take considerable discipline and practice to not do this.
Another thing I noticed was how difficult JIRA was to use when one is not practiced in it, especially in a room with many people watching. Something that any experienced[3] demo-giver would know like the back of PowerPoint’s hand.
That’s all I have for now. For more minutiae, tune in tomorrow!
[1]For those of you who have not had the pleasure, these are the meetings at the start of an iteration, where the team sits down in a room, estimates a bunch of priority-ranked tasks, and decides (generally by consensus) how many of them they will commit to getting done in the next two weeks. Like all meetings, they can be good or bad, and the meeting chair (I feel) can make a large difference.
[2]I am probably as guilty of this as anyone. I would recommend Randy Pausch’s ‘Time Management‘ for those who feel similarly.
Yesterday, I was out at lunch, and a good friend of mine was telling a story about ‘fishing for piranhas’. As he mentioned, “it’s about as easy as you’d expect. You put some meat on a stick and dip it into the water. They’re really bony when you try to eat them, though.”
There’s such a delicious joy in bringing little conversational nuggets to people. Sometimes, it almost feels like this is what humans are made for, sharing bits of information back and forth.
S talks about how we go out into the world, and then bring each other back little stories to share, kind of like bringing twigs back to build our nest together.
So, I was doing a knowledge transfer session[1] last week, and I was struck by the way that my brain seemed to be answering the questions. It felt almost like there was a structure inside that was taking the input from the questions, and outputting the answers in a different part of the brain.
It felt different from the hash functions that I mentioned before. Those felt like they were hash functions[2] implemented in software, the structure above felt more like inflexible hardware, like you put a problem in, it or something upstream abstracts the problem to a useable form, it spits the answer out automatically and gives you that answer before you know it.
Hardware can be fun sometimes.
But this was the first time that I really felt that thoughts and reactions I was having were completely the result of brain hardware rather than software. It was a most interesting feeling.
It’s interesting the contrast here. When you’re trying to get something creative out of your brain, it’s like fish jumping out of water, and you’re trying to relax to allow yourself to see them and express them. When you’re answering a question, you’re taking the words in, and passing them through a filter and hash function. When you’re solving a problem, sometimes it’s all processed through some kind of a hardware structure.
Some might use the analogy of sound waves traveling through a Crystalline Entity, but I like the analogy of a collagen structure with the cells removed that concepts can travel through to and from specific places, so you could have a graph in many directions or dimensions, perhaps simultaneously[3]
Your brain structure can be dictating your answers to questions, perhaps not always your thoughts. Fascinating.
[1]PM me if you want to know more!
[2]They felt like hash functions both because they were in software, but more importantly because they each worked in one direction only, or with a specific ‘twig’ not the same as others'[4].
What are your Non-Negotiables? Most recently, I was talking to someone[1] about my New Year’s resolutions, and we were discussing why I had done one of them, but not the other two. It eventually came out that the resolution that worked (writing every day this year[2]), worked because I had made it a Non-Negotiable[3]. I had resolved that no matter what, every day this year, I would write something. Somehow, every day, I would carve out an hour or two, pushing other things aside so that I could focus and write.
(Incidentally, this practice focusing has done wonders for me, helping me find ‘the zone’, or ‘flow’ much more consciously and easily.)
Sometimes I would push aside a computer game, or facebook, sometimes sleep, but those things didn’t matter compared to the commitment I had made (mostly to myself) to write every day.
Interestingly, the other Non-Negotiable that came to mind today was the 5-minute standup. I was talking to someone about it today, and they started to say ‘5-10 minutes’, and I had to interject, with talk of Non-Negotiables, how if you let something like that slip, pretty soon you’re having daily half-hour sit down ‘stand-up’ meetings.
Interestingly, biking to work every day is not quite a Non-Negotiable. I take probably a couple of weeks off each year, some for snow, some for rain, some for events. It’s pretty close, though, and I’m not so worried, because I’ve been doing it for long enough (14 years, I think), that it’s a pretty deep-seated habit.
So, what are your Non-Negotiables? What is the one thing you want to change this year?
[1]Pretty sure it was G at a life coaching session, but my brain has this annoying tendency to abstract things away, but that’s another post. I also remember it from a speech by the head counselor at music camp many years ago, but that’s another story…
Q10: Negative rates, and how they affect Berkshire:
Charlie:
1/4 to -1/4 is not very different. Both are ‘painful’ interest rates for investing $60 billion
Charlie Munger looks like a sea turtle.
Charlie seems to drink a lot of Coke, don’t know if Warren does, but that could just because Warren is the one talking most of the time.
Q11: BNSF Decline in commodity prices, and how that might change how much freight is shipped
“We don’t mark up and down our wholly-owned businesses based on motions in the stock market.”
Q12:Harry Potter(?!?) question? (The question asker compared the situation to Hogwarts, etc…)
How should children look at stocks when time horizons for ‘investing’ so short, and IPOs are making so much money?
(On IPOs)
‘If they want to do mathematically unsound things and one of them gets lucky and they put the one that’s lucky on television…’
Think of stocks as a business you own…
Charlie:
‘American business will do fine’
‘But not the average client of a stockbroker.’
‘The stockbroker will do fine’
Q13: NV lobbying against solar (rooftops) where the utility was forced to pay the increased rate to the homeowner instead of the government?
‘Who pays the subsidy’ is the issue… (‘A political question’)
‘If society is the one benefiting, then society should pick up the tab.’
Q14: Low oil prices influence BRK more now (because of various effects on various subsidiaries)?
Warren:
‘We don’t think we can predict the price of commodities.’
Charlie:
‘I’m even more ignorant than you are.’
Q15: Would philanthropic establishment of new universities help with the cost of tuition, possibly by supply/demand?
Charlie:
‘If you expect financial efficiency in american higher education, you’re howling at the wind’
‘Glory of civilization’ (universities)
‘Monopoly and bureaucracy’ (description of universities)
We (USA) spend a lot of money on higher education. Being cheap is not our issue.
Charlie:
‘I’ve made all the enemies I can afford.’
Q16: On effects of Donald Trump on Berkshire
‘That won’t be the main problem’
Charlie:
‘I’m afraid to get into this area.’
Warren:
‘Business in this country has done extremely well for 200 years.’
Returns on tangible equity have not suffered while those on fixed income have suffered.
GDP/capita has gone up in real terms
‘System works very well in terms of output per capita, as far as distribution (inequality), there are often more issues.’
‘Charlie, give something pessimistic to balance me out.’
Charlie:
‘I don’t think the future is necessarily going to be as good as the past, but it doesn’t need to be.’
‘You’re making free choices that you couldn’t 20 years ago.’
Q17: Norfolk Southern/CP failed merger fallout?
BNSF: Certain tests needed to be passed before a large railroad merger would happen (good for public interest, good for shareholders, etc…). That merger may have been good for the shareholders, but did not meet the overall criteria. Next round of mergers will occur when population makes transportation more scarce.
Q18: How do you feel about investment banks not being able to make as much money?
After 2008-9, regulations to increase capital requirements, particularly on larger banks….
‘You can change the math of banking and profitability of banking by changing capital requirements.’
100% capital requirement means not very profitable, 1% capital requirements causes huge problems
Investment banking not a thing we invest in.
Charlie:
‘Generally, we fear the genre more than we love it.’
Q19: Activist investor targeting if BRK trades at a discount to intrinsic value?
Defend by size, and by having money to buy shares at less than intrinsic value.
‘The numbers involved would be staggering.’
Mid-America does better by not being split up.
1973-1974 very good companies selling at a steep discount to what they’re worth… (When stocks at a discount, money is hard to come by)
Charlie:
We don’t worry about this and others do, they can get attacked by hostile takeovers/etc, and we can’t
‘…and you want a strong ally, how many people would you pick in preference to BRK?’
Q20: Leasing?
Train cars… Bank has lower cost of funds than we do
‘A trillion dollars, at 10 basis points’
Aircraft leasing not interesting…
‘We’re well located now, but I don’t think we have new opportunities.’
Q21: Which competitor would you take out and why
Charlie:
‘I don’t think we have to answer this one.’
‘Widening the moat’ is the goal.
‘Not trying to target competitors, just trying to do the best everywhere.’
Warren:
‘Spoken like an anti-trust lawyer’
Q22: Sequoia, and Valeant position
The guy we trusted and recommended passed away in 2005.
The manager involved is no longer in charge.
‘If you have a manager, and doesn’t have integrity, make sure they’re dumb and lazy.’
‘Pattern recognition is very important in evaluation of humans and business.’
‘Frequently come to a bad end, but frequently looks good in the short term.’
Charlie:
‘Valeant of course was a sewer.’ (And they deserved what they got.)
Protege Partners Wager Results (longbets.org)
Hedge funds of funds vs. S&P500 index funds
‘That might sound like a terrible result for the hedge funds, but it’s not a terrible result for the hedge fund managers.’
‘180 million dollars a year, merely for breathing.’ (If Berkshire compensated 2&20.)
‘They can’t believe that they can’t hire someone to make them more money than average.’
‘Consultants can’t change too much year to year, because it looks like they don’t know what they’re doing.’
‘Charlie, do you have anything to add to my sermon?’
‘A tiny group of people.’ (Who can manage money consistently better)
‘Far far far more money made on Wall Street by sales abilities than investment abilities.’
Over lunch today, we were talking, and the question came up as to exactly where the boundary was between interpretive dance and non-verbal communication.
Interpretive Dance is described as seeking to “to translate human emotions, conditions, situations or fantasies into movement and dramatic expression”.
Whereas Non-Verbal Communication is seeking “communication through sending and receiving wordless clues”.
So, what is the difference? Is Interpretive dance more intentional? Is it more specific? When an actor or performer is acting at their best, is their non-verbal communication any less intentional?
Perhaps these are just two sides of the same coin, like Rap and Spoken Word.
How has diplomacy[1] evolved through the eons? We postulate that humans have changed, but do you think that a Roman senator would feel that out of place in the U.S. Senate? That the job of an ambassador has really changed in the last three thousand years?
It feels like the largest difference has been in the speed of communication. It used to be that the phrase ‘I have to go consult with my government. This may take some days.’ meant travel time. Now it means ‘We need to get used to this idea’ exclusively.
Advances in dentistry and water fluoridation probably mean that people are less cranky because their teeth hurt, advances in chemistry mean that we no longer sprinkle lead on our food. Advances in travel and communications mean that larger empires are more governable and longer-range diplomacy and trade are more viable.
Perhaps the spread of democracy[3] has had the greatest effect. If you look at human history (especially the relatively recent colonialism), those nations or organizations which were the most stable and had the greatest longevity tended to become the most powerful (provided they had the desire and resources/room to expand). But once you control for that, once countries reach that higher stability plateau, they end up competing with each other in very familiar ways.
But most probably, the spread of nuclear weapons has actually had the greatest effect. Great powers have warred with each other since time immemorial. The relative power of offensive and defensive technology has waxed and waned throughout history, but Mutually Assured Destruction was never present absent a larger third party.
Maybe we’ll use this opportunity to talk a little bit more, and understand each other a little bit better.
[1]Diplomacy has remained largely unchanged, except for the use of plastic game pieces in some editions.
[2]Attributed to Daniel Varè an Italian diplomat and author from the early 20th century.
[3]Many would argue for ‘Representative Democracy‘, ‘Constitutional Monarchy‘, or ‘Republic‘. These are all valid positions, and this discussion is out of scope.
But what is ‘Dada Science’? Namespace being what it is, there are already twoothers with a claim to the phrase.
For me, it’s all about helping people get to that space between meaning, where their minds are just a little more open to the possibilities. I quite enjoy being put in that state. Terry Pratchett might have likened it to ‘Thlabber‘, ” a recognised scientific term used by wizards to describe the precise instant during any magical transformation where, after a period of feeling elongated, stretched, altered, or reduced to a single point in the space-time continuum, things have just returned to normal and the subject is feeling the first hints of relief and disorientation.”
Perhaps the space is not created by the stretching, but by the reaction and recovery to the stretching.
