Thursday, October 18, 2018

Who determines the purpose of a company? (Or, can an anonymous Amazon employee define corporate evil?)

I could limit myself to the recent Medium post by an anonymous Amazon employee regarding Amazon's provision of facial recognition software to government agencies (DISCLOSURE: my employer provides competing facial recognition software to government agencies), but I'd rather talk about the general case first before delving into the specifics.

In the United States, a corporation may consist of a single shareholder, a few shareholders, or a bunch of shareholders. Amazon, for example, probably has thousands if not millions of shareholders; the company has 487.74 million shares outstanding. At the same time, a company has some number of employees - Amazon has approximately 566,000.

Who determines what a company (Amazon, or any other company) is supposed to do? The shareholders? The employees? Someone else?

One possible answer to this question is "the government" - not necessarily the specifics of what any company does, but how the company will do it. Take this quote from then-Senator Al Franken at a 2010 event:

[I]t is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits...

Later in 2010, Max Kennerly, Esq. published a post on this topic, looking at Franken's statement, other views on the truth of Franken's statement, and a Delaware court case that touched on this. The court case (PDF) was eBay vs. Newmark, and concerned the company Craigslist. Unlike Amazon, Craigslist had a limited number of shareholders: a guy named Craig, a guy named Jim, and a company named eBay. As Kennerly quoted from the case:

Jim and Craig did prove that they personally believe craigslist should not be about the business of stockholder wealth maximization, now or in the future. As an abstract matter, there is nothing inappropriate about an organization seeking to aid local, national, and global communities by providing a website for online classifieds that is largely devoid of monetized elements. Indeed, I personally appreciate and admire Jim’s and Craig’s desire to be of service to communities.

But:

The corporate form in which craigslist operates, however, is not an appropriate vehicle for purely philanthropic ends, at least not when there are other stockholders interested in realizing a return on their investment. Jim and Craig opted to form craigslist, Inc. as a for-profit Delaware corporation and voluntarily accepted millions of dollars from eBay as part of a transaction whereby eBay became a stockholder. Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders.

Well, that's what the court said, in essence saying that the shareholder eBay was entitled to assume that Craigslist was in the business of making a profit. But Kennerly himself added a caveat to what the court said:

Unlike Chancellor Chandler, I don’t think Jim and Craig did anything wrong by trying to protect the frugal, community-centered corporate culture at craigslist. Although it is certainly reasonable to presume that, in general, a shareholder invests in a for-profit Corporation for the purpose of maximizing their returns, it’s not like eBay bought shares of Halliburton and then watched as Halliburton forsake war in favor of soup kitchens and music programs for kids. It’s not Dodge v. Ford.

Instead, eBay knowingly and voluntarily bought a piece of Jim and Craig’s frugal, community-centered company. As such, the fiduciary duty owed by Jim and Craig to eBay has to be viewed in the context of the company itself – a company renowned for its tiny size, community service mindset, and its refusal to adopt typical principles of short-term profit-maximization.


But Kennerly then notes that he isn't the one making the rules; the court is.

But what I think should be the law — and what a couple politically-biased professors claim is the law — isn’t necessarily the law. Under eBay v. Newman, the law is as Franken said: “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.” Just ask Jim and Craig; no one disputes it’s their company, but they’re legally prohibited from taking steps to preserve the profit-alongside-community-service mission that’s served them well. Maximize profits, or else.

So, let's return to my initial question: who determines what a company (Amazon, or any other company) is supposed to do? The shareholders? The employees? Someone else? Some people say that the government requires maximization of profits, while others say that shareholders (or maybe just a majority of them) can determine how the company stays in business.


What about the employees? Well, now we're ready to get to the Medium article about Amazon. By way of introduction (DISCLOSURE: my employer provides competing facial recognition software to government agencies), Amazon provides a product called Rekognition that can be used for facial recognition. Washington County, Oregon has purchased the software, and as I write this Orlando, Florida is testing it. For a variety of reasons that I won't get into here, over 450 Amazon employees do not think that Amazon should be selling this software to government customers. An anonymous Amazon employee, writing about this view, says the following:

Amazon talks a lot about values of leadership. If we want to lead, we need to make a choice between people and profits.

On the surface, this strikes me as an extremely naive statement. I don't know how happy the Amazon employee would be if Amazon turned around and said, "OK, we're not going to do business with governments, despite the reduction in revenue. By the way, here's your pay cut." (Incidentally, I'm assuming that the anonymous Amazon employee is NOT one of the Amazon employees who is receiving government food stamps. Not THERE'S a people and profits issue.

But in reality the Amazon employee may not be that naive after all.

While the company's requirements for warehouse workers aren't necessarily all that stringent, a higher skill level is needed for all of those Amazon employees who do the tech stuff to build the platforms. And when Amazon seeks new employees, it has to compete against other tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Craigslist. When the companies are in the driver's seat, this isn't too hard - Amazon can pick the employees it wants, and the employees will swallow whatever job requirements Amazon imposes.

But what if the potential employees are calling the shots? It could get a little tough.

INTERVIEWER: Congratulations, Cindy. Amazon is prepared to offer you a salary of $150,000 a year, a bonus incentive plan, company paid health insurance, $100 in Uber vouchers every month, and pre-paid Amazon Prime. Just sign here...

CINDY: Wait a minute. I have a few questions.

INTERVIEWER: The Amazon Prime is prepaid.

CINDY: Before I sign, I need assurances that Amazon is fully committed to the Me Too movement.

INTERVIEWER: Amazon takes allegations of harassment very seriously, and strives to maintain a workplace that is inclusive for all.

CINDY: OK, what about Black Lives Matter?

INTERVIEWER: They do.

CINDY: But wait. Based upon an MIT study that examined three specific facial recognition algorithms - none of them from Amazon - I have personally concluded that every single facial recognition algorithm is racist and sexist and should not be provided to any government agency that could deprive people of color of their freedom. Does Amazon agree with this, or do I need to offer my technical services to Craigslist?


So who determines what a company is supposed to do?

The government, which (via the court system) seems to argue that companies MUST put profits before people?

The majority of shareholders, who (at least in theory) decide the direction that the company should take in the short-term and the long-term?

The company's management, which often wrests de facto control of the company from the shareholders and does what it wants to do?

The company's employees, who (since they're doing the work) are entitled to have a major say in what the company does, and does not do?

There's one category that we didn't cover - the company's customers. If the customers quit buying Amazon products (or Nike products, or whatever), then it doesn't matter what the government, shareholders, management, and employees think. If people (and government agencies) refuse to buy Amazon products, Amazon may join Sears in bankruptcy court.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

The latest in #iamnottrendy - I joined Tumblr this week.

Those of you on Google+ know that everyone is stressing out over which service they're going to join when Google+ shuts down. (Let's go to Sporeplus! Let's go to WeeWee! Let's go to BigAnimal!)

Well, as of now I haven't done any of these things, even though at least one of these options probably meets my criteria for a Google+ replacement. First, the replacement needs to support multiple types of posts (text, links, pictures, whatever) like Google+ does. Second, the replacement has to have a mobile app.

I have found a replacement that meets both of my criteria, and it's not Pluspora or MeWe or Mastodon or any of the other things that the cool kids are looking at this week. And it offers another benefit: both Mitch Wagner and Steven Perez are on this service.

The name of the service?

Tumblr.

Perhaps you've heard of it. After all, it's been around for over a decade. I just never got around to joining it until this week.

There is, of course, one big drawback to Tumblr - namely, that it's owned by Oath, the company that was once Yahoo! and the company that makes Google appear to be stable and consistent. So we'll see how long Tumblr lasts.

Anyway, my Tumblr name is Empoprises, I'm at https://empoprises.tumblr.com/, and I'm trying to duplicate my Google+ categories as Tumblr hashtags (yes, I've already used #guvmint). Not implying that I know what I'm doing in Tumblr, but I'm slowly figuring it out.

Maybe.

Monday, October 8, 2018

Google Plus to Shut Down. Both Remaining Users Pissed.

To understand this post, you need to know a bit of history.

Remember FriendFeed? A very stable service that was bought by Facebook in 2009 - not for the service, but for the people and the technology?

Well, by 2010 FriendFeed had an unusual bit of instablity, which prompted a TechCrunch article by MG Siegler entitled "FriendFeed Goes Down Hard. Both Remaining Users Pissed." This elicited a reaction from the FrindFeed faithful (see my blog post at the time), but people still thought of FriendFeed as a "ghost town."



And by 2015, FriendFeed was pining for the fjords.

Which brings us to Monday, October 8, 2018, the day that the Wall Street Journal ran an article,

That's behind a paywall.

But TechCrunch (again) stepped in to report what was going on.

Google is about to have its Cambridge Analytica moment. A security bug allowed third-party developers to access Google+ user profile data since 2015 until Google discovered and patched it in March, but decided not to inform the world. When a user gave permission to an app to access their public profile data, the bug also let those developers pull their and their friends’ non-public profile fields. Indeed, 496,951 users’ full names, email addresses, birth dates, gender, profile photos, places lived, occupation and relationship status were potentially exposed, though Google says it has no evidence the data was misused by the 438 apps that could have had access.

Because the word "ghost town"...



...has attached itself to Google+, the news later in the article was not surprising. It seems that this security issue was the final straw.

Google+ will cease all its consumer services while winding down over the next 10 months with an opportunity for users to export their data while Google refocuses on making G+ an enterprise product.

Google confirmed this in a blog post about Project Strobe, which apparently has to do with blinding people so they can't see Google advertisements. Or sumfin.

The [security] review did highlight the significant challenges in creating and maintaining a successful Google+ that meets consumers’ expectations. Given these challenges and the very low usage of the consumer version of Google+, we decided to sunset the consumer version of Google+.

To give people a full opportunity to transition, we will implement this wind-down over a 10-month period, slated for completion by the end of next August. Over the coming months, we will provide consumers with additional information, including ways they can download and migrate their data.

At the same time, we have many enterprise customers who are finding great value in using Google+ within their companies. Our review showed that Google+ is better suited as an enterprise product where co-workers can engage in internal discussions on a secure corporate social network. Enterprise customers can set common access rules, and use central controls, for their entire organization. We’ve decided to focus on our enterprise efforts and will be launching new features purpose-built for businesses. We will share more information in the coming days.


If this sounds familiar, it's because Google has shut down a lot of services over the years. While many are talking about Google Reader, Google Wave, and Orkut, there have been others - iGoogle, Google Talk, Google Health, Google Buzz, Jaiku, Google Answers, and many more. Personally, the one that hit me was the cessation of Neven Vision's police offerings after Google acquire it.

And so I'm writing about all of this...on Blogger. Perhaps I should repurpose it as a tymshft post.

Saturday, July 7, 2018

When The Onion is beaten by reality - the REAL imitation of Yellowstone National Park

Several years ago, well-known satirical website The Onion ran an article entitled Yellowstone National Park Concerned About Competing 'Yello-Stone Natural Park' Built Right Across Street. The article described the opening of a competing, similarly named park right next to the well-known national park. Well, perhaps not so well-known, according to one park visitor quoted in The Onion's piece:

"At least it was great to finally see Old Reliable in person," Danaher added. "I had no idea that it spouted every hour on the hour and erupted in sync with classic rock hits each night at 7:30."

Of course, The Onion (unlike some of its detractors) often writes pieces that make you think. And while that probably wasn't the intent of this article - it was written during Barack Obama's first term, back when Ryan Zinke was an obscure Montana state senator. But it did get me thinking about something.

Basically, the Onion's story about an imitator to Yellowstone National Park happened for real.

And it happened decades before the 2011 Onion article.

Let's go back to the summer of 1968. While some people were protesting the Vietnam War, Doug Haag was driving around Wisconsin.

As he whizzed past numerous cars packed with families and pulling pop-ups and trailers, the concept struck him. All these campers needed a place to stay and might want something better than a campground along a busy highway. What if there was a “destination” campground, where families could spend their vacations swimming, playing, and enjoying nature?

Having bought the land for his destination campground, Haag had to name it.

From his advertising experience Haag knew, “In order to draw campers, we needed a clever and recognized name for our campground. My partner and I and our families had many discussions about names. Paul Bunyan, Lewis & Clark, Hiawatha, Pocahontas, Robin Hood, sports stars, and historical figures. We went through them all, but nothing seemed to fit.”

But then one day Haag happened to hear his kids listening to a cartoon on a TV set, and he had his name. He went to the producers of that particular TV show, Screen Gems, and got the license that he needed. Now there are Jellystone Parks everywhere.


The TV show that inspired Haag, of course, was the Yogi Bear show. It was the story of two bears with a love for pic-a-nic baskets, but who had to beware of the watchful eye of the Ranger. The bears and Ranger were at a park called Jellystone Park, a name that was obviously similar to that of Yellowstone Park. That wasn't the only thing that the cartoon borrowed - the star bear's name was remarkably similar to that of a then-famous baseball player, and the bear's mannerisms were remarkably similar to the Honeymooners' Ed Norton. (Another Hanna-Barbera cartoon, The Flintstones, had characters similar to Ed Norton AND Ralph Kramden.)


Yogi Bear originally appeared in 1958, as a secondary character to Huckleberry Hound. But even before Yogi Bear got his own TV series in 1961, he had attracted the attention of the real Yellowstone National Park - in a good way:

Yellowstone Superintendent Garrison first wrote to Yogi Bear in December of 1960. In his letter to Yogi, Garrison complemented the bear on his success, and invited him to think of Yellowstone as a second home considering its similarities to Jellystone. Superintendent Garrison also wrote to Yogi about some of the troubling behavior of the bears in the park at that time. He extended to both Yogi and Boo-Boo a permanent pass to the park as well as a certificate thanking them for their efforts to educate the public about bears. This letter began a relationship between Yellowstone and Superintendent Garrison and Hanna-Barbera and Yogi Bear....

Hanna-Barbera agreed to produce bear education pamphlets and signs for park non-commercial use. The park set about writing and creating handouts to give to park visitors detailing bear safety measures. The pamphlets reminded people to not leave food in their cars, keep their windows rolled up, and properly store their food when camping. Hanna-Barbera and [Kellogg's] agreed to produce standing signs as well. These cut-outs of Yogi Bear were placed at the entrances to the park. Visitors in the sixties were greeted by Yogi Bear himself, holding signs reminding visitors to be safe in the park.


But sometimes the fictional Yogi Bear, like the fictional Onion, would confuse people:

The public’s love of Yogi Bear led to great public involvement when the park began to alter its bear management policies. When the Park began installing bear safe trash cans and dumpsters in the park, many people were concerned that the bears would starve. “What will Yogi eat?” was a common theme in these arguments.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

The song of business

OK, I goofed.

I just wrote a wonderful piece for the Empoprise-BI business blog...and accidentally posted it to the Empoprise-MU music blog instead.

I'll just leave it right there.

Which means I need to say something musical, so I will. Instagram's new feature that lets you share Spotify tracks on Instagram stories is addicting.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Those who can, do. Those who can't...there's always motivational speaking

My company's annual Users Conference is next month, and we always feature several keynote speakers at our conference. Over the years we have featured people who have done extraordinary things, and people who have found themselves in extraordinary situations.

But over the weekend I encountered a motivational speaker who has never crossed our radar. Perhaps you've heard of him.

You know you’re capable of more if only you could…

Tell your story in such a powerful way you touch people’s hearts and move them to action
Stand in front of a group of dozens…hundreds…or even thousands with confidence
Create financial freedom for yourself and your family by sharing your message
Sounds fantastic…But it’s scary, isn’t it?

You risk rejection and the pain of being told “no.”

So you’re torn between taking a chance and going for it or playing safe and small while your heart aches with disappointment that you’re not going after your dream.

And you’re just a little jealous when you see someone else make it and you know you have a bigger message and could make an even bigger impact.

If only…


Yes, this speaker has taken a risk and faced rejection. His story continues.

Hi, this is William Hung. That’s right, the person who’s failed audition on American Idol has been viewed more than 5 million times on YouTube.

But what looked like a humiliating failure, actually turned out to be my greatest opportunity.

I was in the media. I got a recording contract. I had a part in a movie and on the popular show, Arrested Development.

That all happened ONLY because I took a chance and failed.



Here's his speaker demo reel.



I was unable to find his speaker's fee, but it's safe to say that he doesn't command Richard Branson rates.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Update - ISC West takes action on booth babes

Last year, I posted some observations about the clothing (or lack thereof) at one of the booths at the ISC West trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada.

For some people, the use of scantily clad people in that one booth detracted from the professionalism that one would expect at a business show.

For other people, the criticism was ridiculous - "You guys clucking at this should take your skirts off" was one reaction.

Well, I learned a couple of new things this week.

First, the attire of the one company's "staff" at the 2017 show was against show regulations. 2016 guidelines prohibited "[a]ttire of an overly revealing, suggestive nature" such as "[t]ops displaying excessive cleavage."

Second, the people running ISC West have stated that they WILL enforce the 2016 prohibition in 2018. This was communicated to the Institute for Professional Video Management, along with the comment "It’s very important to us that our attendees feel comfortable during their experience at the show."

While this doesn't take care of the entire issue - it's best if booths are staffed by people that know the products - it at least takes care of the most offensive part of the 2017 display.

Incidentally, this change is not restricted to the computer technology world. Booth babes are also disappearing from the Geneva Motor Show, and #MeToo is cited as a possible reason.

However, it appears that there are still booth babes at the SHOT show.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

(empo-utoobd) My long-term Plan C to reverse the @YouTube TOU #4 Section H permanent disabling of my account

For the background of this, see the posts from 2009, 2009, 2013, early today, and a little later today.

Briefly: one day in 2009 I discovered that my YouTube account had been permanently disabled. I was told at the time that the account "has been found to have violated our Community Guidelines" and that "[w]e are unable to provide specific detail regarding your account suspension or your video's removal." (In essence, you read our Community Guidelines and figure out what rule you broke.)

Four years later I learned additional information: namely, that I allegedly violated TOU #4 Section H. From what I could make out, it sounds like I had constructed automated scripts or something.

As I stated in 2013 (and again less than 24 hours ago) the only problem is that to my knowledge I never did violate TOU #4 Section H. I don't even know how to construct automated scripts or whatever it was that I allegedly did.

Basically, I hadn't addressed this with Google since 2013. But I figured that after five years, it was time to launch a second appeal of the permanent disabling of my account.


Impressively, Google moved quickly to review the entire situation, including the circumstances surrounding my permanent disabling nearly a decade ago. This is remarkable, since Google had to review a ton of information, including information that I don't even have about my alleged violation.

So, less than six hours after I launched my appeal, I heard back from Google.

Hello,

Thank you for your account suspension appeal. We have decided to keep your account suspended based on our Community Guidelines and Terms of Service. Please visit http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines for more information.

Please do not respond to this email. Replies to this email will not be processed. Please refer to our Help Center for more information.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team


Oddly enough, I actually received LESS information in 2018 than I did in 2013. At least in 2013 I was told what part of the terms I had alleged violated. This time around, I was merely told that Google had "decided to keep your account suspended based on our Community Guidelines and Terms of Service."

I still don't know what I allegedly did.

And it's not worth Google's time to even discuss the specifics to me. After all, there were over 500 million YouTube channels in 2012. Why spend time worrying about one relatively unknown person who is unhappy? I guess I should feel thankful that Google even spent six hours reviewing the case.

I have to say I'm not especially shocked that my appeal was dismissed. In fact, even before my appeal was rejected, I began wondering what I should do if it WAS rejected.

Hence, this thread, which consisted of links to two items.


The first was a tweet from a woman named Kylie Jenner. If you haven't heard of Kylie Jenner, let's just note that she has a sister named Kim Kardashian. And she has two mommies, but that's a whole other story.

So what did Kylie Jenner tweet on February 21?

sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore? Or is it just me... ugh this is so sad.

Now if I were going to tweet something like this (which I wouldn't; I don't use Snapchat), I'm not sure that it would cause much of a ripple. But that tweet from Ms. Jenner has resulted in over 75,000 retweets, and over 370,000 likes.

And what else? Well, that brings me to my second link.

Snap (SNAP) stock closed down 6% on Thursday after the reality TV star said she is no longer using the app. The plunge wiped about $1.3 billion off the company's market value.

While Jenner's effect on Snapchat's stock price was subsequently questioned, you can bet that Snapchat internally paid very close attention to Ms. Jenner's issues. And I'm sure that someone discussed it with Evan Spiegel.

I don't think that Sundar Pichai spent any appreciable time examining the ramifications of the suspension of my YouTube account.

And if I decide to launch yet another appeal of my suspension in 2023, I don't think that Pichai or his successor will spend a lot of time on it either.

Or will he?

Because, you see, if I begin to execute a long-term plan now, I can GUARANTEE that my YouTube permanent disabling will FINALLY be reversed.

I'll admit that my idea is not original with me. I stole it from Steve Martin.

You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!"

Martin's technique works...just as long as you get past the "get a million dollars" part.

My long-term plan to reverse the permanent disabling of my YouTube account also has two steps.

The first step?

Become more famous than the Kardashian/Jenner family and the Trump family COMBINED.

Once I achieve that first step, and get to that rarefied plane where people hang on my every word, and a single word from me can make or break empires...well, at that stage, the rest is easy.








Because, you see, when I reach that level of fame, and I decide that I want to talk at the World Trade Center (not too far away from Wall Street) at 9:15 on a weekday morning (right before the U.S. stock markets open), and I would like Oprah Winfrey, Kim Kardashian, and Donald Trump to ask me questions...they WILL come. (And Putin will be so sad that I didn't invite him...but he won't be able to do anything about it.)

CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

And Donald Trump will be groveling before me, telling me that I'm the greatest genius of all time.

I'll just smile.

And because the world wants to know everything about me, Oprah Winfrey will ask me what TV shows I watch.

I'll respond, "Well, to tell you the truth, I don't watch much TV."

(At that time, future stock prices on the companies owning the major television networks will plummet.)

I'll quietly continue. "Since I live in the West Coast, just about everything is on tape delay except for sports, and I don't really like to watch things that happened three hours ago."

(And just like that, NBC will immediately start broadcasting "Saturday Night Live" at 8:30pm in Los Angeles.)

But I'm not done yet. "I love sports. I'd watch the Dodgers if they were on TV, but of course most people in Los Angeles can't see the games."

(Within five minutes, the Dodgers would sign a deal allowing every over-the-air TV station in Southern California to carry every Dodgers home and away game live, without commercial interruption.)

Having satisfactorily answered Oprah's question, I can turn my attention to Kim Kardashian's question.

"So, what online services do you like?"

"Well, Kim," I'll respond, "I love online services. Perhaps I don't use Twitter as much as Donnie-boy here..."

(Twitter immediately files for bankruptcy.)

I continue. "...but there are other social services that I love. One of the services that I loved the most was FriendFeed. Too bad Facebook shut it down."

(As I continue speaking, Mark Zuckerberg will place an urgent Messenger message to Benjamin Golub. "Do what you can to get the FriendFeed servers running again. NOW!" orders Zuckerberg.)

I continue talking. Billions of people are hanging on my every word. The slightest comment, positive or negative, about any online service will make or break careers and reputations.

Finally, after a couple of minutes of this, Kim will ask the question that I previously ordered her to ask.

"But you haven't mentioned YouTube," she'll say.

And I'll smile.

"YouTube doesn't want me to use its service," I'll say quietly, in my best aw shucks voice. "I guess I'm not all that important to YouTube."

During the next minute, as Donald, Oprah, and Kim pour adulation on me and my wisdom, Google's Tiger Team will pour through its warehouse of data, looking up the super-secret private number on my mobile phone.

And as the interview concludes, and the U.S. stock markets prepare to open for the day, my phone will ring.

And the CEO of Google will be on the other end of the line, preparing his or her abject apologies for the years that I was unable to use the YouTube service.

Problem solved!








Yes, the scenario above is entirely possible, once I get past that first "fame" step.

In the meantime, if you want me to like or comment on your videos...it ain't happening. Sundar doesn't want me to.

(empo-utoobd) Well, they got the appeal

This was an auto-generated message that I received a half hour before my post went live, but I might as well document it.

Hello,

We have received your account appeal and will get back to you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team

(empo-utoobd) It's been almost five years - might as well try again

So I've been mulling over my mysterious 2009 YouTube suspension again - the one where my YouTube account was permanently disabled and it took me four years to even find out why.

Hi there,

This account was found in Violation of TOU #4 Section H:
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

"You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation, "robots," "spiders," or "offline readers," that accesses the Service in a manner that sends more request messages to the YouTube servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a conventional on-line web browser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, YouTube grants the operators of public search engines permission to use spiders to copy materials from the site for the sole purpose of and solely to the extent necessary for creating publicly available searchable indices of the materials, but not caches or archives of such materials. YouTube reserves the right to revoke these exceptions either generally or in specific cases. You agree not to collect or harvest any personally identifiable information, including account names, from the Service, nor to use the communication systems provided by the Service (e.g., comments, email) for any commercial solicitation purposes. You agree not to solicit, for commercial purposes, any users of the Service with respect to their Content."

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team


So I've launched another appeal, again stating that I wasn't a script kiddie or whatever I presumably was.


Incidentally, back in 2013 I wrote the following:

If you see this post years after I wrote it, or if you're not a sports enthusiast, I should explain that Ryan Braun is a baseball player who vehemently denied for 18+ months that he violated baseball's drug policy - until yesterday, when he suddenly admitted that he had violated baseball's drug policy. I wanted to make the point that I'm not going to subsequently admit to using some type of automated spider, especially since any attempt of mine to prove that I could even launch an automated spider would be a laughable failure. No, I am not a script kiddie.


While I'm waiting, I took the opportunity to read any new news on permanently disabled YouTube accounts since 2013. Most importatly, I found this thread that explains (better than Google did) what TOU #4 Section H actually is.

rewboss said:
TOU #4 Section H is about gaming views. It says you're not allowed to use any bot or other automated system to artificially inflate your view count or generate likes, comments and so on.

Basically, this is what YouTube is accusing you of. To YouTube, it looks like lots of your views came from a bot or a click farm of some sort. What's now happening is that you've appealed, and people at YouTube are taking a second look to try to figure out whether you really did cheat. So far, in some cases they have decided that there's no good evidence you did cheat.

If you actually did buy views, likes and comments, you've been lucky; if you didn't, you've been unlucky. But it may be difficult for YouTube to determine whether or not you cheated, because of course these fraudulant services try to make their activities look legit. That may be why it's taking YouTube so long to investigate.


Which is nice to know, but parts of the rest of the thread are bizarre - things about some accounts being reinstated, and some not reinstated, and empty accounts being permanently disabled, and Adsense issues. For example:

One of my youtube channels show - "Monetization on this account has been disabled due to invalid click activity" - How is that even possible if they reinstated that channel saying that I have not violated TOU #4H, and today they reinstated another channel of mine, few hours after Adsense was disabled.

(Incidentally, I never did monetize my YouTube account. From what I recall - and again, this was nearly a decade ago - I only had one YouTube video that was publicly viewable, so there wouldn't be any point in monetizing my YouTube account.)

However, this thread includes references to a number of appeals in a single month (because multiple channels were involved), so I guess my "appeal every five years" strategy should be safe (although possibly not productive).

Oh, and this appeal thread ended with...well, this:

I was suspended again few days ago and they reinstated my account yesterday - the 2nd time..
Can stuff like this happen again ?


Saturday, March 17, 2018

From gaming to tomatoes - non-trendy Pomodoro in Slack

So I was recently checking out an online information service associated with one of my games, and the service mentioned something about routing alerts to Slack channels.

Which was just the excuse I needed to try out Slack.

Yes, I never got around to trying out Slack until 2018. I am not trendy.

So I started setting things up, creating a one-person Slack workspace for me, myself, and I.

Well, there's also my good buddy Slackbot. If you're non-trendy like I am, "Slackbot" responds to queries from you and provides you with information. For example, you can use a /remind command to remind you to do something at a particular time. (In this case, I directed the reminder to my #random channel.)


One minute later, the reminder appeared in my feed.


In addition to native Slack commands such as /remind, you can integrate apps into Slack. For example, you can use a Twitter app to bring selected tweets (e.g. tweets from a specific Twitter user) into Slack, or you can input tasks to your Todoist account via an app, or you can query Foursquare about available types of restaurants (or whatever) in a particular location.

So I'm exploring various apps, and I run across...Tomatobot.

Hi, I'm Tomatobot. I'm a simple timer for short, distraction-free tasks, and I can join your team in Slack.

Simply add my (sic) to your Slack team, then your team can type /startwork and I'll help them stay focused.


But why a tomato? Why does the work last for 25 minutes? Well...because.

The Pomodoro Technique was invented in the early 90s by developer, entrepeneur, and author Francesco Cirillo. Cirillo named the system "Pomodoro" after the tomato-shaped timer he used to track his work as a university student. The methodology is simple: When faced with any large task or series of tasks, break the work down into short, timed intervals (called "Pomodoros") that are spaced out by short breaks. This trains your brain to focus for short periods and helps you stay on top of deadlines or constantly-refilling inboxes. With time it can even help improve your attention span and concentration.

From https://francescocirillo.com/pages/pomodoro-technique

As I write this, I have not yet experimented with the Pomodoro Technique, but I should have a chance to do so Monday. And since I've successfully adapted the Eisenhower Matrix for my work needs, perhaps I can adapt the Pomodoro technique also.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Fast food color logo science: fake news, or real?

On Saturday morning, I found myself at the Sonic on Placentia Avenue in east Fullerton, California.

This file is copyrighted. It will be used in a way that qualifies as fair use under US copyright law.

I only mention the location because people familiar with the site know that this Sonic is near an El Pollo Loco, an In-N-Out, and a McDonald's.


The person who was with me pointed out that there was a lot of red and yellow in many fast food logos, and we were able to think of many other examples of fast food logos that used one or both of these colors. Supposedly there was a well-supported reason for use of those colors.

After returning home from Fullerton, I began consulting the research on the use of red and yellow in fast food logos - and was able to find a lot of statements, but no real research. Here is an example.

Looking at the positive psychology qualities of red & yellow in relation to the fast food industry, red triggers stimulation, appetite, hunger, it attracts attention. Yellow triggers the feelings of happiness and friendliness.

When you combine red and yellow it’s about speed, quickness. In, eat and out again.

Yellow is also the most visible colour in daylight, which is why the McDonald’s M can be seen from a far distance.


Evidence for these assertions came from studies that were conducted in...oh, none was cited.

OK, the text above was written by a marketer, and I know all about marketers. :)

But this post on the psychology of color should cite some evidence, right?

Red – Creates a sense of urgency, which is good for clearance sales. Encourages appetite, thus is frequently used by fast-food chains. Physically stimulates the body, raising blood pressure and heart rate, associated with movement, excitement, and passion....

Orange & Yellow – Cheerful colors that promote optimism. Yellow can make babies cry, while orange can trigger a sense of caution. Used to create a sense of anxiety that can draw in impulsive buyers and window shoppers.


Again, rather than saying that "red means this because these n studies have proven this association," this article seemed like a restatement of conventional wisdom. "I know this is true, because a friend of a friend told me this."

Right, and Craig Shergold still needs cards.

Color me unimpressed with the "authoritative" sources on fast food color branding that I had read to this point.

Then I encountered a paper by Andrew J. Elliot entitled Color and psychological functioning: a review of theoretical and empirical work. I skipped to the empirical section, and encountered this statement by Elliot:

Empirical work on color and psychological functioning dates back to the late 19th century (Féré, 1887; see Pressey, 1921, for a review). A consistent feature of this work, from its inception to the past decade, is that it has been fraught with major methodological problems that have precluded rigorous testing and clear interpretation (O’Connor, 2011). One problem has been a failure to attend to rudimentary scientific procedures such as experimenter blindness to condition, identifying, and excluding color deficient participants, and standardizing the duration of color presentation or exposure. Another problem has been a failure to specify and control for color at the spectral level in manipulations. Without such specification, it is impossible to know what precise combination of color properties was investigated, and without such control, the confounding of focal and non-focal color properties is inevitable (Whitfield and Wiltshire, 1990; Valdez and Mehrabian, 1994).

Elliot did note, however, that the situation is improving, and cited a Lauren Labrecque / George Milne paper as an example. The authors conducted four empirical tests, the first of which specifically controlled for hue:

To examine the relationship between hue, which refers to the wavelength of a color and what a person typically notes when describing a color (e.g., red, blue, yellow), and brand personality in the context of logo design, we hold the value and saturation levels constant across colors. Although some logos use multiple colors, we rely on single colors to isolate the color effects.

Since you obviously can't use a real multi-colored logo for such a test, the authors created their own logo. They then conducted a study with a precisely-measured group of undergraduate students, and came up with these results.


So what does the study say about red and yellow? It turns out that these colors, as well as orange, display a positive association with excitement. (Yellow is also associated with sincerity in this study.) This seems to fit our assumptions, since one can claim that seeing the "golden arches" makes us excited.

But what of ruggedness? Some of these fast food places have offerings that appeal to a rugged personality, someone who would growl for a Double Double with Animal Fries. But look at the numbers - red has practically no correlation with ruggedness, and orange and yellow are negatively correlated with ruggedness.

So what color exhibits a high positive correlation with ruggedness?

Green.

Yeah, when I go to Starbucks and order my chai latte, I'm more rugged than the Marlboro Man.


Sophie G., via the Yelp entry for the Mansfield, Texas Starbucks

Going back to Elliot, he has performed a lot of research on color, but his most famous bit of research has nothing to do with Animal Fries. The work that merited mention in Wikipedia was a study co-authored by Elliot, Women's use of red clothing as a sexual signal in intersexual interaction.

Well, Dr. Elliot, I still think that the Hot Dog on a Stick uniform is ugly.

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Revisiting the Shotwell's / Google Glass controversy, several years and one ocean later

(BIG OL' DISCLAIMER THINGIE: I AM EMPLOYED IN THE BIOMETRIC/SECURITY INDUSTRY. VIEWS ARE MY OWN.)

Actually, I was employed in the biometric/security industry back in 2013, but video didn't mean that much to me in those days. (It does now.) So it was primarily due to curiosity that I wrote the post Sometimes it's OK to be a Luddite (Shotwell's vs. Scoble). Here are a few relevant points regarding that 2013 post:

First, at the time, Google Glass was a big thing.

Second, there was (and is) a bar called Shotwell's Bar in San Francisco, just up the road from Google headquarters. Therefore, there was a pretty good chance that a Google Glass-wearing person might wander into Shotwell's Bar.

Third, it turns out that this did happen, prompting a Facebook post from Shotwell's that wasn't that complimentary of Google Glass.

This resulted in an Atlantic article and some angry comments from Robert Scoble - whom, you may recall, was photographed in a shower wearing Google Glass, referencing his previous book Naked Conversations. Here is a line drawing representation of that moment, taken from a patent application.


Excerpt from Robert Scoble's angry comments:

[S]oon I'll be directed to the best bars by the Google Glass and if the bartender doesn't like me wearing them I'll change the review so that people get guided to go somewhere else!

So, if you are a bartender, you better watch out. Those of us who will be wearing Google Glass are often influencers, rich, and willing to change OUR behavior when it comes to spending our money, time, attention. Hint: I tip well and drink a lot of expensive Scotch (although I'm trying to cut down, which the Glass will help me with too).


So what happened after 2013? Well, Google Glass didn't become the next great consumer item. Robert Scoble stopped drinking, but didn't use Google Glass to do it.

Oh, and one more thing happened. China happened.

Chinese police have begun using glasses equipped with facial recognition-enabled cameras to spot fugitives traveling through train stations. Though Chinese police have said the glasses will spot people using fake IDs or traveling to avoid a warrant, many are concerned about China using the tech to target political advocates and minorities. China has been accused of using face recognition tech to “fence in” the Muslim Uighur minority in northwestern Xinjiang.

I won't get into my personal views about this whole thing, because I have a story to tell. It's a story that you won't hear anywhere else. (Blatant hint.)

Because you see, Tom Madonna, owner of Shotwell's Bar in San Francisco, reportedly has a sister - Lady Madonna. Using some San Francisco connections, Lady Madonna traveled to Shanghai to open up an East Coast (Chinese East Coast) version of Shotwell's Bar. She's managed to make ends meet so far, but she ran into trouble one day when two undercover police officers walked into the bar.

Lady Madonna offered this comment on Chinese social media.

Two people just walked into the bar. Looked me square in the eye, and acting as if everything was normal they ordered beers.. Oh did I mention they wear wearing AR glasses! In public! In A BAR!

Seven minutes later, someone whom Lady didn't know added a comment:

Please delete the comment above.

Well, Lady's like her brother Tom, and can be a little feisty at times.

When you buy a new phone, it's in your pocket, but this, you're wearing something on your face. Anyone that cares what they look like is not gonna wear AR glasses. That's my opinion. If you are super nerdy and you like to show off that you're in tech and smart and all those things, I can see you probably wearing AR glasses, but you are probably in a bubble.

Seven minutes after that, the mysterious commenter showed up again.

Please delete the comment above. The two persons who visited your establishment are charged with maintaining public order. You would not want a criminal element patronizing your establishment.

Lady continued the conversation.

Hey, it wasn't just me. Everyone thought the two people looked ridiculous!

Seven minutes later, health inspectors were knocking on the door of Lady's bar.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

When did individual coworking become corporate outsourcing?

I remember parts of this from a decade ago.

[Tara Hunt and Chris Messina] started putting together meetups at Ritual Roasters in the Mission in San Francisco because we thought it would be even better to get a space full-time for independents....

We put the call out for people to come together and were super excited because lots of people showed up. Within a few months, we co-rented a live/work space in Portrero Hill with a group of others (we called it Teh Hat Factory — not a typo).

A few months later, Chris and I both left our startups and decided to start our own company, which led us to looking for and renting a bigger, more professional space in SOMA. We called this Citizen Space. It opened in October 2006.


Citizen Space is no longer open, but its indie feel can still be found in some other coworking sites, such as Pro Desk Space in Fullerton, California. This space caters to individual entrepreneurs, and its pricing supports people who need a desk for one day, or for one day a month, or more frequently.


And closer to home, it appears that there's a coworking space near downtown Ontario.

But Hunt and Messina didn't invent the office sublet - Regus (now IWG) was around long before 2006, and informal office sublet relationships have existed since the first office was established.

However, I wonder if we're seeing a new trend of coworking.

In march 2017, the New York City–based editors and writers of The Atlantic moved to a WeWork office in Brooklyn. I remember our first morning vividly: It was like entering the Millennial id. Craft beer and cucumber water poured from kitchen taps. Laptoppers in jeans and toques clacked along to MGMT in the wood-paneled common area. A WeWork “community manager” showed us to a glass-walled office so small that my colleagues and I could clasp hands while seated. We sat. Had we arrived in the future of work?

The Atlantic told us this arrangement would be temporary while our real office was renovated. As of this writing, we’re still here. If WeWork had its way, we’d stay forever, along with much of the 21st-century workforce.


This is fundamentally different from Factory Joe Startup renting a desk. And you can see it in WeWork's pricing. While Pro Desk Space's pricing page starts by asking how many days you want to work, WeWork has a different question: how many employees need seats?


Not all companies are supporting the concept of remote coworkers away from headquarters, but the WeWorks of the world are positioning themselves to cater to companies that are spread in multiple locations. If the companies outsource the whole "remote worker" thingie to a WeWork, then they don't have to worry about leasing facilities themselves, or supporting an employee's home office. And in the same way that companies expand and contract cloud storage, they can expand and contract square footage.

I'm not sure if I'd thrive in such a situation, but perhaps I'd learn how to do it. At present, my boss is over 2,000 miles away from me, so I'm already starting to adjust to this kind of life. (One of my coworkers has worked from home for over a decade now.) Why not work from a place in which I can just plug in (and put on the headphones)?

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Strava - SHARE! SHARE! SHARE! What, you shared? It's your fault!

Whenever you sign up for a free service, it's important to the service provider to have access to your data so that it can be sold. For that reason, service providers usually default accounts so that the account information is public.

What could go wrong?

An interactive map posted on the internet that shows the whereabouts of people who use Fitbit and similar devices also reveals highly sensitive information about the location and activities of soldiers at U.S. military bases, in what appears to be a major security oversight.

The GPS tracking company Strava published the Global Heat Map, using satellite information to map the movements of subscribers to the company's fitness service over a two-year period by illuminating areas of activity.


Normally that isn't much of an issue - if you're in the Los Angeles area, for example, there are a ton of people with wearables.

But what if you're in another part of the world? Such as...Afghanistan?


Now since the Taliban don't seem to be the type to run out and buy Fitbit, those few data points in the area can become VERY significant.

Zooming in on those brings into focus the locations and outlines of known U.S. military bases, as well as of other unknown and potentially sensitive sites - presumably because U.S. soldiers and other personnel are using fitness trackers there.

So people are now reacting reactively, and asking why Strava would threaten to end civilization as we know it.

Strava's reply? It's not our fault:

“We are committed to helping people better understand our settings to give them control over what they share,” the company said, sharing a blogpost from 2017 which detailed eight things users can do to lock down their privacy on the service, including specifically opting out of the global heatmap by unchecking a box in the settings page.

Perhaps this whole thing can be chalked up to unintended consequences. The military wanted to battle obesity, so it encouraged personnel to wear the fitness trackers. Strava probably didn't think through the consequences of posting this information.

But if Strava is truly committed to the safety of its community...then why is the default privacy setting set to this?

The basic level is to choose to not use any privacy controls and make your info available publicly, like it would be on Twitter, for example.

And if you don't know the answer to the question of why privacy defaults to no privacy at all...here it is.

You own the information, data, text, software, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages, posts, tags, or other materials you make available in connection with the Services (“Content”), whether publicly posted, privately transmitted, or submitted through a third party API (e.g. a photograph submitted via Instagram). You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any Content that you post on or in connection with the Services.

Basically, when there is no privacy, Strava has a LOT of data that it can use for...things.

Oh, and by the way...

You understand that you, and not Strava, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available via the Services.

Again - it's YOUR fault, stupid user, for not correcting the privacy gap that we put into the software.

THOSE are the legal parameters that Strava - and many, many other companies - consider as binding. Not the non-binding "Nothing is more important than the safety of our community" feel-good statements.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Benebit - Bene who?

So I was doing industry research on LinkedIn and ran across a post that began as follows:

Dear Cryptocurrency Community,

Another scam has been discovered👇🏼

Benebit, one of the ICOs that was quite hyped, has pulled an exit scam taking somewhat $2.7 million of investor funds. Other estimates claim it could be even $4 million 💸

The red light was switch on when it was discovered that the executive team photos had been stolen from a school website🚨

All of these people: John Leverty, Howard Sharp, Ian Livingstone & Victoria Ellison are scammers. Their profiles are fake, just as their project ‼️


The post itself didn't offer proof that Benebit was a scam, and it ended with this:

So please tag anyone that should read this. Share this with others. These people need to be banned, caught and imprisoned.

The "please share this with everyone" plea gave me an uneasy feeling about this post. Was it being posted by an enemy of Benebit, as an attempt to dampen the company's aspects?

Obviously this needed further research. I started at Benebit's LinkedIn page:

Benebit is a disruptive network for the cashback and loyalty market based on blockchain technology. The unbeatable social component of Benebit’s model is professionally designed to meet the highest standards of business/consumer interaction for securely storing and exchanging all kinds of user and brand data for the promotion of discounts, special deals, cashback and loyalty programs.

Benebit simplifies and introduces a new way for businesses and consumers to interact, which drives traffic, increases loyalty and trust, and enhances convenience and security.



Disruptive! Blockchain! "Unbeatable social component!" Coincidentally, I had recently read a Mitch Wagner post that was intentionally buzzword-loaded. So this Benebit description sounded smarmy enough, but didn't necessarily indicate that it was a scam.

Until I found this article on bitcoin.com that corroborated the LinkedIn statement.

Benebit, one of this year’s most hyped ICOs, has pulled an exit scam, making off with a reported $2.7 million of investor funds. Other estimates put the figure as high as $4 million. The fraud only came to light after someone noticed that the team photos had been stolen from a school website. Once this happened, the Benebit team scampered, taking their ill-gotten gains with them. The case is believed to be the largest ICO exit scam to date.


More disturbingly, before the discovery of the school photo "appropriation," everyone thought Benebit was just fine.

The ICO platform had wide support, with over 9,000 Telegram followers and a positive rating on ICO review sites. As soon as the scam surfaced, those sites wasted no time in scrubbing their reviews or updating them to reflect the change of circumstances, despite having previously green-lighted the project.

As late as January 5, publications such as this one were writing about Benebit's plans. And while this particular site noted that its aspirations were "obviously a difficult feat," the article writer assumed that Benebit would still be a going concern a few weeks later.

Could someone have gotten through the hype before the Benebitters ran off with millions? Hard to say. While there are a number of "news outlets" that do nothing more than regurgitate press releases (or now-deleted LinkedIn profiles), even those outlets with questioning journalists might have been stymied by Benebit's act. Startups are justifiably protective of the technology they are developing, so it would be expected that the executives would not be forthcoming about all of the details.

But it would have been nice to meet the executives in person - something that obviously didn't happen.

The fallacy of "minimum qualifications"

Even though I left my proposals job (for the second time) in early 2015, I still receive emails from the Association of Proposal Management Professionals - and I actually LIKE to receive these emails.

One of these recent emails advertised an available proposals position with a particular company.

While reading the position description, I realized that I would not have qualified for this position when I started my first proposals job in 1994. In fact, I wouldn't qualify for this position today, despite over ten years of proposals experience.

Why not?

Because the position has "minimum qualifications" - and since it was written for (and possibly by) proposal professionals, I am forced to assume that the minimum qualifications are truly MANDATORY. If you know anything about proposals and RFPs, you know that in a well-run organization, requirements are requirements are requirements.

So why would I not meet this company's criteria? Take a look at the first minimum qualification.

Must have Bachelor's Degree in Journalism, Communications, English or another relevant field

I have a Bachelor's Degree...in ecomomics.

Never mind the fact that to obtain this degree, I had to write an undergraduate thesis.

Never mind the fact that between my graduation and 1994, I had written a variety of technical manuals, and had even co-authored a paper that was published in a journal in 1991.

Never mind the fact that between 1994 and 2015, I had amassed a ton of proposal experience.

Of course, that in itself was a problem, because it meant that I failed to meet another minimum qualification.

Two years of experience in a technical writing position

"But John," you may be asking, "didn't you actually EXCEED this requirement?"

Um, re-read the requirement again. It does not specify "Two years OR MORE" of experience; it explicitly specifies "Two years" of experience. And since it was written for (and possibly by) proposal professionals, I am forced to assume that the writer meant what he/she said.

"John, you're being silly," you may be saying. "They would obviously look at your resume and determine that you are qualified for the position."

But remember the essential truths of HR resume review:

Your resume will most likely never be read in its entirety, and the real thought process when reading it is...

“Is there anything in here that knocks this person out from further consideration?”...

Because of the volume, [reviewers] must make a judgment on each [resume] in a very few seconds


In practice, the resume review process would probably work like this.

Boy, the traffic was terrible this morning. Ah, here's a pile of papers from my boss, with a note. "Please go through these resumes for the proposal position and get me the ones that meet the minimum criteria."

OK, let's start with the education requirement. Wow, there are a lot of resumes to go through here!

Jones, bachelor's degree in English - looks good.

Smith, high school graduate - discard.

Johnson, bachelor's degree in physics, master's degree in journalism - better ask the boss.

Bredehoft, bachelor's degree in economics - discard.


Just as well. I'm not sure that I'd want to rejoin proposals for a third time.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

My response to Dorothy Jake from The Facebook Inc

One of my posts in the "Silicon Valley is Devoid of Reason" series partially touched upon the 2013 Federal Government shutdown. Since there's a chance that we'll reprise this in 2018, I dragged out the old post and shared part of it on Google Plus.

And, wonders of wonders, that post received a comment.


Hello Mr John Bredehoft how are you doing overthere and your families , we hope this text meets you in a good state of mind??
I'm Agent Dorothy Jake from the Facebook Inc and i was authourized to get in touch with you on here by the Facebook Officails
I'm here to pass a good news about your Facebook Account and i will love to chat on Hangout for more explanation pls...........dorothyjake5@gmail.com

Thanks as we wait for your swift reply

1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025


Now I could have simply responded to the esteemed Ms. Jake on the original Google Plus post, but her outreach is so impressive that I wanted to share it here, so that everyone knows how great The Facebook Inc is.

So, without further ado:

Dorothy,

Thank you for your outreach to me, and thank you for the wonderful work that The Facebook Inc is doing. In these times of impenetrable silos, I am amazed that The Facebook Inc would not only maintain an outreach portal on Google Plus, but that you would also actively encourage the use of The Facebook Inc Messenger competitors such as Google Hangouts. You are a living example of the outreach work of the late Dr. Rodney King, and have helped to prove that we CAN just all get along.

And I am impressed by your other examples of outreach. Perhaps similar changes will happen at The Facebook Inc, which currently seems to put a damper on sexy talk?

I was so impressed by your outreach that I checked The Facebook Inc yourself for, but strangely enough I wasn't able to find you.

Then it hit me.

You had clearly communicated that you were on "The Facebook Inc," not "Facebook Inc," which is a different company (and happens to host a very popular social networking platform).

Since I don't have an account on The Facebook Inc, you obviously must have me confused with someone else.

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Sears. Titanic.

So this happened (PDF):

Sears Holdings continues its strategic assessment of the productivity of our Kmart and Sears store base and will continue to right size our store footprint in number and size. In the process, as previously announced we will continue to close some unprofitable stores as we transform our business model so that our physical store footprint and our digital capabilities match the needs and preferences of our members. The company on Thursday, January 4 informed associates at 64 Kmart stores and 39 Sears stores that we will be closing these stores between early March and early April 2018.

Eligible associates impacted by these store closures will receive severance and will have the opportunity to apply for open positions at area Kmart or Sears stores. Customers can use the store locator function on our web sites to find the location of their nearest Kmart and Sears stores. Liquidation sales will begin as early as January 12 at these closing stores.


Ah, where to begin.

How about the fact that in 2018, companies are still using the euphemism "right size"?

Oh, and this little statement "we will continue to close some unprofitable stores as we transform our business model so that our physical store footprint and our digital capabilities match the needs and preferences of our members"? As I noted in an Empoprise-IE post on the local impact in Ontario, California:

I'm beginning to suspect that the members' preferences for Sears' physical store footprint is around zero.

Back in 2016, I visited one of the stores whose closure was just announced. While taking care to note that my observations were clearly anecdotal and not necessarily reflective of the entire Kmart chain, I did share some observations (and some pictures).

I approached the Kmart on East Fourth Street in Ontario a little after noon. The employees were nice enough, and the problems that one employee was having with a store computer may not necessarily mean anything. But after a few minutes of walking around this particular store, something struck me.


If I were to walk into a Costco or a Walmart on Sunday at noon, I would usually be fighting mobs of people. And while there were people in some sections of the Kmart, other sections were oddly empty and quiet. I was told later that traffic usually picked up in the afternoon, but it still seemed strange to be in a major store on a weekend afternoon and to see empty aisles in some places.

More here.