Losing Count

 Over the last decade or so I really have lost count of the number of times I’ve had to tell somebody that the business case we are discussing really isn’t as simple as they’re making it out to be. Part of that is just because I spent most of the last 12 years teaching business strategy and policy to undergraduate business students, but in fairness most people like problems with simple solutions, and are therefore prone to looking for simple solutions to every problem. But if running a business was really as simple as it looks you wouldn’t need people to manage them, and my students and I would all be out of a job…

Consider, if you will, a case that came up last week about a customer who ordered a bicycle online for pickup at a local dealership. Unfortunately, the bike in question has a load limit of 300 pounds, and when the customer turned up at the story to collect his purchase it became apparent that he was somewhat heavier than that. The article in the Global News doesn’t specify the customer’s exact weight, and he wasn’t willing to disclose it to the interviewer, but it was obvious enough that the owner of the bike shop refused to let the customer leave with the bicycle. This went over about as well as you would expect…

The shop’s owner argued that if the customer got on the bike at his current weight there was a non-zero chance that the frame would collapse, causing possibly serious injury. This is true, by the way – and if such a frame failure occurred while the customer was riding in traffic there is a real possibility that he could be killed in the resulting accident. The owner explains that not only was he unwilling to risk the legal exposure, but he felt that he had an ethical responsibility not to allow someone to be injured or killed by something he sold them...

The customer, in turn, argued that he knew better than to use his purchase in an unsafe manner, that he would wait until he had lost enough weight to get below the 300 pound limit before trying to ride his new purchase, and in any case it was a legal purchase and nobody else’s business what he did with it. The owner offered to store the bike for him until he reached the weight limit, refund his money so the customer could buy something else, or just release the bike if the customer would sign a waiver promising not to sue in the event of a frame failure, but the customer said he didn’t think he should have to sign a waiver just to pick up something he had already paid for…

Now, one could reasonably argue that a business can’t be held responsible for the unsafe usage of its products, no matter what those products happen to be. If a hardware store sells someone a chainsaw, and the customer manages to injure himself (fatally or otherwise) while trying to learn how to juggle chainsaws, no one is going to blame the owner of the store. The problem here is that riding a bicycle isn’t an obvious misuse of the product, and even if the bike shop (or the manufacturer) can claim to have pointed out the weight limit and the risks involved in exceeding it, there’s still a possibility that a jury might find against them…

I don’t have a simple answer to this question, either; as I noted at the top of this post, I’m not sure there is one. The underlying problem is that the standard in a civil trial isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt,” it’s “what a reasonably prudent person would expect.” You also don’t have to convince all twelve members of the jury that you are correct; you only need 50% of them plus one. As tempting as it might be to just say the customer was warned about the hazards of the situation, and he can make up his own mind about safety, I think it is understandable as to why the owner of the bike shop is reluctant to roll those dice without at least a signed statement acknowledging that the customer was, in fact, warned about those hazards. Especially considering that nothing in this story suggests that the customer actually is reasonable or prudent. But even leaving the legal, ethical, or moral implications out of it, how does one resolve this problem from a practical standpoint?

Don’t Tell Me What’s Impossible!

 There was a time when the only people who ever wondered if comic book technology would be possible in the real world were dyed-in-the-wool science fiction geeks, like me and my friends, and in fairness we also wondered if super powers were possible, if psychic powers were possible, if faster-than-light travel was possible, if magic was possible, if cloaking devices were possible, if artificial intelligence was possible, if cloning was possible, if time travel was possible, if alien life forms actually existed, if Big Foot really existed, if any of the cryptozoology critters you read about really existed, if adult women who actually like geeks (like us) really existed, and if it was actually possible to talk with one without spontaneously combusting…

Fortunately for all of us – including that significant portion of the world’s population that had never considered any of those questions until now – some of us geeks grew up with the talents, education, wealth, or simple chutzpah to investigate these questions. Consequently, computers more powerful than anything NASA owned when we went to the Moon fit into the back of your cell phone, robots are now exploring the surface of Mars (and building all manner of consumer products right here in Michigan), there has been an honest-to-Buck-Rodgers space station orbiting the Earth for the past twenty-two years (as of 2021), and a team of brilliant lunatics have not only build 3-D printers that can print things made out of titanium, they also allowed Adam Savage from Myth Busters to build a flying version of the Iron Man armor with it…

I found the video on YouTube, but you can probably get more information off the Science Channel website, since the project was part of Adam’s new series airing on that network. Although, according to the linked file, producing this particular episode seems to have consisted of asking Adam if there was any project he felt like doing and then getting out of his way, since he already knew the people who had invented the titanium 3-D printer and the jet pack system necessary to make the suit fly. The result is every bit as amazing as you would probably expect, especially when you consider that in addition to taking off and flying around the hangar complex under its own power, the suit also turns out to really be bullet-proof and capable of shrugging off an explosion from three feet away…

Now, by this point I’m pretty sure that anyone reading this post (assuming I have readers) is asking why I’m geeking out over mad science and/or bewildering technology instead of just making notes on a business page. And I have to admit it’s a fair question; I have no idea what the commercial possibilities of a flying suit of bullet-proof and bomb-proof armor might be, or even what the business implications of being able to 3-D print materials as hard and rigid as titanium might turn out to be. What I do know is that when I was a kid both the 3-D printer and the Internet itself would have been considered comic-book fantasy, no more realistic than transparent airplanes, super-powered aliens who grew up in Kansas, or the Norse God of Thunder fighting crime in New York City…

For as long as I can remember, one of my pet peeves has been people telling me that things about which they know absolutely nothing are impossible, particularly when some of those things were already happening. When I grew up and realized that people were destroying perfectly good companies the same way, with all of the ill effects for the world and all of humanity that such destruction implies, it became more than just a simple irritant. Finding out why people do these things, and getting them to stop, has been the focus of my life for most of the past two decades, and the motivation for my misadventures in academia in the first place. Because the truth is, I have no more idea what weird, wonderful, and completely insane technological developments will pop up the next time I go wandering around on the Internet than anyone else, let alone what the commercial implications of those achievements might be…

But I’m quite certain that we all need to be more careful about saying things like “That’s Impossible!” Before more of us end up having to eat our words…

Crime Doesn’t Pay – Does it?

 Over the years I have written a number of posts in this space about the scourge that robocalls have become over the years, rising from the relatively minor nuisance in my childhood to the present conditions where just answering the telephone can result in becoming the victim of any number of fraud methods. Efforts to eliminate these calls and their associated crimes by legislation have largely failed because it can be extremely difficult to catch the parties involved, many of whom are based outside of the United States, and because motivation for pursuing such cases is inconsistent. A story being reported in USA Today this week may have the answer to one or both problems, however…

According to the article by Mark Snider in USA Today last Wednesday, the FCC had succeeded in tracking down a telemarketing company based in Texas that had been responsible for over a billion such calls, mostly made by “spoofing” real telephone numbers from other area codes. In this case, the calls purported to offer low-cost health insurance from well-known providers, but actually routed anyone who responded to the calls to a call center not affiliated with any of those companies. It was a highly lucrative and significantly destructive scam, and there is nothing to suggest that the companies involved would have stopped committing it, until FCC fined the telemarketers a record $225 million USD…

I’m not primarily a crime writer, but a brief study of the subject will reveal dozens of cases where a specific crime died out when it was no longer profitable to commit. A familiar example might be that when it was no longer possible to make any significant money selling stolen car radios, the number of those crimes decreased from incredibly common in the early 1990s to almost unknown today. Increased penalties by themselves are generally ineffective in deterring crime, since the penalty involved will be irrelevant if there is no chance of being caught, but there are numerous historical examples where fines levied against specific criminals became an important source of revenue for law enforcement officers, or the communities employing them…

Now, I’m not suggesting that municipalities and states engaging in self-funding through the application of excessive fines is necessarily a good idea. History also records a vast number of cases where the enforcement of such laws led directly to major cases of corruption, either by the law enforcement agencies of their employers. But, by the same token, $225 million is enough money to run government agencies of significant size, and the motivation to make arrests that could yield that much revenue is going to be powerful. Combining those factors would make the crime of illegal robocalls much less attractive while at the same time offering a real chance at balancing the budget for many cities and counties…

Realistically, of course, these prosecutions will not eliminate any crime. If fraud committed by telephone auto dialer becomes cost-prohibitive the criminals involved will simply move on to some other form of fraud on some other platform, and the cities involved will have to find some other way to fund their operations. But, speaking as someone who gets between five and ten of these fraudulent calls a day, I can honestly say that I wouldn’t mind seeing more of these companies being driven out of business, even nobody figures out how to fund our town’s government operations into the bargain…

Missing an Opportunity?

 Like a lot of Americans who are not supporters of the previous Presidential administration I was quite amused to read the story of how Louis Tussaud’s Waxworks museum in San Antonio had been forced to remove its wax figure of our previous President from public display. According to the story on the San Antonio Current website, the company was concerned about the figure taking any further damage because visitors to the museum keep punching it in the face. A host of sarcastic remarks, a few of which might be considered outright gloating, went streaming through my mind, but then it occurred to me that the company may be overlooking a new business opportunity that is right under their collective nose…

Even a cursory glance at the news from the last two months should suggest to any alert observer that there are many people in this country who would quite like to punch the actual 45^th President of the United States in the face, but are unable to do so because such an activity is both illegal and also likely to result in being shot repeatedly by Secret Service agents. Punching a wax figure would likely not be as satisfying, but it would be much safer. If the figure was sufficiently life-like the museum could offer action photography, color or black-and-white, of guests apparently punching the former President in the face, although video would be problematic in the sense that it would not accurately simulate the sound of the punch landing or the action of an actual person falling to the floor after being punched…

Having reached that conclusion, it occurred to me that this would only scratch the surface of such a new business model. Tussaud’s Waxworks can, in theory, produce life-sized effigies of virtually any known person, living or dead, of whom a sufficiently detailed photograph exists. This means that, potentially, they could sell anyone the opportunity to punch the image of any person who affronts them in the face, along with a set of glossy photographs either printed on-site or captured on disc for future reproduction. And, unlike a photoshopped image, these pictures would not show any signs of digital tampering, because, of course, they would not have been falsified in any way…

Whether or not such a service would be feasible from a legal standpoint is less clear. Public figures have less control over the fair usage of their name and image than most private citizens do, and just allowing people to punch an effigy of someone in the face does not introduce any particular claims about that someone. One could easily imagine a court ruling against a business which had chosen to display a wax figure of the 45^th President in a compromising position with one or more of the dictators with whom he was known for currying favor, for example, or an effigy of our ex-President with his head emerging from the digestive tract of an animal, but explaining what material harm is caused to any individual by allowing customers to punch his three-dimensional image in the head would be harder to accomplish…

Some municipalities within the United States have laws against using pictures of actual people as targets for pistol or rifle shooting, and if San Antonio has one it could be argued that such a ban should extend to any simulated act of violence against any individual, no matter how obviously simulated it might be. Alternately, one might imagine cities, counties or states passing laws that would render acts of simulated violence against one or more classes of people illegal in that jurisdiction, for reasons of decorum, public safety, or inappropriate use of wax works. And, I suppose, it is possible that such a service would be cost-prohibitive, or require a price-point too high to attract a sufficient number of customers. But, on the other side of the issue, it might also be possible for the company to produce a more life-like effigy, e.g. one that would look, feel, or even sound much more like a real person when being punched in the face…

If so, I really hope that someone at Louis Tussaud’s Waxworks gets started on these improved models straight away – because I can think of a number of public and historical figures I would be willing to pay to punch in the face…

And I don’t believe that I’m the only one who would…

Two Kinds of Error

Over the past decade I’ve devoted a lot of time in this space to complaining about – and occasionally making fun of – the vast oceans of misinformation that can be found almost everywhere online. Although, to be fair, I mostly complain about people who blindly accept everything they read online, and make fun of the often nonsensical actions they take in consequence. For example, some years ago I wrote about a bit of clickbait claiming that Don Knotts had just revealed the “real” reason for his departure from the Andy Griffith Show, despite the fact that this iconic American actor had been dead for eleven years at the time. I also strongly implied that anyone who blindly clicked on the link, let alone believed the absurd misinformation they would find there was a complete sucker…

Recently, though, I’ve become concerned with the opposite phenomenon appearing with increasing frequency – that is, people finding perfectly reasonable, carefully documented information online and refusing to believe it anyway. One could argue, as I have on occasion, that this error is the other side of the same coin. For example, members of the “anti-vax” movement heard about a single, laughably unprofessional, long since discredited theory about vaccines being tied to autism, and have re-introduced potentially fatal diseases into the United States while they cling to that theory, while as many as one-third of Americans have seen repeated information explaining how the use of facial coverings could end the pandemic in a matter of weeks, but are still refusing to wear them…

The point was brought home to me personally this week when I ran across a Buzzfeed list article about outrageous things college professors said their students had done. It would be easy to dismiss the entire list as being fictional, or at best highly exaggerated, except for the fact that I have seen several of these behaviors first-hand over the last decade at work, some of them repeatedly. It isn’t at all unusual for students to cite things their mother told them as proof of their thesis, demand an explanation for receiving zero credit for work they copied and pasted directly out of Wikipedia or failed to turn in at all, or demanding a different presentation date despite having had four months to prepare…

Any readers familiar with statistics (assuming I have readers) will recognize this basic problem as the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 errors, but if you are unfamiliar with the terms, the upshot is that accepting incorrect information is just as problematic as failing to accept correct information. That is, accepting universally-acknowledged quackery is going to be just as harmful as rejecting elementary best practices, even in cases less serious than the spread of potentially fatal pathogens. And in the current age of information, both types of error are far more dangerous than they have ever been before…

This post was originally going to be a humorous and sarcastic set of comments on things I saw in the classroom as a college instructor, including a few things even more absurd than the people at Buzzfeed put on their list. I could tell you stories about the kid who not only plagiarized a paper, but tried to turn in a paper that had been submitted to me, in the same class, during the previous semester, or the unfortunate individual who missed a term paper deadline because he was in jail that morning. But half-way through that post I realized that there was an actual point to be made here…

In today’s interconnected world, every one of us has access, at least in theory, to every bit of information, reliable or not, that has ever existed. Verifying any particular fact you come across is easier than it was at any previous time in history, but figuring out which data points you should accept, and which ones must be rejected is arguably the hardest it has ever been. Regrettably, though, the consequences of making either error are also orders of magnitude worse than they have ever been – and the fact that we are now being inundated by people deliberately spreading misinformation, disinformation, or outright lies is not helping. Going forward, all of us have got to try harder to get this right, before we lose another half-million (and counting) people for no reason at all…

Think It Through

There are times when I really wish I had chosen to study Marketing in business school instead of Management. The first time, at MBA level, I still believed that there was a place in the world for a generalist who just wants to get on with the job at hand. The second time, I was looking for the answer to why the senior management teams of otherwise perfectly good companies keep running their firms directly into the ground, and it seemed reasonable to study the actions and strategies of the senior managers themselves. And, of course, both times through I knew I didn’t have the math for it. But quite apart from that, and leaving out the absurd bias my former department has against applied research (and the practitioners who apply it), I have noted a large number of the aforementioned management failures that relate directly to marketing decisions that even a reasonably bright six-year-old would have known better than to make…

A case in point would be Burger King’s attempt at a marketing tweet this week. I picked up the story from USA Today, but you can find details about it all over the Internet as of today. Actually a series of three tweets, the first one said “Women belong in the kitchen.” The second one pointed out that women comprise only about 20% of all professional chefs, and the third tweet introduced a new Burger King program to provide scholarships for women attending culinary schools – thus correcting the shortfall. It’s a marketing/public relations move that has some real potential, timed to coincide with International Women’s Day 2021, but whoever came up with it seems to have missed just how badly the first tweet would be received – and how likely people were to ignore tweets two and three, particularly if they were already angered by tweet number one…

It seems possible that the company was attempting to emulate the success that Wendy’s has already had with their company’s Twitter account, which has become known (if not exactly famous) for its humorously sarcastic tweets over the last few years. Unfortunately, whoever came up with this triple tweet appears to be unfamiliar with the convention of indicating a multipart tweet by putting the notation 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3, or however many tweets the message takes up. They’re also ignoring the tendency of people to stop reading something that angers them, as well as the fact that this particular message is neither sarcastic nor amusing…

Now, I don’t mean to imply that if I had a Marketing degree I would be able to tell any company when their attempt at being hip, edgy, or at least relevant was about to crater. But this isn’t the first attempt at Twitter advertising or other online marketing attempts to fly wide of the mark, and it isn’t even Burger King’s first absurdly offensive failed marketing attempt. Regular readers of this blog (assuming I have readers) will recall an earlier post about a Burger King ad featuring a new oblong burger product and a woman’s face apparently looking at it with an expression that could be interpreted as awe, fear, or revulsion, depending on your point of view…

It doesn’t take a lot of familiarity with failure analysis, let alone a graduate degree in Marketing, to recognize that the company has an unfortunate history with advertising that is not as clever or funny as they think it is, or that any future attempts at witty, edgy, or viral advertising are likely to attract greater scrutiny than they seem to have expected. You have to wonder if the person operating the Burger King  twitter feed ran this idea past anyone else – and if so, whether the “anyone else” included any actual women. Or, for that matter, anyone who had ever met an actual woman…

Other authors have written about the propensity of supposedly brilliant leaders in movies and television programs to formulate elaborate plans in which any ordinary six-year-old would be able to find obvious flaws, and suggested that if they ever have the chance to be the “evil overlord” or equivalent they will run all of their plans such an individual. It seems excessive to suggest that the senior management at Burger King should consider the same advice, but if they want the advice of a scruffy blogger who used to teach Business Strategy at a top business school, I do have some time available…

Try It Again, Folks

If you’re the type who follows aerospace news, you’ve probably already seen the footage of the Space-X “Starship” prototype exploding a few minutes after what had, to that point, been its first successful high-altitude flight and soft landing. If not, you may not have known or cared that the two previous landings ended the same way. After all, other than hardcore space wonks like your humble blogger, who really cares if an eccentric billionaire’s pet project works out or not? Elon Musk clearly has the money to spend on this weird science-geek hobby, and if he wants to spend it on an epic-scale model rocketry kit, what difference does that make?

Well, in addition to being a hardcore space wonk (since 1968!) I’m also a business blogger and former business teacher, and I have to say that dismissing the latest Space-X explosion as merely a novelty (or even worse, a vanity project) would be a mistake for financial, economic, and historical reasons. The financial opportunities presented by the commercial exploitation of space have been enumerated by many authors, and need not delay us here; nor does it require any great understanding of business or finance to grasp the benefit of the jobs provided by Space-X itself, and by the many companies from which it buys materials. But failing to grasp the historical and economic significance of the rise of private spacecraft and launchers is difficult to excuse as anything other than being two generations behind the times…

Fifty years ago, private space exploration lay entirely in the realm of science fiction. Putting a person – or even a good-sized satellite – into orbit was possible only for a national government, and indeed only two of those had managed it. Even more daunting, perhaps, was that both the American and Soviet space programs had suffered humiliating failures by 1970, with a plethora of rockets exploding on the launch pad, or shortly thereafter, and at least one fatal accident each. The idea of a private citizen building a space-worthy rocket was the stuff of children’s books, fantasy stories, and (in 1979) comedic adventure television programs staring Andy Griffith. And yet, even then, there were historical perspectives that should have told us otherwise…

In 1903 the airplane had no practical applications, and the automobile wasn’t much better; neither one was anything a modern audience would call safe, either. And yet, thirty years later the first of the Douglas Commercial airplanes was built, followed two years after that by the DC-3. Air travel became a common feature of life, and dozens of commercially viable firms began offering it. The same period saw the rise of literally dozens of automakers, proliferation of highways, and expansion of companies selling everything from internal combustion engines to tree-shaped air fresheners. Today it would be virtually impossible to imagine the world without those two industries…

Now, I’m not suggesting that anyone standing on the dunes at Kitty Hawk in 1903 could have predicted the use of airpower in either world war, let alone the 747, the A380, or the SR-71. And we can only wonder what Henry Ford would have thought about self-driving cars, hybrid vehicles, or jet-powered ground vehicles (it’s a stretch to call them “cars”) that can break the speed of sound. But anyone who dismissed those technologies, or discounted their commercial possibilities, based on the failure of early applications would feel like an idiot in today’s world – and I’d be willing to be that anyone who dismisses Space-X or any of the other private spacecraft companies that are getting started today is going to feel even dumber in just another generation or two…

Why Do People Rob Banks?

The title of this post isn’t facetious, and it isn’t really sarcastic, either. If you’ve ever read a story about bank robbery, or looked it up online, you already know that most bank branches rarely have more than five figures worth of cash on hand, and never more than low six figures. They are also loaded with countermeasures, cameras, silent alarms, dye packs, and even armed guards. Even worse, from any potential criminal’s point of view, bank robbery is automatically considered a Federal offense, and will bring the FBI down on you faster than you would believe. There is an excellent chance of being killed outright, and an even better chance of being sent to prison, and even if you succeed in getting away with it, you’re probably going to end up with less than $100,000 for your trouble…

As an alternative, consider the case of Jessica Metivier, of Acton, Massachusetts, who was sentenced this week for her part in defrauding the United States Treasury Department of more than $50,000,000 USD. According to the story on the US Department of Justice website, Metivier and her partner, Christopher N. Condron, submitted grant applications for tax free energy grants as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, including wind, biofuels, and gasification projects, totaling more than $88 million dollars. As a former grant writer, I can tell you that such grant applications are incredibly detailed, and rigorously vetted by the granting agency. Getting one at all is intended to be as difficult as possible, specifically to avoid fiascos like this one…

It seems worth noting that this wasn’t a case where the defendants were immediately caught, either. The fraudulent applications first appeared in May of 2009, and Metivier and Condron weren’t charged with anything until August of 2017. One might have hoped that it would take less than eight years to detect such an offense, either by periodic audits, progress reports (that are required on all Federal grants, usually quarterly), or simply because somebody drove by the alleged site of the project and failed to see any of the large wind farms, gasification plants, or development facilities that should have been present…

I could absolutely understand if any or all of my readers (assuming I have readers) were outraged by the fact that some clown was able to defraud the Federal government for upwards of $50 million of your tax dollars and remain undetected (or at least unindicted) for more than eight years. But if that upsets you, you’re really going to be furious when you find out what Metivier’s sentence was: one year of probation. Condron’s case hasn’t been resolved yet, but since he’s being charged for stealing a smaller amount of the money, it seems unlikely that he will end up doing any worse than his partner…

Now, I have to admit that I haven’t had the chance to read any of the court documents, and I’m not suggesting that I would understand any of the legal aspects anyway. I don’t have a law degree, and my one semester of Business Law in business school probably wouldn’t be any help even if I had taken it more recently than 1991. But from a strategy standpoint, if you had to choose between a venture that would net you less than $50,000 and could easily result in 10 years in prison (or death), and one that would yield literally a thousand times more money and only result in one year of probation if you were caught at all, why on Earth would anyone select the first option?

All kidding aside, as one of the aforementioned taxpayers, I can’t help feeling that just having to spend one year in which you do not commit any crimes is rather a light sentence for stealing $50 million of our money. Even more to the point, though, is the question of just how many other teams of fraudsters are pulling off operations like this one – and of  how many of them, if any, have been caught in the first place…

Overlooked

Every so often you may find yourself reading an interesting story, in whatever medium you prefer, when you suddenly realize that the authors have just made a casual reference to something far more amazing, surprising, or completely game-changing than the original topic of the article. This may indicate that your understanding of the topic, the industry, or the world itself is out of date; alternately, it may indicate that the authors are taking something for granted that isn’t general knowledge, just because it isn’t novel to them. But in the case of the Lockheed-Martin “Speed Racer” unmanned aerial vehicle, I think it’s possible that I just have a different perspective than the technology writer who authored the original article…

I got the story from the Popular Mechanics website, but only because it was picked up by the News app on my iPhone. Apparently, when they say “There’s an app for that!” they aren’t kidding. The new vehicle called the “Speed Racer” UAV is an interesting piece of technology in its own right, a drone that can be used both as a reconnaissance platform and as a cruise missile. If you load it up with sensors it can penetrate contested airspace and send information about the battlefield back to its carrier vehicle, and if you load it with an explosive warhead it becomes an extremely stealthy missile that can find and destroy anything you tell it to look for. Even better, it can apparently be launched by any aircraft big enough to carry it, without the need for any added equipment – Lockheed is apparently testing it with a Beechcraft model 1900, a light transport airplane called a C-12 in military service…

The possibilities for launching both advanced reconnaissance drones and advanced cruise missiles from a common, off-the-shelf transport craft are already extraordinary. If this article is correct, not only could the drones be fielded at a fraction of the cost of building a new carrier vehicle (let alone the cost of a new manned airplane for the same purpose), but the US could also deploy them from widely-dispersed platforms that would also be indistinguishable from a common commercial transport. The implications of Lockheed’s “StarDrive” design system may be even more amazing, however, especially from a business standpoint…

The details of the system are highly confidential (and probably classified, as well), but the technology involved allows the company to move from conceptual drawings to a working prototype aircraft in months, not years, using computer-aided design (CAD) and robotic manufacturing equipment. For example, the company was able to produce the first prototype for its new advanced fighter in less than a year from the completion of the first concept drawing. This doesn’t quite match the 173 days North American Aircraft needed to produce the first P-51 Mustang prototype, but the long-term possibilities in the face of the military and commercial Cold War now ramping up are intriguing…

Imagine the possibilities if the US was able to field new military aircraft ten or twenty times faster than any foreign adversary, and implement upgrades and improvements to the design even more quickly. For that matter, imagine if Lockheed (and whatever corporate partners they deside to take on) were able to produce new commercial offerings for sale in the time it usually takes to decide to start a new design project. This technology has the potential to change not only the aerospace industry but any other industrial sector where the “StarDrive” system can be used in a cost-effective manner beyond recognition, and the authors of the linked article barely even mention it in passing as they discuss one of its recent accomplishments…

I’d like to think that the people who follow such developments have only just gotten around to telling the rest of us about it, and that they already realize the incredible competitive advantage this technology would offer to any company that could get permission to use it. And I certainly hope that anyone who might see their company wiped out by a competitor with this kind of tech is already talking to Lockheed about licensing possibilities. But either way, it’s a good example of why you should always consider the broader implications of what you are reading…

Read the Room

I’m reluctant to use this title for a single post; if I tried I could probably come up with dozens, if not hundreds, of stories about tone-deaf moves by businesses and their management teams that have made the pandemic era even worse than it already was. Maybe I can start a regular feature on this topic, running every week to cover the most egregious example I can find in the previous seven days. For sheer idiocy, in terms of a move that does not work well under the current atmosphere, it may take a while to top the story of an employee who wrote to the CEO of Trader Joe’s asking for more rigorous anti-COVID procedures at work, and was promptly fired for his trouble, however…

I picked up the story from The Washington Post, but you can also find it on Twitter or any number of aggregation sites. A crew member working for Trader Joe’s at one of their New York locations wrote directly to the company’s CEO, explaining that more stringent measures were needed to protect the store crews, and that only the CEO had sufficient authority to impose them on the entire chain. Most of these were not terribly surprising, as workers everywhere have been asking for better air filtration, more time and supplies to disinfect the store interiors, and more conscientious enforcement of mask requirements. The only really innovative point in the letter was the request for a “three strikes” policy against customers who refuse to wear masks when inside the store…

It seems worth pointing out that employee recommended that the company accommodate customers who can’t wear masks due to medical conditions by using a curbside pick-up – a common measure taken by grocery and pharmacy companies, and one which Trader Joe’s already offers its customers. It also seems worth the mention that the company insists that it fired the employee in our story because of “the disrespect he showed toward our customers,” while telling the employee himself that the requests in his email and his temerity in emailing them indicated that he didn’t understand or practice the company’s “values,” whatever those might be…

What takes this over the line from poor management practice into complete idiocy is that the employee claims to have received stellar annual reviews, praising him for (among other things) his dedication to customer service and excellence in assisting customers – and the company has not disputed any of this as of this to date. Unless those reviews were all disinformation of some kind, it would appear that this employee is actually very respectful of the customers, and the company is actually taking offense at his request. In listing different causes in his termination letter and in their statement to the Post about this situation, effectively lying about the facts of the matter and slamming the employee, the company has not only managed to flush their own credibility, they have also sparked public outcry and calls for a boycott…

Now, I’m not going to suggest that the CEO of any company, let alone a national chain the size of Trader Joe’s, should have to consider and respond to every request received from one of their employees. I am suggesting that, if this story is true, then this matter was handled in possibly the worst fashion possible. It would have been much simpler for one of the CEO’s administrative assistants to reply with the company’s standard “thank you for your suggestion; we will look into it” message, and then ignore the whole thing. If anyone at corporate headquarters is actually mortally offended at the request that senior management “show up for” its employees by granting these requests, in return for the employees risking their safety by showing up for work every day despite the pandemic, they could always find some plausible excuse for firing this employee at some later point. Hopefully without triggering public outrage, giving rise to wrongful termination lawsuits, or making themselves look like a bunch of arrogant, thin-skinned, easily-offended idiots…

Alternately, I suppose, they could actually consider his requests…

The End of an Era – Again

 It really shouldn’t be news to anyone that a lot of businesses have been having trouble during the current world-wide health crisis. Even if I were to tell you that the pandemic has driven an entire industry into extinction, you probably wouldn’t be surprised. But if I were to tell you that the industry in question was video rental stores, your reaction would more likely be: “There are still video retail stores?” Regrettably, the answer would appear to be: “Not anymore…”

Two stories appearing on the MSN.com site this week give an idea of where the economy is going these days, and the news isn’t very reassuring. First up, a story that originated in The Washington Post details bankruptcy effects in a number of industries during the last year, some of which have seen double or triple the number of Chapter 11 filings from the year before. Even more disturbing, though, is the corresponding rise in Chapter 7 filings. Companies can come back from Chapter 11, or at least make an effort to raise money, find backers, or sell off assets, but Chapter 7 means you’re not even trying to do anything more than liquidate the company and turn out the lights…

In the midst of all of the restaurants, retail stores, shared-space ventures, business incubators, entrepreneurial start-ups, and entertainment ventures that are going under (or at least circling the drain), you may have missed the story about Family Video, the last known multi-unit video rental company, having to shut down operations in January. Compared to behemoths like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video, Family Video was a relatively modest operation, but the fact that it was still in business years after all of the other chains were long gone suggests that their story might be worth a closer look…

According to the story which originated in Newsweek, Family Video managed to avoid the fate of companies like Blockbuster through a combination of strategies that included unconventional asset allocation, unrelated diversification, and selection of otherwise underserved markets – which is to say, purchasing the buildings in which their stores were located instead of renting them, building pizza stands into the same business space, and putting the stores into smaller communities where other forms of entertainment are limited and many residents can’t afford cable or satellite service. None of these are particularly complicated or innovative, but the fact that Family Video used them while their competitors did not goes a long way towards explaining why they were still operating in 2021 while their competition closed down years ago…

Now, I’m not suggesting that anyone should be upset at the demise of video rental stores, or the industry in general. Streaming video services are cheaper, more convenient, offer more viewing choices, and these days even produce their own exclusive content. There was never any real question that the days of any business requiring you to pick up and return physical media were limited from the day the first pay-per-view services appeared back in the 1990s. But as the linked article notes, this latest business failure is going to put another 5,000 or so people out of work, and eliminate one of the only entertainment options available, in a large number of communities that are already being hit by an economic disaster potentially as destructive as the health disaster currently ravaging much of the world…

When I think back to the days – not that long ago – when the big video rental chains were powerful enough to influence which movies and television programs got funded, or advertised heavily, it can be hard to believe that they’re gone now. But the same can be said about record stores (and, increasingly, bookstores), soda fountains, full-service gas stations, video arcades, fondue restaurants, resume writing services, and many others, and the world goes on without noticing or caring in the slightest. It makes you wonder what other common business types won’t be around in another ten years – and what world events will finish them off…

Protective Parents or Flaming Hypocrites?

 I’ve written in this space before about ordinary people generating risqué content for online distribution, and questioned if anybody other than the people involved and their families (and, presumably, their customers) have any real right to complain about it. Granted that somebody who us posting adult content on social media while also broadcasting who they work for probably shouldn’t, complaining about content that you had to track down and then pay to access is reminiscent of the joke from the last century about somebody being offended by nudist neighbors they had to use a telescope to see at all – that is, it’s stupid. But if anyone out there is surprised about private school faculty and/or religious organizations going berserk over such a situation, I’ve got to ask if you are at all familiar with American culture…

You can pick up the story from the People magazine Human Interest page, or from the local television station’s story about it, but the case seems to be spreading all over the Internet. It seems that the local Catholic diocese has decided to expel three students from their school in Sacramento, California, because parents of some of the other kids found out that their mom posts “adult” pictures of herself on a subscription site called “OnlyFans.com.” Up until the scandal broke, the mom in question was an unremarkable member of the community, who actually served as a volunteer teacher’s assistant or “Room Mom” for one of the second grade classes as the school. Now, however, she and her children appear to have been blackballed from all Church facilities in the diocese…

It seems worth noting that the woman at the center of this case insists that none of her pictures are actually pornographic, and that this is not being disputed by the school, the Church, or even the other parents raising an (anonymous) ruckus over the matter. I should also point out that “OnlyFans.com” is a subscription site that does check the ages of subscribers, and that the mom in our story doesn’t advertise her work; you’d have to know who she was, deliberately go looking for her, and then pay to get access to her pictures before could see them. I could also point out that by the time any child is old enough to have any interest in risqué pictures of any kind there is no power on Earth that will prevent them from finding some, even if they aren’t pictures of a classmates’ mother…

Now, I’m not about to suggest that any organization should be required to utilize volunteers or employees regardless of who those people are or what else they do. Certainly, there are people I wouldn’t want directly interacting with a room full of seven-year-old school children. Moreover, a religious school is, by definition, a private organization, and is therefore not subject to Equal Opportunity Employment laws or First Amendment protections. But throwing three children out of your school because you don’t approve of something their mother does on her own time to make extra money and/or improve marital relations does seem a bit harsh. It’s hard to imagine what harm the kids themselves could possibly be doing to anyone – and if any parents are allowing their seven-year-old children to access adult sites on the Internet, with or without adult supervision, they probably deserve whatever happens as a consequence…

The other question that strikes me is, how did the parents who sent in the packet of pictures to the school authorities get them in the first place? It’s possible that somebody’s kid got access to their credit card or hacked the site’s firewall, but given the vast amounts of pornography available for free online it seems unlikely that anyone would bother. Absent any evidence to the contrary – and the school hasn’t even claimed to have any – I think we have to assume that someone in the community got wind of the mom in our story posting adult pictures of herself, and then spent hours or days combing through the seamier side of the Internet until they found the pictures. At which point my first question isn’t even “Why do you care?” so much as it is “If you are so against this type of material, why are you surfing adult websites in the first place?”

Think about that one really carefully before you answer…

Here We Go Again - 2021 Edition

Fifty years ago, the United States Airforce had a problem: its premiere fighter, the F-4 Phantom II, while exceptionally fast and capable, was also big, heavy, and expensive. For the new generation of aircraft, the service requested a high-performance air-superiority fighter to replace the Phantom in that role, and a simple, light-weight, and relatively inexpensive aircraft capable of flying both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The results were the F-15 Eagle, arguably the best pure fighter of its generation, and the F-16 Fighting Falcon, one of the most capable and widely-used fighter-bomber types ever built. Critics complained that the F-16 was still too expensive, and crammed with too much equipment, but it is hard to deny that the plane was very successful, given its combat record…

Thirty years later the United States was looking for a new generation of aircraft to replace the F-15 and F-16 – not unreasonably, considering the technological development during those years. Consider, for example, that in 1971 some of the most capable computers in the world still required most of a small room and were less powerful than the phone in your pocket. The new F-22 Raptor fulfills the air-superiority requirement quite well, and both the manufacturer and the Department of Defense insist that it has never lost an air-to-air combat to a peer competitor. The problem came when the Air Force decided to buy the F-35 Lightning II to replace the now 44 year-old F-16. Intended to be lightweight, inexpensive, and reliable, the F-35 has proven to be none of the above – and now it seems as though even the top brass are admitting that…

An article on the Forbes website this week discusses the request from the Chief of the Air Force for a new lightweight and inexpensive multi-role aircraft to supplement the F-35. The general compares the F-35 to a Ferrari, explaining that you don’t drive your Ferrari to and from work every day; you drive it on Sundays and special occasions. This is true, of course – exotic sports cars generally have a lifespan of 25,000 miles or less, and you’d have to be out of your mind to drive one every day – but it doesn’t speak well for the F-35, which was intended to be a replacement for the F-16 but has instead suffered from massive cost overruns, lengthy teething problems, and the installation of far too much exotic, temperamental, and heavy equipment…

I’ve written in this space before about the problems with government budgets in general, and the Air Force’s problems with vehicles that are insufficiently sleek, thrilling, and pointy to suit their image in particular. In this case, no one doubts that the USAF needs a multi-role fighter, or that it would be possible to develop a more advanced and capable aircraft for this purpose than the venerable F-16. The problem is that with the Air Force’s perennial battle to get a bigger share of the defense budget than the other services, and the U.S. Congress’ tendency to allocate funding based on getting its members re-elected (as opposed to spending money on things we actually need), there is a very real chance that any future attempts to acquire a light, cheap, and reliable multi-role warplane will end up exactly the way the F-35 did…

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that anything about this situation is simple, or easily solved. All kidding aside, it really does take years to develop a new airplane, and getting the balance between offensive capability, defensive capability, and maneuverability just right in any piece of military equipment is a challenge that predates both the airplane and the United States of America. But unless we want to continue throwing money down a rat hole (or a pork barrel), somebody needs to sort out this situation before the next piece of light, cheap, and reliable war gear turns into a gold-plated waste of time – and the whole thing starts all over again…

Drive-by Groceries

A few weeks ago I decided to try out one of the curbside pickup services offered by our local supermarkets. I’ve avoided them for several years now, partly because I prefer surveying the products on offer before making my selections, and partly because there are some things I want to check for myself – expiration dates, freshness and lack of mold, amount of fat and/or gristle, and so on. I trust the company not to try to pass off expired goods on me, if only because of the massive legal and regulatory problems that would cause them, but the difference between something that expires on Thursday and something that is good until the following Monday can be important in my household, especially when you only go shopping once a week. Recently, though, there have been offsetting considerations…

 Unless you’ve been living on another planet since January of 2020 you already know about the world-wide health crisis that makes going out in public a risky proposition, but there are other issues worth the mention here. For example, I already didn’t like people who insist on standing close enough to you in a checkout line that you can tell what they had for lunch; these days, though, that’s practically germ warfare. I also hate people who insist on arguing with the cashier about every price, why the store should accept coupons for things they aren’t actually buying, or why corporate has chosen to impose any one of hundreds of policies. And don’t get me started on people who insist on trying every credit card they own – three times each – before reluctantly admitting that they may not have paid their bills in a while…

And who’s even mentioned people who won’t wear a mask, or who insist on explaining at length why they have the legal, moral, political, or religious right to infect anyone they want to yet?

I’m not going to specify which vendor I was using, any unless you are from this part of the country you probably haven’t heard of it anyway, but like most supermarket chains these days they have their own smartphone app and a website where you can pick out the items you want to purchase. First, the good news: setting up an account isn’t difficult, and the website isn’t hard to navigate. It can take a very long time scrolling through lists of products to find the exact size and flavor you want, and the “search” function isn’t as much help as you’d probably expect, but setting up the order isn’t hard.

 Finding the pick-up location was a bit of a challenge the first time. There are eight parking spaces on one side of the lot with a phone number to call when you arrive, but the parking lot is big enough to land a 747 on, and there’s no indication of where the pick-up spaces are. You also have to plan out the trip in advance – there is a lead time before they can get your order ready, and only so many pick-up times in any given day – but I expected all of that. A much bigger issue, at least for me, was the stock-outs…

The website has a number of products on it with an “out of stock” notation on them, but this does not appear to be tied into the individual store’s Inventory Control system, because almost a quarter of the items on my list were out of stock when I arrived, and the crew member processing the order offered me substitute products instead. Some of these were acceptable (I really don’t care what shape my French fries are in) but others weren’t (my wife will not go near anything cherry-flavored except actual cherries), and there were a number of items for which no practical substitute exists. And there was at least one case where I didn’t want the substitute product, but ended up getting it mixed in with my order (and having to pay for it) anyway…

Now, I’m not saying that going inside the store would have helped with any of these issues, particularly the stock-outs. There were a few items in my order that I haven’t seen on the shelf in weeks now, but I selected them anyway, since they weren’t marked at “out of stock” on the website, and it was always possible that they had some in the stockroom that hadn’t been put out yet. And there are some health and hygiene products I’m not going to trust someone to pick out for me anyway. But while I don’t believe the curbside service will ever completely replace going into the store and looking for things I might need, I can’t deny that there is a definite utility to not having to deal with quite so many stupid, annoying, entitled, or diseased people when I go to the store every week…