via Language Log.
Manufacturing guy-at-large.
GitHub for 3D Design
In the past, I've used Autodesk Vault for version tracking & backup of 3D design files. I was using Inventor for work at the time, and was a part of a group that sometimes (though not often) shared files. It was useful but totally inconvenient, and I'm happy to now be setting up GitHub for my own 3D design file sharing, version control & backup.
Not being fluent with GitHub in the past, I'm still a little hazy on the terminology and process. Over the past few months, I've cobbled together a system or organizing 3D part and assembly files from SolidWorks and Inventor. For some reason, I set up separate folders (named "SolidWorks" and "Inventor") in the "Documents" folder of my hard drive. Inside each of those folders is a bunch of separate project folders. When I create a new project, I choose a two-letter shorthand for the project; the project folders have been named, e.g., "CS Cycles Parts". Inside is a bunch of part and assembly files, and usually a subfolder called "Static Exports" which contains STLs, STPs, PDFs and JPEGs.
I'm doing this all from Windows 7 on Boot Camp, so I downloaded the Windows GitHub client and got started. First, I tried creating a new repository on the GitHub web interface and then adding existing files to it, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out the dialog. Then I realized that I could drag and drop a directory from my hard drive into the desktop GitHub client, but for some reason it kept wanting to reassign the repository to .../Documents/GitHub/. Also, it complained about special characters, so I removed all the spaces from my directory names and replaced them with underscores.
Finally I just created new repositories in the desktop client, but named them the same as the existing project directories. GitHub kept wanting me to put them in the /Documents/GitHub directory, but this time I could change the location to be /Documents/Inventor/ - the parent of the existing repository directory that I was trying to set up.
My first commits all just had titles like "First Posting," and I published the commits immediately. To my immense pleasure, I'm now able to see the contents of those directories in GitHub, and a bunch of the files in the "Static Exports" directories display in Git's STL viewer within the browser.
I'll be interested in seeing how GitHub fits into my design workflow. For now it's - at the very least - a great backup system. I hope it becomes a collaborative tool for me in the near future.
If anyone has tips for how to use GitHub to host design projects, I'd love to hear them.
Be Happy.
It should be noted that this was diagrammed within the context of one's career. Otherwise, there would definitely be spaces for family/friends, health/physicality, and possibly a spot for pizza.
I think Tinder is okay.
And how dating, like most things, is mostly about showing up and wanting to be there.
Note: This draws from my personal experiences with a variety of romantic and dating approaches. It in no way is meant to be a comment on the dating preferences of others, or - more importantly - the qualities of the women I've seen, cared for, hurt, or been hurt by. Also: YMMV.
Why I date.
I date because I like being romantic with women. Romanticism allows for openness that doesn't usually exist elsewhere in life. It offers different joys, and different pains, and is, has been, and will (I hope) continue to be a net positive in my life. It allows me opportunities to learn about other people's hopes, dreams, and ways of communicating. It teaches me about my own strengths, weaknesses, and inabilities.
Having an endgame is not my game. Dating is not a chore; I date because I want to date. Showing up to a date wanting anything else but to be there, with this person- I find that highly disrespectful.
There are, as far as I can tell, two factors that determine whether I enjoy being on a date:
- Whether I want to be on the date.
- Whether my date wants to be on the date.
OkCupid encourages me to message, and presumably date, people who fall within the compatibility profile that I claim for myself. If I insist that I wouldn't date someone who smokes, OkCupid will lower the compatibility ranking of smokers. If I admit to owning a dog, OkCupid will match me with people who like dogs.
Sorting through matches on OkCupid is an exercise in establishing criteria for who I'm willing to see, and then exercising judgement based on that criteria. The thing is, I find my own criteria to be largely reactionary and arbitrary; I have a great deal of mistrust for my own prejudices. Moreover, I am not at all sure that the ideal relationship that I am presumably imagining even exists - and, assuming that it does, whether it would ultimately make me happy.
So I rank suitors on whether or not it seems that they want to go out with me, and I weight the result with the accuracy I believe they have in their assessment of my character. On OkCupid, I find a high portion of people to be deeply ambivalent about dating. I choose, insofar as I am able, not to date those people.
It's possible the same holds true for Tinder; I suspect that it likely applies across the general population. But because Tinder selects for mutual attraction, I find that interactions there tend to be a bit more enthusiastic. In addition, Tinder pays due homage to the arbitrarity of attraction. Despite whatever I might say in my OkCupid profile, it would be dishonest of me to enumerate why I am attracted to any one person. For that matter, I can't honestly say why I've fallen in love in the past - and I suspect that the same holds true for most of us. And yet OkCupid insists that I have some insight into what type of person I'll fall in love with next... I just don't believe them.
Call it what you will: Hot-or-Not; a vanity machine; strictly for hookups. I think Tinder is arbitrary, weird, and insightful. And I see no reason why it would be any less effective than anything else out there.
Photo
Starboard
A generalized usage for an existing word that I'd like to encourage: Starboard.
In sailboat racing, there are a few means of determining right of way, and they're taken seriously. The most fun, in my experience, is this one:
When boats are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.
This rule applies when two boats are crossing paths, but usually when both boats are on similar tacks - both either heading upwind or downwind. Depending on conditions, they might be approaching each other rapidly. Regardless, the boat who yields right of way will lose ground in the race, so when one boat asserts right of way, it is commonly done with gusto.
"Starboard," in these circumstances, is such an assertion. The speaker - commonly the skipper of the boat claiming right of way - is indicating that he's on a starboard tack, and is requesting that a nearby port-tacked boat yield. But more importantly, "starboard" is an acknowledgement that we are playing by well-accepted rules, and we agree to act accordingly.
So I'm proposing that we expand the use cases for this term. The first place I can see using it is in cyclist-pedestrian interactions, where right of way is often ceded - or worse yet, wordlessly assumed. I think a bit of clarity could be injected here, and it would be useful to just acknowledge - aggressively, defensively, or otherwise - that we want to live in a system that has some means of negotiating conflicts.
I also see it in day to day interactions. Starboard means "you wronged me," it means "I'm sorry." It's meant to be something that we agree will make our interactions better. It's "I should have done the dishes." It's "You buy the drinks this time."
The point is: Acknowledge someone else's perspective. It's the best way to resolve conflict that we've got.
Pietra Rivoli on progress in developing economies
NPR's Planet Money... rocks. Their t-shirt saga in particular has been an excellent piece of long form journalism (and, incidentally, also a great example of how crowdfunding is primed to shake up revenue streams in journalism). This week's installment included an interview with Pietra Rivoli, and the segment below struck me on a few levels. I think the lesson here can apply not only to economies, but also to companies whose primary product is a low value commodity. If your business is converting one commodity to another, one possible way to make a big jump in your revenues is to control the supply chain in one direction (raw materials) or the other (finished goods).
Below, Pietra Rivoli being interviewed by Alex Blumberg.
If we want to try to figure out: Is [the Bangladeshi economy] stuck? Or is it moving, inching slowly forward? What kinds of answers would you be expecting to hear from people to indicate one direction or another?
Well, if you think of where Bangladesh is in the t-shirt story, it's in this cut-and-sew phase. So there are backward linkages from there, back to yarn and fiber, and there are forward linkages from there, to the retail complex, to the department stores in New York. And in order to not be stuck, you either have to expand the backward linkages or the forward linkages. And I think the interesting question is, What are people thinking about that? What kind of prospects are there, for capturing value moving in either direction?
You mean these cut-and-sew factories that we're going to be visiting - why aren't they doing their own spinning? Or why aren't they doing their own retailing going forward?
Exactly.
If you're not following Planet Money, you should be. It rocks.
Dog intelligence vs. Time
How my dog feels about your dog as we walk towards each other
Types of people who talk to me on the street about my dog, weighted by length of conversation
Jonathan Rosenberg on Leadership
Below, excerpts from last month's First Round Review post, "42 Rules to Lead by from the Man Who Defined Google’s Product Strategy ." All are taken from a lecture that Jonathan Rosenberg, former Google SVP of Product, gave to Claremont McKenna College in 2010.
#3 Every word matters.
“Be crisp and direct and choose each word wisely,” Rosenberg advises. “Communication isn’t rambling on in long-winded emails or spewing out every thought that comes to your head.” He quotes author Elmore Leonard. When asked what has made him so successful as a writer, Leonard famously said, “I leave out the parts that people skip.”
#8 Avoid the HPPO.
HPPO stands for “the highest-paid person’s opinion.” When you have a problem or a question, don’t naturally accept the HPPO in the room. Title means nothing. If someone’s experience has value, they should be able to frame a winning argument. “Everybody at every level should have an equal voice in the outcome, based on the strength of his or her arguments.” Rosenberg names Jim Barksdale as his favorite HPPO. As CEO of Netscape, Barksdale once said, “If we have data, let’s look at the data. If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.”
I have, I am afraid, made the mistake of accepting a superior's inadequate argument when I should have pressed for a better path. I've also pushed against authority in ways that were ineffective and counterproductive. Disagreeing with a misguided superior is a delicate task, but one which I would hope to improve my skills at.
#10 Crowded is creative.
There’s a certain electricity that comes from working in a crowded, bustling space. “Offices should be designed for energy and interactions, not for isolation and status.”
#13 Show up.
True for everyone, and more for leaders: “Working from home is a malignant, metastasizing cancer,” Rosenberg says. “Ban it."
#15 Hope is not a plan.
I was, once, part of a team whose plan was some secret sauce, made of a mixture of hope and faith. It was not an effective way to manage a project. Robert Greene instructs (in his dubious but interesting 48 Laws of Power) to "plan all the way to the end;" I tend to think that, so long as one's plans aren't precious, planning is of very high value.
#23 Don't hire specialists.
“Especially in tech,” Rosenberg says. “And don’t grow up to be a specialist. The job will change, and the underlying pace of the technology will transform the landscape so quickly that the specialist’s job will be gone.” As Einstein said, “Change is the only thing that is permanent.”
Not being much of a specialist myself, I can't help but agree.
#36 Good judgment comes from experience.
“On my team, I asked everyone who screwed up to write a postmortem and publish it to the entire team,” he says. “You would think this would be a shameful experience. But we kept an archive of all these things, and you know what, show me a team that never makes a mistake, and I’ll show you a team that has never done anything innovative.” Errors shouldn’t be defended or buried. They are what make you smarter. You can learn more from your mistakes than from your successes if you take time to study them.
I think this is a fantastic idea.
#40 Mean what you say.
A great leader has to commit -- body and soul -- to a team’s goal and vision. People can tell if it’s not the case, and they’re always watching. “Smart people can smell hypocrisy. So think before you speak, and make sure you spend your time on the things that you say are important. Culture is set from the top, and once set, it cannot be changed.”
As a manager of managers, then, it's important to have your team on board with a project's objectives and goals. I no longer wish to work towards goals that I'm not committed to. Under those circumstances, managing your own work and relating to the people around you is a fruitless task.
Gems from Richard Hamming
A few months ago, Jace introduced me to a 1986 talk by Richard Hamming titled "You and Your Research." It took until now for me to complete it, and many passages struck me as particularly poignant. They're excerpted below; emphasis is mine.
On courage:
One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can't, almost surely you are not going to.
On ambiguity:
There's another trait on the side which I want to talk about; that trait is ambiguity. It took me a while to discover its importance. Most people like to believe something is or is not true. Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you'll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won't get started. It requires a lovely balance. But most great scientists are well aware of why their theories are true and they are also well aware of some slight misfits which don't quite fit and they don't forget it. Darwin writes in his autobiography that he found it necessary to write down every piece of evidence which appeared to contradict his beliefs because otherwise they would disappear from his mind. When you find apparent flaws you've got to be sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep an eye out for how they can be explained or how the theory can be changed to fit them.
A lovely balance indeed. I suspect that good salespeople tend towards ignoring the flaws; good managers tend to acknowledge them but remain enthusiastic.
On focusing your subconscious:
If you are deeply immersed and committed to a topic, day after day after day, your subconscious has nothing to do but work on your problem. And so you wake up one morning, or on some afternoon, and there's the answer. For those who don't get committed to their current problem, the subconscious goofs off on other things and doesn't produce the big result. So the way to manage yourself is that when you have a real important problem you don't let anything else get the center of your attention - you keep your thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious starved so it has to work on your problem, so you can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the morning, free.
I suppose the implication of this - and it's not a particularly surprising one - is that to achieve first class results, you can't be spending much time thinking of anything else. My question: Is the result a first class life? I suspect for me - and for most people - it's not.
On Great Thoughts Fridays:
Friday afternoons for years - great thoughts only - means that I committed 10% of my time trying to understand the bigger problems in the field, i.e. what was and what was not important. I found in the early days I had believed `this' and yet had spent all week marching in `that' direction. It was kind of foolish. If I really believe the action is over there, why do I march in this direction? I either had to change my goal or change what I did. So I changed something I did and I marched in the direction I thought was important.
I think this is a great idea. In addition to 20% time (where a lack of productivity is almost the primary short term goal), I would love to devote some portion of my schedule to thinking about what is and isn't important.
On the importance of working on important problems:
If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work.
This is, simply, a highly succinct and profound observation. I agree completely.
On seizing on opportunities:
The great scientists, when an opportunity opens up, get after it and they pursue it. They drop all other things. They get rid of other things and they get after an idea because they had already thought the thing through. Their minds are prepared; they see the opportunity and they go after it. Now of course lots of times it doesn't work out, but you don't have to hit many of them to do some great science. It's kind of easy.
This relates to something I wrote recently about maintaining a variety of projects. It's my feeling that - at least at this point in my career - keeping an open mind about what I want to focus on is of great value. More importantly, I try not to be wistful about projects that remain unfinished, as it is likely that they simply weren't as interesting as whatever else I have chosen to work on.
On personal appearance:
You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about.
It took me a long time, and a lot of prodding from now ex-girlfriends, to learn this. Fitting in is useful, if what you really want is for your thoughts to be heard. It's not fair, but it really isn't that hard either.
On good work vs. changing the system:
Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist.
I realized at a certain point that I cared more about doing something than I did about fixing the means by which things get done. Part of this was a deep ambivalence about the degree to which I - or anyone, for that matter - am a good judge of the quality of the systems I work within. In other words, who is to say whether any changes I might be able to effect are net positive? I know now that I would rather produce work that I can stand behind.
Latesummer
Peekskill, NY.
Happy Fall, everyone.
IoT PaaS
This passage - in particular, the part I've bolded - from an old McKinsey paper on the Internet of Things kind of blew my mind today:
In the business-to-business marketplace, one well-known application of the Internet of Things involves using sensors to track RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags placed on products moving through supply chains, thus improving inventory management while reducing working capital and logistics costs. The range of possible uses for tracking is expanding. In the aviation industry, sensor technologies are spurring new business models. Manufacturers of jet engines retain ownership of their products while charging airlines for the amount of thrust used. Airplane manufacturers are building airframes with networked sensors that send continuous data on product wear and tear to their computers, allowing for proactive maintenance and reducing unplanned downtime.
I would like a future in which we're paying more and more for services, and less and less for parts. I think of this a lot in the context of the retail service industry, but the application described above is fascinating. Imagine if Boeing redefined themselves as a company whose primary product was the thrust required to drive aluminum cans through the air. The implication of this is really interesting. It would shift the way that airlines dealt with fleet maintenance and upkeep, and might change the way all parties dealt with fuel usage as well. I had no idea that this kind of shift was underway, and I find it quite heartening.
How would your industry change if you redefined the product you offer?
3D Printing: One part of a New Paradigm
I often have the urge to cut-and-paste an email I've written onto a blog post. Ideas mull around in my head, and it's often the case that an email chain prompts me to finally compose the thoughts that I've been meaning to get down for months.
This morning, I had cause to write a message regarding the questions I have about 3D printing, and managed to nail down a few points that I've been working through recently.
Note: I would be remiss not to mention the sources of much of my thinking:
- Nick Pinkston's January post, "Some Thoughts on Digital Manufacturing"
- Autodesk CEO Carl Bass' Wired piece, "An Insider’s View of the Myths and Truths of the 3-D Printing ‘Phenomenon’"
- Rakesh K. Sharma's June post, "3D Printing: Still A Long Way To Go?"
- This great Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences article on "Printing Tiny Batteries."
- Personal conversations with Jordan Husney, Brad Dickason, Nick Foley, and others.
-
As a hardware product manager, I've sourced 3D printed parts (SLA, mostly) on a few occasions in order to prove out basic functionality. As a prototyping tool, it's been very useful to me (notwithstanding the value that inexpensive CNC prototyping shops like rapidmachining.com offer). As a manufacturing technology, though, I'm a little less impressed with 3D printing, especially because the industry seems most interested in replacing inexpensive injection molded consumer products with their FDM analogs. As SLS/SLA models become more cost effective and - more importantly - easier to procure, I suspect that the cost-benefit will shift, and I'll begin to see more 3D printed objects in my personal life.
But the model for producing those parts is far from settled, and I'm most interested in how the big players (I figure that Shapeways, Kinkos, and Amazon are probably best situated) will integrate the entire manufacturing process:
- Design (cf. Quirky; the current proliferation of hardware crowdfunding & acceleration programs)
- 3D printing (SLA/SLS, and *limited* FDM)
- Secondary operations (namely drilling/tapping)
- Assembly (monolithic consumer objects are boring; it'll only be once 3D printing is integrated with fasteners, wiring, electronics, etc. that it becomes really interesting)
- Distribution (ten days to ship a Shapeways model just isn't sustainable)
In short, I'm interested not in 3D printing itself, but in a new paradigm for product development, manufacturing, and distribution. My work background is in traditional manufacturing, where information systems tend to be closed and resistant to change, and I'm particularly interested in hearing people's opinions about how, over what timescale, and by what means these tendencies are likely to change.
Static Inputs
I'm usually partial to general purpose inputs, but I have to like this. Reminds me of the Batphone.
Arnold
Arnold’s Bodybuilding for Men (1981). From I Love Charts.
John Dickerson on identity
"What self do you return to, when you are at liberty on vacation? Is it your college self, who is slightly more risk-taking? Or are you just a mom dealing with kids going off to the go kart place, and you're just doing your duties but in a different place and wearing sandals?"
John Dickerson, speaking on the Slate Political Gabfest, 2013.08.30
I've been thinking a lot along these lines recently. This week I spent a few days back in Southampton, where I grew up, escaped from for six years in my twenties, and then returned to for my young adulthood. I've only recently moved away from this place, and my circumstances now are much different than when I left for college. From 2008 to 2013, I made my life here, and I built an infrastructure that, to some extent, remains here, for me to pick back up when I return for a weekend. And I enjoy doing so, though it's not clear to me to what extent I want this lifestyle to be a huge part of my life.
Right now these are questions that are a big part of my life writ large. Last week, I spent a few hours fixing a fancy espresso machine. I'm being paid to do so, but am also giving away a bit of my time in the interest of learning about how a machine works. I enjoy learning about new machines, and I'd like to think that understanding this one - a Rocket Giotto - will make me better at designing something of my own. More broadly, I consciously believe that it'll enrich my understanding of the world at large.
I'm not sure if either of these feelings constitutes a good reason to have taken on the work. I'll be paid very little, and it likely won't heighten my prestige or lead to an interesting job opportunity. It's possible, though, that I actually enjoy the work enough to make it worth my while. But this question is even more difficult to answer: Do I enjoy doing the work? Or, put a bit differently: Given that I have a limited amount of time, and assuming that I could make a rational decision regarding what in my life to prioritize, should I rank my jaunt into espresso machine repair above anything else in my life?
No answer presents itself to me, but I would love to hear your thoughts - I'm sure others out there entertain similar quandaries.
Happy vacationing.
Jason Stirman on management
Earlier this month, an excellent specimen of hype-work appeared on the "The Review" section of the First Round Capital website. Titled "How Medium is building a new kind of company with no managers," the piece is essentially a profile of the relationship between the management team at Medium and holacracy, a system of management ideas and software which... well, it gets tricky. In fact - maybe it's best just to lay out a few facts:
- The article focuses on Jason Stirman, who apparently holds two roles at Medium: People Operations Lead; and Word Master.
- Holacracy is a system of organizational governance. If you really want the philosophical details, just read the wikipedia page. The extent to which holacracy can be considered separate and apart from HolacracyOne (a Pennsylvania LLC that provides training and distributes management software based on holacracy) is unclear. The article seems to treat them as one and the same. For some context, however, see Oliver Compagne's response to my question about HolacracyOne's management structure on Quora.
- The article is peppered with pull quotes like "Traditional management just didn't agree with me," which I, for one, have a bit of a hard time taking seriously.
Nonetheless, I can't help but vibe with Stirman on a few of his points. He describes a shift towards a personal relationship with his teammates, and it's highly compelling:
He started taking his reports out to lunch, to drinks, to coffee to see what was up. How was their wife settling into her new job? Did escrow close on their new house? This is the stuff that people bring into work with them but never talk about, Stirman says. As soon as you ask, the pressure starts to dissipate.
I have had a difficult time knowing the boundaries between my personal life and my interactions with employees. I have made the mistake of trying to be friends (I see this as distinct from trying to relate to their personal life), and accepting their mistakes as a result, and I have made the mistake of not being friendly enough. But I suspect that Stirman's approach is the more effective one, and is likely more enjoyable, too.
Stirman also discusses the degree to which information is disseminated in an organization:
Stirman hit another wall trying to shield his team from external drama and politics. “Classic management advice, and all my mentors told me that insulating your team from things so they won’t worry will make them more productive and happier,” he says. “But they just got angry, and confused, and disconnected. I was constantly censoring all this information and they were way happier when they knew everything.”
(...)
"Most of the time, you know your manager’s responsible for firing you and how much you get paid. I wish I would have sat down with my reports and said, “You know what, here’s what being a manager at Twitter actually means, and here’s a list of the decisions I have the authority to make. I wish I would have broken that power dynamic, and been a better leader as a result."I'm not sure I understand, or really care about, the holacratic approach. But positive feedback and open communication are powerful tools, and I hope to use them to the greatest extent possible in my life and career.
-
CORRECTION: As originally written, I made the mistake of claiming that First Round was an investor in Medium, which it is not. After posting, Jason Stirman contacted me and very politely noted my error.
The decline of transaction workers
I've been meaning to post this graph, from this Spring's MGI report on disruptive technologies, for a few months. Anyway here it is. The takeaway: Don't do something that a computer can do.