rant: Sears Sucks

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

All I can say about government is that with a few notable exceptions, all contact with officialdom has been detrimental. Size seems to be the problem, as once an organization grows to be responsible to its stockholders or constituents approaches zero. There are none bigger than government and it shows. Much of my business plan revolves around government avoidance.

I've discussed ethics with both government officials and businessmen. The common thread is that individually, they all want to be helpful, useful, kind, generous, and honest. However, pressure from both above and below can change that overnight. When advancement means that it has to be done over someone else's mortal remains, then ethics is the first to be ignored. Then the stockholders demand profit not matter who gets screwed in the process, again ethics is sidelined in the name of profits. When asked to do something unethical or illegal, there is always the implied threat that if one doesn't do it, they'll hire someone else that will. When the benefit to cost ratio of expediency is high enough to believe that one can get away with something, temptation often trumps ethics.

In the beginning, you have many possible options and moves available. It pays to be honest and ethical because the big reward is so far off in the future that risking the future is just not worthwhile. However, as the game reaches the end, the stakes are much higher, and the options are available moves are far fewer, it is possible to simply run out of legal and ethical options. For those that want to stay in the game, the only choice is to break the rules or laws.

I often look with envy at my college friends who chose government service over private employment. Most are retired by now and doing well enough on a government pension. There was no risk involve and it was only necessary to tolerate the ultimate bureaucracy for about 40 years. Cheat, lie, or steal didn't matter, as long as one didn't do anything unethical or immoral. The end reward is a comfortable pension and retirement. I'm rather jealous and rather wish I had gone into government service (even though I probably would not have tolerated it).

So, do I sleep nights and maintain a functional conscience? Yes, I think so, mostly, maybe. Sleep is questionable thanks to bladder problems, but as long as the local critters are quiet, I sleep like the proverbial rock[1]. Conscience is a bit different. I worry about my screwups, but as long as I try to fix or avoid further screwups, I don't loose too much sleep over them. It's not a great rationalization, but maintaining good intentions is the best I can do.

[1] Then, there's "sleep talking". I've had extended convesations on the phone while asleep. In the morning, I can't remember anything that I said or promised. Friends and customers say I sounded a bit "detached" but otherwise normal. I also have some recordings. I guess this would also qualify as not worrying in my sleep.
--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann
Loading thread data ...

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due? So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary, or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
lunatic fringe electronics 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply to
John Larkin

Big FPGAs cost big bucks.

I haven't used Xilinx software in eight years. It was OK then but you aren't the only one who's bitched about it since. We didn't use a million chips a week, probably more like a few dozen (at $3800 each) for the life of the program but we got support, after a fashion. We didn't require much, though.

OTOH, I had much better response from Altera, even though we only used a thousand, or so, CPLDs. Lattice has been super, though they are looking to sell millions. ;-)

Reply to
krw

It only works with their hardware, if that's what you mean. So what? The source is easily transportable (if you don't use vendor specific hardware features). Test benches are transportable, too and often they use ModelSim, anyway.

Reply to
krw

The job of Sears is to rebrand other products and throw a scam on top. They get sued so much that I don't see how they're still allowed to operate.

- The Sears Card exists only to generate revenue from broad spectrum of late fee fraud.

- They violate all major credit card terms by billing for products before they are available to ship. (A policy that helps with the Sears Card fraud.)

- They've been caught selling foreign tool replicas as "Made in USA."

- They send fake technicians to your home to declare that your appliance warranty has been voided.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google 
because they host Usenet flooders.
Reply to
Kevin McMurtrie

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

No, they will have you committed no matter what.

Not sure what you intend by that term. If you mean can you use your design on other vendor's chips, then yes, they can't restrict your design. They can restrict the use of the bitstream their tools produce however. I know Altera won't let you use the bitstream to directly produce an ASIC. You have to use *your* sources.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

While Sears has, at least at one time, made more money from its financial business than it has from retail, "late fee fraud" is certainly not their reason for existence. That's just absurd.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

I have no love for Sears anymore and rarely walk in their stores but the above is libelous drivel.

Reply to
krw

Time for one last rant before EoV (end of vacation)...

I don't know. I've never had a public sector job and have no idea what it might be like. That won't stop me from speculating.

One problem is that different people have different ideas of what constitutes on the job fun. In my case, fun is simply the lack of boredom. I tend to get bored very easily. My solution is to have a large number of projects going simultaneously. Starting projects is infinitely more fun than finishing them. That is not normally considered a good idea for meeting deadlines, so I usually negotiate a compromise. Working for myself, there's nobody to negotiate with, so the cancerous growth of unfinished projects continues. However, I am having fun.

For government servants, I would guess(tm) that the job would be rather monotonous and boring. While I can't work in that manner, there are those that can. While I look for new and unknown areas to explore, there are those that function best in the safety of the well practiced and well known, which implies endless repetition.

According to Outliers: it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. At 8 hrs/day and 200 working days per year, that's about 6 years which is somewhat more than the 4.4 year average job tenure. That might also explain why nobody seems to know what they're doing. They haven't put in the 10,000 hrs needed to become proficient. I suspect that public sector jobs last somewhat longer than 6 years, which suggests that once they become proficient, boredom sets in. So, they change jobs, starting the learning curve over from scratch. However, if they're stuck in their present position, the boredom can become endemic, which means they're permanently not having any fun.

The obvious solution to the public sector boredom problem doesn't work. You can't force an automatic job rotation every 6 years because everyone would then be constantly climbing the learning curve. At least with bored greater than 10,000 hrs public sector employees, they know how to do their job. The only challenge is getting them sufficiently inspired to actually do their job (without falling asleep).

The problem is a little different in different size companies and organizations. With a small company, everyone knows what everyone else is doing. People tend to have multiple positions and functions, which is great for providing the entertainment value needed to prevent boredom. Things are not the same at larger companies, where an employee is often compartmentalized into a single job function. Without the ability to easily get involved in diversionary projects, the large company employee reaches the point of boredom much sooner than the small company employee. That's because the small company diversions detract from the 10,000 hrs needed before the onset of proficiency and boredom. Much of the fun that you're currently enjoying in a small company might not be possible in a large company.

Let's see if the numbers are close. If someone works for about 45 years, and it takes 6 years to become bored, then the average tenure per job should be about: 45 / 6 = 7.5 years/job Well, it's a bit higher than the alleged 4.4 year average, but it's in the ball park. Assuming the average is correct, the average worker is bored: 7.5 - 4.4 = 3.1 years of their life. Sounds about right.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

A more fundamental issue is the expectations you have *from* your "job". Many people will gladly trade "fun/enjoyment/challenge/etc." for *security* -- they want to know they have $X coming in the door every week. They'll put up with a fair amount of cruft in order to get -- and maintain -- that "security".

Other people want to avoid "responsibility". Happy to fill a role that someone *else* has deemed necessary -- without concern for the truth of that ("if Bob thinks we need someone -- me -- to fold napkins all day long, who am *I* to say otherwise?!")

Still others want to "have fun" -- which can be defined in many different ways. E.g., test driving vehicles could be considered "fun" by some. Even if the results of their acts are imprecisely defined ("This car was a 3 out of 10" -- what the hell does that mean?)

Some might consider it "fun" to be a tour guide -- getting enjoyment out of sharing their knowledge of a subject/site with others; watching them develop an appreciation for something *you* value.

I'm not sure I'd fall into the same camp. To me, "fun" is learning something new -- a *fresh* challenge. Ideally, one that builds on past learning in an evolutionary way.

E.g., refurbishing computers quickly reaches a plateau in terms of "learning" -- after about the 4th or 5th unit! :> OTOH, coming up with ways to more efficiently get the job done can be very challenging -- esp when you are forced to adopt constraints over which you have no control (e.g., can't BUY spare parts).

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security", fear of a new "unknown", etc.

It is *security*! Just don't get caught screwing a goat, etc. I think the same is true of military careers -- if you can put up with someone telling you what to do (even if they are "wrong"), then you're guaranteed an income/position!

At smaller companies (IME) there is also more innovation and willingness to try new/different approaches to problems. Things that large companies (and their inherent politics) tend to effectively discourage (stockholders, little empires/fiefdoms, etc.)

I've often seen a sort of "hunger" in "old-timers" who opted for "security" in their job positions when they see others engaged in "interesting", new products; products in which they no longer have the appropriate skillsets to participate.

You make a tradeoff at one point in your career -- and then tend to get stuck with it throughout (how many folks take a deliberate pause and reassess where they are headed?)

Reply to
Don Y

Of course there is a continuum in the above. We all lie (and want to) somewhere on these axis.

Sure. "Fun", like "happiness" is largely what you make it, though. You are really in charge of that for yourself.

Ditto.

Goat screwers are now a protected class. It's not a firable offense, rather a requirement for promotion.

I haven't found that at all. I've only worked for one small company (and three large ones) but, other than the government contract (could only stand it for a year), I found that the large employers have far more money to spend trying new ideas and weren't too worried about failure. The small company was almost too scared to move.

I haven't seen that at all. Rather the opposite. The older folks have the experience to know how to do new things. Perhaps those that don't, fell out (into management? ;-) along the way.

Many, once their children are on their own and they're more or less financially set, take up second careers or start a business.

Reply to
krw

But if you're reasonably good at it, electronics design is fun and pays fairly well to very well.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
lunatic fringe electronics 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply to
John Larkin

The fun part depends on a great many factors.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

It depends on how varied the opportunities that are presented to you and of which you avail yourself -- as well as the framework you have to work within. E.g., how often can you explore a solution AT YOUR LEISURE? Look at perhaps five or six (largely) *completed* implementations before deciding which to actually pursue?

Employers, clients, customers tend to put financial and time pressures on most development efforts that stiffle just how flexible you can be. It's no fun trying to rush to meet a deadline -- wondering what corners you've cut and haven't yet realized, etc.

[No, I *don't* want to have to come back and FIX something!]

I know folks who have done (essentially) the same thing for their entire career (often very $ucce$$fully!). Few of them would characterize their jobs as "fun"; many would say "nonchallenging", trivial, disappointing, PROFITABLE, etc. -- looking for satisfaction in *other* endeavors ("hobbies").

E.g., I know a guy that JUST designs power supplies. He's very good at it and can squeeze whichever end of the balloon you tell him needs to be optimized. But, it's just "work" to him; nothing particularly challenging (even if you constrain cost, volume, reliability, etc. -- "Ho, hum... ")

Another guy JUST designs data acquisition systems. How fast, how precise, etc. Just different parameters on (essentially) the same problem that he's been solving over and over again. A new set of components/technologies available, this year... but, they'll just be applied in more or less the same way as last year's!

Lots of software folks quickly fall into pigeon holes -- writing code for the same sorts of applications (or devices) over and over again. Usually not given much freedom to experiment with different user interface styles, coding practices, implementation frameworks, etc. ("This worked for the last project; why do anything differently?")

[Writing software for the gummit is probably the worst of ALL worlds!]

I can knock out a new/novel hardware design in a few months -- and spend a few *years* writing code for it. Very little challenge in that (challenge == fun in my lexicon).

Rather, I get much more enjoyment and satisfaction in exploring other application domains. Different *types* of problems to which my past experiences can, perhaps, be directly applied -- or, can inspire novel/untried approaches that, at the very least, shed new insights on the application and/or the technology that I've tried to apply: "Hmmm.... having tried *that*, I now know where my assumptions were inappropriate -- and how I can better achieve the results I originally sought! But, on a *different* project!"

The *last* thing I want to get stuck doing is repeating a past project ("We don't have time to do it right -- but, we'll have time to do it OVER!") I find that the equivalent of "digging ditches" for a living (mindless).

"OK, guys, we're ready to start developing Product2016, now..."

Reply to
Don Y

If an electronic design is "pure electronics", electrical input and electrical output, like designing variants of a power supply (and pushing them through CE test labs!) it could get boring. What's interesting is to do the things that George H and I do, which is to apply electronics to various physical processes. One has to learn new physics (and new buzzwords), push the limits of instrumentation, and maybe amaze a few scientists now and then. You can be a scientific dilettante, without the hassle of going to grad school and being a postdoc and stuff. Play around lasers and jet engines and microscopes for a while and move on.

But there isn't much leisure to try things five or six times. Things have to work, preferably first try. That part can be exciting, too, promising to do something difficult and then seeing if it will work.

It is amazing how ubiquitous electronics has become. There is practically no science that doesn't involve electronics. Plenty of opportunities.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
lunatic fringe electronics 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply to
John Larkin

The same can be said of many applications. I have a friend who has been designing video games -- and now slot machines -- for close to 40 years. Hard to see the "challenge" in that -- even if you concoct all sorts of variations on the themes!

I think you'd be surprised at how much variation there is in the software world; talk about "ubiquity"! E.g., software

*in* switching power supplies, software controller radios, etc. Plus the variety of other "commodity products" (gas pumps, sewing machines, all matters of peripherals, process control systems, etc.)

And, there are many things that can be done in software that are completely impractical in hardware.

[Of course, the same is (currently) true, in reverse]

E.g., pharmaceuticals (tablets) are produced on high volume, rotary tablet presses: In essence, these are *many* "single station" presses that are operated in a common mechanical framework: So, a "75 station" press is actually 75 single station presses on a common turret -- each station moving around the turret experiencing various parts of the tablet formation cycle (fill, precompression, compression, ejection) endlessly.

[imagine the animation in the wikipedia document wrapping *around* a rotating turret -- there is a LOT of detail in the animation that you'll probably not notice :< E.g., watch the position of the "heads" of the punches -- upper and lower -- VERY closely; the punch motions are finely scripted]

As each station has its own mechanical characteristics (dimensions of upper and lower punches, shapes of punch faces, dimensions of associated die), a tablet made on station #M may be physically different than an "identical" tablet made on station #N -- assuming everything else is held constant (e.g., the granulation/powder that makes up the tablet varies over time).

Yet, you have to ensure certain physical characteristics of ALL of those tablets are within some set of manufacturing limits (tablet weight, hardness, cosmetic issues, etc.).

Implement a traditional control loop and what ends up happening is observations from station M are applied to station N; station N's observations applied to station O; etc. So, your "control" may, in fact, make the "process" *worse* than it would have been without the control present!

Imagine observations of M suggest the tablet made there is "too soft" -- because the punches were a few thousandths too

*short* (leading to a larger cavity in which the granulation was compressed). You tweek the machine to effectively bring those bunch tips closer together and, when N passes through a moment (10 milliseconds) later, the tablet seems too *hard*... because the punches at N are a thousandth of an inch *longer* (the cavity would have been smaller just because of the variation in punch lengths -- and you've aggravated it with your control algorithm's "correction" from station M!)

So, the "random" arrangement of punches and dies in the machine leads to unnecessary variations/oscillations *caused* by your control loop.

Complicate this with the fact that *two* stations are producing tablets at opposite sides of the machine at any given time (examine original picture closely: notice two hoppers on top and two ejection chutes on each side?). Now you've got 150 single stroke machines in the same "box", sharing certain portions of the mechanism(s) (e.g., compression rollers, fill/ejection cams, etc.)

In software, you can treat each of these as separate control systems and seek to optimize the overall process -- instead of making a naive short-term control decision that *will* deleteriously impact neighboring stations.

Imagine designing a piece of hardware to implement such an inter-combined set of control loops. And, imagine being able to set performance criteria for it!

There isn't in *many* (most) development environments. OTOH, there

*is* in others! Folks doing research rarely have the pressures of "manufacturing deadlines". Hence, there is some aspect of "fun" in that line of work.

Just because opportunities *exist* ("in theory") doesn't mean folks can avail themselves of them! If your employer builds radios and you want to build microwave ovens, you have to pick a different employer! (and hope he is interested in your talents!) If, after having your fill of microwave ovens you want to work on guidance systems for ballistic missiles...

:>

Reply to
Don Y

Yep, as long as you can find customers with deep enough pockets to fund the development of products that aren't cookie cutter in nature. And... as long as you don't try to use technology you aren't very good at using.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

Search for "Sears Card fraud." There's a very sophisticated scheme behind it that has generated many state lawsuits against Sears for fraud.

Just ask Sears. They billed me for a clothes washer and drier as soon as I placed the order, even though it was not yet available to ship. Sears customer service claimed that it was their procedure. This violates the terms of all major credit cards, including the one used.

Me. I had a self-install RO filter that would not turn off. I followed diagnostics in the manual and found a defective diaphragm. I boxed it up for return to the store. Two Sears stores refused to honor their warranty in-store and said a tech must inspect it as a house call. I set the box on a table. The "tech" arrived hours late, saw that it was boxed up, and phoned in that I had voided the warranty by uninstalling it. While standing right in front of me and the box, he said that he inspected the product and it was completely destroyed.

I recorded it with a laptop but can't find it at the moment.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google 
because they host Usenet flooders.
Reply to
Kevin McMurtrie

As somebody said, 'the best projects are the ones where you get a knot in your stomach as soon as the contract gets signed.'

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Reply to
Phil Hobbs

One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?" ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC 
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

160 North State Road #203 
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 

hobbs at electrooptical dot net 
http://electrooptical.net
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.