Skip to content

Border Collies : Who are your border collies on your team?

As a manager, look at your team members.

Some questions to consider:
What is their nature? Are you using their nature to achieve the best results?

Lets talk about border collies by way of illustration. Border collies are sheepherding dogs.

This info about border collies comes from a border collie breeder that I talked to at the Scottish Games on 9/3/16.

Border collies are very intelligent. Intelligence and physical endurance are the ONLY characteristics that are selected for by border collie breeders, not looks, not elegance: intelligence and endurance.

A border collie:

  • can have a working life into 12-14 years;
  • takes 2-3 years of training;
  • are only good when they are 4 years old;
  • want to do a job WITH you;
  • are eager to please by doing a job.

However, border collies:

  • need a meaningful job;
  • are not dumb like greyhounds (border collie breeder’s words :-);
  • are not content with being stuck in the house during the day.

Border collies can become OCD if trapped in a house. They can decided that their job is to “solve the couch” problem. or obsess about a corner. [Side note: My sibling had a border collie and man oh man did that dog fixate on its ball]

One border collie cannot train another. It annoys the old dog and frustrates the new dog.

Dogs are trained to go clockwise / counterclockwise around animals. (i.e. not left/right when compared to owner)

Basic commands are:

  • clockwise, counterclockwise around the dog’s focus ( the owner or the stock ),
  • lie down: which means stop and pay attention to what the owner is asking – but it also relieves the “pressure” on the sheep
  • get back: advanced command the dog backs off

Two dogs working together are called a brace. To give commands to 2 different dogs: might use name followed by command OR have 2 different sets of verbal commands.

In this sheepherding competition there was:

  • a three minute timed course with three sheep
  • The dog needed to bring the 3 sheep around the handler;
  • up through the center gates then back down through the side gates;
  • into the Maltese cross getting all the sheep to turn through the correct exit for this course.

With the Maltese cross, the hard bit is that if dog waits too long to turn the sheep: the head sheep goes the wrong direction. too soon and the back sheep scatter.

The handler can make themselves “big” with shepherds crook but can not actually push the sheep.

When watching the competition, the difference between the winning team and the other teams was clear. On the winning team, the collie was making the move almost before the handler called out the command. The collie knew what the next command was and was just waiting for the signal. On the losing teams, the collie was leaning the wrong way; or took a fraction of a second to understand the handler’s command.

Lets look at this competition as an analogy for managing a team.

With sheepherding, the handler needs to manage the vision and direction of the border collies.

As a manager, your job is similar. Your team is smart and capable. The manager can’t function without a team. The team needs the manager’s vision of the future. The border collies are the eager senior+ team members. They are eager to go. They are capable and want that next challenge. They are better at their job than the manager.

In a well-functioning team, the handler and the collies know each other. They are not interchangeable. A team and a manager are a single unit. The team knows the manager and can anticipate the manager’s next actions. The team can see the challenge ahead and they know the desired goal. The team is always set up for the next action.

In a out of step team, the team has no foreshadowing from the manager. At every decision point, the team is in the dark about what are the next steps. This is a sign of fundamental differences in communication style. The manager thinks they are communicating successfully, however, the team is not hearing the direction in a consistent way that makes sense to them. The border collies and the handler sense the world differently – yet they still coordinate to successfully herd the sheep. Similarly, the team senses the world and situation in a way different than the manager does. As a manager your job is to bridge your vision to the world that the team sees.

Posted in knowledge, management.

Social Gratification: What’s your Erdos number?

Mathematicians seek social gratification:

Because of Paul Erdos prolific output, friends created the Erdos number as a humorous tribute; Erdos alone was assigned the Erdos number of 0 (for being himself), while his immediate collaborators could claim an Erdos number of 1, their collaborators have Erdos number at most 2, and so on. Some have estimated that 90% of the world’s active mathematicians have an Erdos number smaller than 8.

Who in your industry is it valuable to be connected to?

Posted in environment, political.

Autonomous vehicles are solving a hard non-existent problem

Humans are actually pretty good drivers because they instinctively understand other humans.

Computers instinctively understand nothing about humans so the computer’s ability to predict what happens next is nil.


  1. A human is driving down a street and a bouncing ball appears rolling out into the street. As a driver, I am instantly predicting that a child will come racing after the ball even before the child “suddenly” appears.
  2. The left lane of traffic is slowing and stopping while the right lane is clear. As a human, I am predicting that something or someone is crossing the road and I slow down. Uber struck the car making a left turn.
  3. A car in front of me is slowing down and then speeding up repeatedly. As a human, my prediction is that the driver is looking for an address and I expect a sudden stop or quick turn. A computer program just sees a repeated pattern and attaches no possible future prediction to that behavior pattern.
  4. A human driver sees a child pulling away from his mother’s hand to race across the street and anticipates that he will have to stop. A computer doesn’t know that the child is going to be in the roadway until the child is already there.
  5. A human driver sees a bunch of cars at the bottom of a hill in snowy/icy weather. The human driver evaluates that the street in question is extremely icy and should not be driven on. The computer does not realize the road is icy until after starting down the hill.
  6. A human driver sees deer eyes reflecting the headlights and slows anticipating a herd of deer starting to cross the road from the surrounding forest. A computer sees the deer only when they are actually on the road.

Technologists keep on talking about autonomous driving as a sensor problem. The sensors are the easy part.

The examples are examples of a human driver using their ability to empathize with other humans’ motivations to predict and avoid accidents.

Self driving cars can only help in situations that are pure sensor problems… which are very, very rare.

Posted in technical.

Interviewers: GDPR has taken away the “liability” excuse for not providing feedback

I find it puzzling that companies are not open to sharing what went into the “no hire” decision. The usual excuse is “liability”:

Since many companies don’t share any kind of detailed post-interview feedback (beyond a yes/no) with candidates for liability reasons, many folks never get any sense of how they did, what they did well, or what could have been better).

Companies should be more willing to share what went into a “no-hire” decision.

As of May 25, 2018 the “should” moved to the “why not”. GDPR is now in full effect in the EU. GDPR requires companies to share interview notes with a candidate when asked.

Many organisations however, fail to recognise that when a candidate requests a copy of their personal data, this also includes information such as interview notes.

It doesn’t matter whether the interviewer has handwritten their comments or submitted them directly onto your recruitment software, this is information that the candidate has a right to see and is aware that you hold.

Handwritten notes therefore present a number of potential issue for example:

  • Where are these handwritten notes stored?
  • Are they uploaded to the candidates account?
  • Would an interviewer be able to easily access any notes they made about a candidate they interviewed 3 months ago?
  • What happens if the information was lost?
  • Equally with handwritten notes, the candidate is also aware of how much was written about them
  • What if only some of the information was uploaded?
  • Can you confirm that the information uploaded is the same as the information written during the event?

Since international companies are now forced to share interview notes with EU candidates, they should put away the “liability” excuse worldwide.

Lets look at the benefits of honest sharing.

When I interview candidates, I always keep full notes about everything that I noticed in the interview. The notes help me control the very human unconscious bias tendencies. The notes also ensure that I can render a consistent judgment days, weeks, months later. This is important when deciding amongst several candidates or if asked in a court of law.

Those notes also help during the interview because I notice my opinions developing. I can then ask direct questions of the candidate to affirm or contradict veracity of the opinion.

Be honest with candidates, help them pass the next interview. Be honest with yourself and recognize that you are human and being human means unconscious biases are part of your nature.

A company that has a problem sharing interview notes with a candidate, has hidden problem with bias.

BTW – I am job hunting for a software engineering management position. I know how to build a team with an honest open interview process.

Posted in interviewing, management.

Basic Interviewing Guidelines

Like all good meetings, an interview must have an agenda and an objective.

Interview Objective

Interviews are broken up in to different sessions. Determine the objective of each session ensures that all needed aspects of the position will be evaluated.


If the session is responsible for evaluating a candidate’s ability to present, then the session’s objective is to evaluate the presentation ability and ONLY the presentation ability. Wandering and evaluating the candidate’s technical ability is not the objective of this session.


For every session, the success criteria must be known in advance. The success criteria will be different based on these factors:

  • Stage of the interview: preliminary or final
  • Needed skill level
  • Position Criticalness
  • Department / Company stage

Information gathering

The interviewer must always be looking for facts – not impressions. The interview should not end until the interviewer has gathered the needed facts in order to render an informed judgement.

Prevent goalpost moving by establishing the success criteria BEFORE the interview.

Confirmation Bias Warnings

Bozo Bit
Watch out for premature ‘bozo bit’ flipping! A candidate might:

  • Have a big zit – be unattractive
  • A voice that bothers you
  • Trigger something from your past
  • Be different – gender, age, national background, sexual orientation, hobbies
  • Have a rough start to the interview

Do not waste a candidates time by flipping the bozo bit. Force that bozo bit off. If everything a candidate does is “wrong” then the bozo bit got flipped.

Negative confirmation bias shows up in when interviewers start drilling into perceived negatives. Nothing the candidate can say/do is “right”. Candidates underperform if they feel the interviewer has flipped the bozo bit.

Counter techniques

  • Refrain from saying anything negative
  • Encourage the candidate
  • Look for the candidate reacting positively with better results to encouragement from the interviewer
  • Ensure that you can document positive aspects about the candidate

Einstein Bit
Watch out for premature ‘Einstein bit’ flipping! A candidate might:

  • Be attractive
  • have a similar background
  • went to the same school
  • work at great companies
  • Have gone to an excellent school
  • Have a great start to the interview

Do not waste OUR time by flipping the Einstein bit. Force that Einstein bit off. If everything is perfect that is great, the facts will speak from themselves.

Positive confirmation bias shows up when up interviewers excuse failings that would normally result in the candidate being rejected.

Counter techniques

  • Stop talking and let the candidate perform
  • Look for the limits of the candidate’s knowledge and creativity.
  • The candidate might be doing well because they have seen the problem numerous times – alter the problem to see if the candidate can adapt

Preliminary Interviews

Preliminary interviews are filtering interviews to bring the number of candidates to a manageable number. The success criteria is biased in favor of the candidate to avoid premature filtering. When in doubt: advance the candidate

Preliminary interviews grades are Fasttrack/Pass/Fail/Hard Fail.

A candidate completely blew away the interviewer. Examples:

  • A technical phone screen was completed in half the time most candidates take,
  • candidate exhibits exceptional positive attributes: insight, intelligence

A candidate meet the minimum success criteria. No judgement is made on how high above the bar the candidate was.


  • Candidate struggled with the questions
  • Was unable to go for a long period without asking for help

Hard Fail
Candidate is completely unsuited to the position. Examples include:

  • Candidate failed at the most basic filtering criteria,
  • Documentable behaviors that violate company values (not behaviors that ‘annoy’ the interviewer)
  • Candidate repeatedly resisted guidance or correction to the point of being stubborned
  • Candidate failed to follow directions
  • Candidate argued (not just disagreed)

Onsite interview

In a preliminary interview, the bias is in favor of advancing the candidate. It is possible, for many candidates to be interviewed at little cost. However, the dynamic changes in the onsite. Only one or two candidates can be hired. Wonderfully qualified candidates will have to be rejected – maybe even a favorite candidate.

Unconscious bias is a real problem in the onsite. During a phone call, various aspects of the candidate can be hidden from the interviewer. In an onsite, appearance, distracting mannerisms, body odor, and other aspects of the candidate’s person are all present and impossible to ignore.

Interviewers must be even more vigilant to consciously try to counteract their own bias. Positive bias can result in an underskilled candidate being hired. Negative bias can be illegal.

To limit sources of bias, questions to be avoided – no matter the interviewer’s intent:

  • After-hours activities: May reveal religious affiliation or sexual orientation
  • Marital or family status: “Do you have kids?”
  • National origin: Where were you born? No, this is not a legal substitute for can you work in the US. Their unusual name.
  • Age: When did you graduate? Can they work long hours?
  • Hair / Appearance
  • Ability to party afterhours

Only questions directly related to the duties of the job are acceptable. Can the question be justified as relevant to a judge?

Interviewers must avoid providing unasked for / unneeded help/hints. In particular, provide assistance:

  • when requested and the interviewer believes the candidate is exhibiting a blindspot that is preventing forward movement on the problem presented.
  • The candidate is on the wrong track.
  • AFTER hints have been suggested

Let the candidate stand on their own two feet and rise to the challenges presented.

In other respects, the onsite is a lot more detailed than the preliminary but still has the same: Focus, Criteria, Information Gathering needs.

Avoid having a great candidate rejected because the interviewer did not collect the needed information.

Posted in interviewing, management.

What is old is new again

What is old is new again

This post about “front-end microservices” appeared on hacker news.

This is the original “portal” idea that was used back in the 1996-2000 days of Yahoo.
I have used this technique at companies that need to present an “integrated” view.

For example, an internal HR web site that presents a single page of all things related to an employee benefits. The information would come from multiple different services:

  • ADP for payroll
  • Fidelity for 401k
  • An internal vacation tracker
  • etc

Each service would be given their own iframe that they control. No needs to worry about anything outside the iframe.

This is a time-proven way to do an integrated presentation of independent systems.
To clean up the look and feel – use basic html transformations and inject the site css.
It may seem “hacky” – but it works well in many, many real world circumstances.

Posted in technical.

What can men do to stop sexual harassment?

So Uber is the latest tech company to get called out about its poor handling of sexual harassment, Other companies have a sexual harassment problem.

What can be done?

For starters, it is a wonderful thing that these stories are resulting many supportive comments backing the women in these stories.

The Elephant in the Valley site is instructive. TechCrunch adds more to the conversation.

Women and men are equally angels and sinners. I do not like trying in the Court of the Internet – who is guilty and who is innocent.

However, we can be aware of casual racism and sexism. And we can help stop it.

The answer has to include the *non-managers* in the room. We can defend our co-workers from this bad behavior by:

  • NOT laughing politely
  • NOT ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

Men have to step up as a group to:

  • ask politely that the behavior stop,
  • say that it makes *us* uncomfortable,
  • say that it is distracting from hitting the quarterly goals.

In other words, don’t defend the victim. Broaden the impact to include the behaviors’ impact on the other team members (males included).

This avoids making the issue just about one person’s sensitivity.

Maybe the offensive person will not change how they behave elsewhere but the goal is to stop the behavior in that part of the work place.

For example,

“Talking about Joan’s breast size in meetings wastes time when we really need to make the hard decision about using Google Cloud or Amazon AWS.”


“While we can all agree that Petra is dressed very nicely, I have another meeting in 10 minutes and I need a decision about our next milestones.”

In other words, give a non-reaction to the behavior. Mention it and refocus on forcing the conversation back to the business at hand.

And do this in a polite respectful way that does not burn bridges.

What do you think?

Here are some thoughts from Aimee Lucido

Posted in management.

Spotting a “crappy” boss in the interview

“My boss is an asshole”

“My boss is the worst ever!”

“If I had know he was this bad I would never have taken this position!”

How many times have you felt this way? or have you heard your coworkers and friends complain about their managers?

Are those managers really “crappy assholes”?

Certainly some managers are universally horrible and the news media loves the really juicy stories. The sexist “handy” managers that confuse management with the opportunity to get free sexual favors is clearly an “asshole” manager.

Most of the time, managers are just simply average. The “crappy” comes not from the manager but from the manager-employee clash of styles and the manager’s lack of skill or willingness to work on improving their communication skills.

Things work out o.k. if the manager’s default management style matches with how an employee likes to be managed.

For example, a manager may prefer a friendly collaborative style. Employees that like an easygoing manager will find this manager excellent. Another employee who prefers a “decisive” manager, may regard the very same manager as “indecisive”. This employee may prefer a manager that makes quick decisions and sticks to it.

Another factor to consider is the management style set by the CEO or division manager. Managers adopt the management style preferred by the company as a whole. A company run by a cutthroat, hard-charging CEO will have managers who mimic this management style. It is rare that a successful manager adopts a different management style from the style set by the company culture.

In order to answer the original question:

How can I spot “crappy” bosses?

you must know answers to these questions. Keep in mind that there is no right answer, this is a reflection of how you are as a person:

How do you like to be managed?

  1. Do you need/like a manager that demands long hours?
  2. Do you like a manager that is collaborative or stays out of your way?
  3. Do you like to be rewarded based on your individual contribution or more on team results?
  4. Do you like a manager that is parsimonious with praise or do need praise more frequently?

What kind of communication do you want or need from a manager?

  1. “I want to hear from my manager every day, every week, or just once a year to get my bonus and 15% salary increase”
  2. “I need to a personal connection to my manager” v. “I don’t care about his kids.”
  3. “I want to check in daily with my manager to make sure that she is happy with my progress” v “My manager micromanages me because she is checking in more than once a week.”

How adaptable are you to different communication styles or managers?

An employee needs a certain amount of flexibility with regards to management style. However, there are management styles that are too different from your personality for you to thrive under that manager or in that company. This is not a personal failing. This is human nature. A person who can’t stand to be a sales person but thrives as an accountant is not failing because they prefer to be an accountant.

How adaptable is the company and the manager?

Some companies expend a great deal of effort to train managers; other companies expect employees to “be adults and deal with it.”

Knowing this will tell you how much wiggle room there is when matching styles.

In the interview

Once you know your style and what management styles will bring out your best performance, you can now prepare open-ended, innocent questions to determine the company’s management style.

Here are some suggestions:

  1. What kind of manager are you?
  2. Tell me about your best employee, what makes her so good?
  3. Tell me about how you reward employees?
  4. Tell me about how you deal with conflict between team members?
  5. How does an employee get noticed for promotion?
  6. How do you handle a project that is slipping?

Lastly, try not to compromise

If you know a certain management style is going to make you miserable; don’t go to the company. If you are super human, you might be able to “tough it out”. More likely, you will be miserable, underperform, and be fired.

Some times life doesn’t give us a choice and you have to deal with a management style that is not ideal for you. But this post is a starting point for understanding your misery and how you can adapt to your current situation. You might discover with conscious planning that you can thrive in a difficult management situation.

(Personal note: 58minutes to create)

Posted in management.

LinkedIn has lost its Vision

The Promise

A few years ago, I worked at LinkedIn. At that time, Reid Hoffman had a very clear vision for LinkedIn.

LinkedIn was “Resume 2.0” for the middle managers and the professional individual contributors who really make businesses function. LinkedIn would enable those people to highlight and show off their abilities.

Through LinkedIn, outside recruiters would see the LinkedIn members’ professional competency. The invisible professionals would get more economic opportunities.

LinkedIn members were members to be helped, not users to be exploited. This was a unique social bargain, unmatched by any other social network. LinkedIn members would keep their professional profile updated with their performance and skills. In exchange, LinkedIn would use that profile to help the members find new and better opportunities.

LinkedIn also built a member’s professional network: LinkedIn became a place to do reference checks in a quiet way. A place to find people without posting a job. A place to do business. A LinkedIn profile became a professional necessity: an electronic business card.

LinkedIn became the dominant business social network to conduct business.

In exchange, LinkedIn would then sell access to those members’ profiles to recruiters looking to hire the professionals. A win-win for all.

For a many years LinkedIn enjoyed their success with rich stock P/E multiples. 

Complacency Today

LinkedIn Stock Price

Earlier in 2016, LinkedIn lost its bloom. A year ago LNKD was at $269, today it is at $110. What happened?

LinkedIn has forgotten the unique “fuel” that powers the money machine: the members and their willingness to keep their profile up to date. 

This exchange I had with a college senior is typical:


But is more telling are these snapshots from LinkedIn’s own employees:




LinkedIn’s own employees don’t see the value of updating their own LinkedIn profile!

Amongst my friends, the general attitude for not updating their LinkedIn profile is one of the following:

  • “I am not looking for a new job”
  • “I am looking for a new job, but I don’t want my manager to know I am looking.”
  • “Or I just got a new job, and I don’t know if it is going to work out so I am not putting it my profile until I know that it will.”

Which then leaves the very pointed question:

“When exactly will someone update their LinkedIn profile”?

Remember an up-to-date profile is the LinkedIn’s key asset that powers LinkedIn Talent Solutions:

LinkedIn Revenue breakdown

62.5% of LNKD’s revenue depends on members keeping their profile up-to-date.

Outside recruiters still use LinkedIn as part of their recruitment process, however in-house recruiters that I have talked to get better results with With, recruiters know a person is actively looking, the resume is actively updated, and there is much more detail when compared to a LinkedIn profile. (Please note: I am a LNKD shareholder and I have no financial interest in Indeed)

If LinkedIn was demonstrating its true potential, the resume would be a subset of the LinkedIn profile. And Indeed would not be valuable to recruiters.

LinkedIn’s Misaligned Focus

Yet, LinkedIn’s focus is on… Sales Solutions and the Talent Solutions.

Lets take a look at the Sales Solutions product. Sales Solution depends on members having a quality network. It depends on members willing to keep their important business connections in LinkedIn.

With Talent Solutions and the members’ profile, the promise was members will get better jobs, more career advancement opportunities and more money-a direct, measurable, economic benefit to the members.

LinkedIn over the years has become a business card proxy. LinkedIn users hand out their Linkedin member url at conferences. They connect to people that they may not have an actual business relationship. Over the years, the LinkedIn network accumulates with people that are little more than distant memories. 

There is even less value to members to prune and update their network. LinkedIn offers minimal tools to members to annotate and get personal value from the LinkedIn member information. For me personally, I have to refer to my email history to figure out how and why I know a person in my LinkedIn network.

And now in 2016, LinkedIn wants to sell access to members network with Sales Solutions. Sales Solutions’ benefit to members is the opportunity to be lukewarm called instead of cold called.

This is not an incentive for members to use LinkedIn-they are now being a product that is being sold.

LinkedIn forgot to ask: what is the economic value to a member to keep their network up-to-date?

What LinkedIn needs to change: Future focus

As of today, members’ LinkedIn profile is all about the past: past job titles, past companies, past education.

What is completely missing is any sense of the future. As they say in the stock market reports, “past performance is not a guarantee of future results” What a LinkedIn professional has done in the past is not a guarantee of what they see in their future:

  • Is the member looking for new opportunities?
  • Does the member want to change careers?
  • Move to a new city or country? 
  • Does the LinkedIn member want to move from the corporate world to teach at a university?
  • Starting a company that combines professional skills with a hobby: Develop software for sailors? Or start a chain of swimming schools?

LinkedIn does not help members prepare for the future:

  • What skills does the member need within the next 5 years?
  • Is the member at risk because they are stagnating with regards to experience?
  • Which of two different job opportunities are more likely to pay off?
  • What skills are needed to make a career change?

Not eating the dog food

You may agree or not agree with me. If you choose to disagree, you need to ask and answer the “dog food” question.

Fundamentally, LinkedIn needs to look to their own employees and ask: 

why is your LinkedIn profile allowed to decay and be a mere skeleton?

In startup land there is the term: “Eat your own dog food”-prove that your startup’s product is valuable by using it internally.

If LinkedIn’s own employees’ don’t find LinkedIn valuable-investors are right to question LinkedIn’s value as a company.

Some discussion happening here

Posted in great ideas, management, social commentary.

Will cosmic radiation impose a maximum on computer functionality?

This IEEE article: How To Kill A Supercomputer: Dirty Power, Cosmic Rays, and Bad Solder —
Will future exascale supercomputers be able to withstand the steady onslaught of routine faults?

Cosmic rays are a fact of life, and as transistors get smaller, the amount of energy it takes to spontaneously flip a bit gets smaller, too. By 2023, when exascale computers—ones capable of performing 1018 operations per second—are predicted to arrive in the United States, transistors will likely be a third the size they are today, making them that much more prone to cosmic ray–induced errors. For this and other reasons, future exascale computers will be prone to crashing much more frequently than today’s supercomputers do. For me and others in the field, that prospect is one of the greatest impediments to making exascale computing a reality.

Some examples:

  • A high-profile example affected what was the second fastest supercomputer in the world in 2002, a machine called ASCI Q at Los Alamos National Laboratory. When it was first installed at the New Mexico lab, this computer couldn’t run more than an hour or so without crashing.
  • In the summer of 2003, Virginia Tech researchers built a large supercomputer out of 1,100 Apple Power Mac G5 computers. They called it Big Mac. To their dismay, they found that the failure rate was so high it was nearly impossible even to boot the whole system before it would crash.

    The problem was that the Power Mac G5 did not have error-correcting code (ECC) memory, and cosmic ray–induced particles were changing so many values in memory that out of the 1,100 Mac G5 computers, one was always crashing.

Everything from cosmic rays to weakly radioactive trace lines to power regulators failing would cause a supercomputer crash.

Fascinating stuff. I do have some questions that I hope to hear answers for at some point:

  • Each core has to be able to run ‘independently’ to some degree (like google) – what can the supercomputer field borrow from large data-centers?
  • why is the total state needed to be saved – why can’t the state preservation be at a core by core level?
  • why not have 3 cores work on each part of the problem and use consensus to determine the correct answer ( this is how the space shuttle operated ) ?
  • What is the nature of the problems that supercomputers are solving that prevents the google mass-of-computers solution from being used?

These questions lead to these interesting questions:

  • How will any meaningful quantum computer operate?
  • Biology has even more information / compute density – how does biology deal with errors – what can CS learn from biology?
  • will this prevent humans from being able to have good computers in space? ( assuming that we ever get off this rock in a meaningful way)
  • Is there an information theory in the making that can put a theoretical maximum on reliable information density based on radiation level? i.e. the error correction logic will consume any improvements in bit storage reduction? will radiation density impose a minimum trace thickness?

Posted in technical.