My Filters, Right or Wrong?

Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org spoke to the TED conference back in March. His topic was the spreading use of personalized content delivery by search engines, social media, and online news/current events sites. In this talk, he explains a trend that's disturbed me lately. I've noticed that when I view my Facebook newsfeed in Firefox on my laptop, I don't see anything like the variety of postings and posters as I do when I check it on my iPhone app.

Here's why; over to you, Eli:

Note: If the annoying "loading" circle won't go away, 

click pause and then play to disappear it.

I don't like Big Brother - any Big Brother (or Sister) - keeping such close tabs on my online meanderings. Here's the basic problem, to me: This sort of filtering can only result in a gradual but certain narrowing of the content that is returned to my queries. As an experienced database query writer, I understand the importance of being able to drill down in order to synthesize and manage data. That's fine when I'm going after a specific data set extracted from a known data universe. But it's not at all fine when I'm just noodling around hoping to learn something entirely new in that wild and woolly alternate universe we call the Internet. I don't want to be limited to what I already know - what fun is that? Where's the creativity? Where's the "Aha!" experience? No thanks, Big Sibling - keep yer mitts off my parameters!

What the Feck?

What the heck is a feck?

Here's the answer, straight from Dictionary.com:

feck — n obsolete  (Scot)

1. worth; value
2. amount; quantity
3. The greater part; the majority

(Scottish dialect) Fek, short for effect

from <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feck>

The more common adjective that's derived from feck is feckless, meaning ineffectual or worthless. So?

Well, this is one of those oddments that I find crawling around in the dimmer corners of my mind for no apparent reason. Turns out that my idle contemplation of feckless led me to wonder what feck meant. Somehow, back in the shadows, feck tripped over a similar archaic word that I came across many years ago in Latin class. I wondered if there were any relationship between feck and fex, and hence, any correlation between feckless and fexless. Hmmm.

Urbandictionary.com defines fex thusly:

fex - Turd. Fex (or faex) is the singular of the Latin word feces (or faeces). Although feces has entered English as a mass noun, fex retains the original meaning of a single, discrete piece of shit.

from <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feces%20weight>

Ooooookay, except for the fact that both feck and fex are obsolete, one could argue that there isn't really a correlation between the two nouns. However, without wading too deeply into the etymology of euphemisms referring to excreta (nasty thought, that), I feel that there is a certain similarity between the adjectives feckless and fexless. Never mind that the root nouns are pretty much opposites (value vs. poop). Also, never mind that fexless didn't exist as an adjective, as far as I know, until I dreamed it up just now. Even my sainted mother knew the term "scared shitless," which - leaving out the physical connotations - refers to a near-paralytic state of terror. Seems to me that a person suffering from this condition has become ineffectual, and it's not too much of a stretch to translate this as feckless. Or fexless.

Therefore, feck <> fex, but feckless = fexless.


This semantic exercise has become thoroughly feckless, to say nothing of pure fex. What the feck?

"Slanky" Deconstructed

My SO occasionally refers to the Slanky, an enormous fleece sack with arms. On the surface, it's the ultimate couch potato sack. Beyond that, it's way better than "not tonight, I have a headache." The subliminal message is "nope, not tonight, not ever. And don't even think about asking me to get up and fetch something for you. How can I walk in this thing? I'd fall down and kill myself. You'd like that, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you???"

Yep. Hostile.

I had to give some thought to how such a product ever came to market, much less appeared in the respected offerings of Amazon.com. Finally I realized that the clue was in the product's name: Slanky. At first look, one might think that it's a hybrid of sleeper (or slumber) and blankie, a well-known childhood comfort word. That would give it a cuddly, soothing connotation, which doesn't seem to be what's happened - at least, not as I perceive it. Nope, here's what my research has revealed:

Slanky is, in fact, a hybrid of Skanky, Cranky, and Sleazy. More than mere adjectives, these are actually names. The familiar tale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has a little-known back-story. It seems that the original band of dwarfs numbered ten, not seven, and included the aforementioned Skanky, Cranky, and Sleazy.

The dwarf team, cognizant of good business practice, was going through the four steps of team evolution: forming, storming, norming, and performing. The forming stage had brought the ten dwarfs together for the purpose of developing a new, improved mining process. The next phase, storming, is when each team member's characteristics, big ideas, and talents are asserted. Typically, there is some friction as team members jostle for attention - this usually is positive and creative in the long run. Ideally, the storming phase produces a general realization of the gathered abilities of the members, and at this point the team settles into the norming phase, working out how they will go forward together into the performing phase, which is self-explanatory (Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go).

Well, in this case the storming phase was downright tempestuous. Skanky, Cranky, and Sleazy made no secret of their contempt for the other team members. Despite the declared purpose of the team, to improve the dwarf mining operations, the dissident trio wanted to develop commercial products that would require a budget-busting bucket of start-up capital in order to outsource production to the Munchkins, who had stunningly low labor rates, as well as a great work ethic. Never mind that these commercial products had absolutely nothing to do with mining, dwarf-managed or otherwise.

Quite properly, Doc, the team leader, dismissed the dissidents as incurably disruptive, and the remaining seven dwarfs went on to write their place in fairy-tale history. Skanky, Cranky, and Sleazy formed a new team for the purpose of developing the aforesaid products for mass markets. In the way of such projects, they attracted venture capital, outsourced production, and brought to market a plethora of unusual products to enrich our contemporary culture. Among them are Louie the Large Mouth Bass, the Snuggie NFL Pillow, Pajama Jeans, the Sofa Butler, the Big Top Donut giant donut baker, the Video Camera Pen (how much fun could you have with this?), and oh, so many more! But their flagship product, their proudest achievement and namesake, is the Slanky.

Now you know.

What Fresh Hell Is This?

Although the RI Department of Labor's unemployment voice mail system is impenetrable, apparently someone actually reads emails! As a result of my electronic rants early last week, on Wednesday, Feb. 17, I received a lengthy, heavily-accented voice mail, which, while largely incomprehensible, did let me know that I could call the Tele-Serve line on the upcoming Sunday to request payment for that week. This left the first two weeks of the month still unresolved, a problem that could be handled by filling out something I'd get in the mail, according to my tentative interpretation of the recorded message.

Surprise! On Thursday, I received not one, not two, not three, but FOUR envelopes from the Department of Labor and Training! Eagerly, I slit the envelopes and extracted the contents. The first missive comprised two sheets of printed instructions on the use of the Tele-Serve Automated Payment System, with a large yellow sticky note clinging to the front. Referencing the previous day's voice mail, the note read:

Karen,
I have tried to call you on ###-#### no answer. You will recieve [sic] paperwork on BYE 11. You are to put that paperwork in a folder till you return to work and earn at least 592.00. Until then remain collecting on BYE 10.
Call this Sunday on BYE 10.
Fill out payment questionares [sic] in seperate [sic] mailing for weeks you have missed.
Mail Back for payment.

A bit snarky, I thought, particularly the accusatory no answer. Apparently I was to wait hopefully by the phone for the call that I should have expected, rather than running around who knows where. Oh, well. . . I moved on to the other envelopes. Two of them were, as the sticky note warned, questionnaires. One referenced the weeks ending 2/06/10 and 2/13/10, and the other, oddly, referenced the week ending 2/20/10, for which I was to call the Tele-Serve line. Oooooookay . . .

The final envelope held the promised/threatened paperwork for BYE 11, and it was a jolt. Four sheets total, including a Work Search Policy (get out there and pound the pavement, and be prepared to prove it!) and a questionnaire headed KEEP THIS FORM UNTIL YOU RETURN TO WORK FULL TIME (a modified version of the weekly questions regarding work search and back-to-work status - seems to be an exit questionnaire). The other two documents are the problem - an apparent Catch-22 that says I've earned enough money to qualify for unemployment benefits until January 2011 (Feb. 15 Benefit Rate Decision), but denying me those benefits until I have returned to work and earned at least $592 (Feb. 16 Claimant Decision, and the sticky note cited above).

Logic tells me that I wouldn't be filing for unemployment if I had returned to work - isn't this about the fact that I haven't returned to work??? So how am I supposed to earn $592? And if I were back in the ranks of the employed, wouldn't I have filled out the exit questionnaire in the packet and gone about my business?

Twelve percent of Rhode Island's population is out of work - one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. That means that 12% of the population is at least as confused and frustrated as I am, and certainly explains why it's not possible to speak to a human being in under 90 minutes after having redialed over 40 times. I've just gotten through, only to learn that no one is available to take my call, since it's just past noon on Wednesday, when the call center closes down. So I'll just copy this rant into another email and see what happens.

Here's a suggestion, O great and powerful Oz - uh, Department of Labor and Training! You should consider hiring some of the highly skilled tech workers (like me) who are suffering out here in the void. Then you can send some call center functionaries out to experience what they've created - oh wait, they have a union.

The Black Hole Gets Deeper

Another hours-long nightmare!

Words fail me. So I took multiple screenshots, which is the only advantage of "filing" (hahaha) online. Instead of waiting almost 2 hours to get blown off by the system, it's much quicker and easier to document via my blog posts at Miz Perception's iSight

Just how broken is this system? I will continue to document this travesty publicly, on behalf of all of us benighted victims of this hideous dysfunction, until a human contacts me and answers my questions directly. This could be really unsavory. Is a class action in the offing? Stay tuned!

Best regards,

Karen

Karen M. Nash, CSSBB
Certified Lean Sensei

Dear UI Claims Office:

I have to vent my frustration, which is ENORMOUS.

At 1:20 pm today, I called 243-9100 about my extended benefits claim, which I put in on Feb. 2, and has not yet been processed. I was promised a mere 90-minute wait. My call was actually answered at 3:15 pm (I'll do the math for you - 115 minutes ).  

The representative took my SSN, looked up my claim, and informed me that my existing claim (with the expired BYE) still had credits, so had been reinstated  (when was somebody going to tell me???). Paperwork had been mailed today, Feb. 15. She expressed doubt that I would actually get it any time soon (why???), and offered to fax it to me, but I was so rattled I couldn't find my e-Fax number. At any rate, she told me that I could call Teleserve today between 3:00 pm and 6:30 pm to request payment for the week ending 2/13/2010.

Fine.

After the call ended, since it was after 3:00 pm, I called 243-9600 as always, and entered all the required data, including my BYE, which the representative had assured me was reinstated. At the end of all this, a recorded voice informed me that I cannot file using Teleserve, and would have to speak to a representative. But wait - it gets worse! The call transferred automatically, presumably to another representative - and another recorded voice said it was just too damn busy to take my call. 

At the end of my rope, I screamed bloody murder, scaring the wits out of my dog, the trash collectors, and the guys working on the house across the street.

Then I logged into Teleserve online. Way too long story short, the "Online Weekly Payment Certification" page blew me off with this message:

"Your claim cannot be processed using Teleserve. You must speak with a Claims Office Representative.
Please contact the Call Center at 401-243-9100. Select option 2 for the Call Center, and then option 2 again to transfer to a Claims Representative."

Hoping against all hope, I called. Do I really have to tell you that I was once again told there'd be a 90-minute wait? Would you be surprised that I declined, and opted to write this email? Of course, I don't expect a response from this either, at least not any time soon. I'll probably have had a stroke and died by then, if I haven't starved while waiting on hold for a Claims Office Representative.

Best regards,


Karen


Karen M. Nash, CSSBB
Certified Lean Sensei

AD-versity

Mad Men, hell! This is one Mad Woman, and it's all about the blitz of hideous commercials on TV in the opening days of 2010. I was so sure that nothing could rival the horrors of 2009's Adderol-crazed soccer mom driving a minivan full of cringing kids to Friendly's Ice Cream, and Campbell's gag-inducing single-serving soup ads featuring a blandly handsome young man who seemed to be having an erotic relationship with his soup cup in office settings, moaning with pleasure into the cup that he never detached from his lips. Already I'm wrong.

I'm not a huge fan of the big networks, but I do like the Discovery Channel, and the History Channel, and Goddess knows, the Home and Garden Channel. These rely on advertising just as much as the big guys, so there's no escaping the ghastly commercials I have in mind. The thing that totally bitches me off is that both firms are respected global corporations who can - and have - done so much better. What madness has caused these idiotic lapses?

Let's start with Ikea. Their ads have often been so hip they've gone viral, but I doubt their Winter Sale 2010 will ever make it to YouTube. It shows a suburban front lawn with father and kid. Suddenly, the massive cab of an 18-wheeler jumps the curb and comes to a stop mid-lawn, air horn blaring. The open sides of the trailer reveal that it's packed with boxes labelled "Ikea." The crazed woman at the wheel of the rig shrieks "they were having a sale!!!" As Hubs and Sonny watch in drop-jawed bewilderment, their wife/mother jumps out of the truck and takes off running, yelling "I'm going back for more!!!"

Just when I thought that the "Harriet Housewife's Hallucination" school of advertising had finally been laid to rest, Ikea resurrects it from its mouldy crypt. My objection to this genre is its complete disrespect for the potential customer. It's not just the brainless characters; it's the superliminal message of MASS CONSUMPTION - buy buy buy, and then go back for more, whether you need it or not. Query - isn't the recession still around?

Here's where my Lean Six Sigma training kicks in. In L6S, quality and value are determined by meeting or exceeding the customer's requirements and delivering the product when the customer wants it, at a price the customer is willing to pay, a concept known as the Voice of the Customer (VOC). This commercial has nothing to say about providing value to the customer, and actually depicts the consumer as a complete moron. So much for the Voice of the Customer. No sale, Ikea!

The mention of Lean Six Sigma brings up the other offender on my hit list, the mighty Toyota Motor Company. Sakichi Toyoda, his son Kiichiro, the legendary Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo are pioneers and patriarchs of the Lean movement in manufacturing. In founding Toyota Motor Company and developing the world-class Toyota Production System, they set global standards for the elimination of waste and flowing value to the consumer. No need to go over Toyota's many successes, or even their recent voluntary recalls - they "manned up" and did it right.

But the 2010 Toyotathon commercial conveys a simplistic, almost smug message. It features Punk'd regular Gabe Tigerman being outcompeted at the Toyotathon starting buzzer in a sort of musical chairs game played with showroom cars. Rabid customers dive through open moon roofs and side windows, leaving him standing rideless, whining peevishly that "I didn't get one . . .?" The whine trails off on a rising note, warning that somebody better fix this right now, or else. Mercifully, the ad only has a couple of days left to deliver its snarky message: "We're popular, you're entitled, get some."

Every time I hear that whine, most of the voices in my head scream "Slap him! Hard!"