Distinguishing Between the Quality of Data and Its Quantity With Stoichiometry

Let me jump right into this discussion without a prelude explaining any of it. The explanations would take too long. And no one who's interested in this wants to read too much. Everyone else who doesn't get it at first glance will just skip it.

+++++++++++++++++

It is essential to know both the quality and quantity of a given set of data. Any measure of unit counts as data for this conversation. Know only the quantity or amount of data and not its essential quality is foolish, as only the wise know.

Many folks I work with in Quality Assurance care only about the amount of defects they have in pre-production. As if a body count alone can tell you if you're winning or losing the war. Vietnam should have taught us that much!

I tell them that the number of defects matters nothing. The requirements that the defects impact is all that matters. No more, and no less.

If it is required that a software application work in such a way, it should matter that it doesn't work in that way. Not working as required is a defect. Therefore, the best way to present defects is to tie them to their associated requirements. Surprisingly, this is a tough sell.

So let me put my argument another way. Let's use something as objective and impersonal as anything: chemistry's simple equation for stoicheometry. The most basic equation is that an acid combined with a base will form water and salt.

acid + base = water + salt

I had my "Aha!" moment in Qualitative Chemistry with this realization. Whenever we got bitten by a mosquito, my mother would tell us to apply ammonia on it because it takes away the itch. Windex window cleaner works as well as straight ammonia because it is made up of ammonia - so it has the same active ingredient.

The night before this enlightening lecture, I watched a documentary (while studying chemistry of all things) on why bug bites sting. It also explained why some stings hurt more than others. It turns out that bug bites are acidic and the acid burns our skin as it dissolves it.

The molarity or concentration of the acid is what makes more acidic bug bites sting worse than less acidic bug bites. Gnats sting the least, mosquitoes more, wasps a hell of a lot, and scorpions the worst of all. Increasing acidity hurts more like more concentrated vinegar (acetic acid) tastes more bitter and sour lemons (ascorbic acid) make you pucker.

A mosquito bite has the same acidity as vinegar. In terms of molarity, the concentration of the solution, vinegar has an equivalent molarity as ammonia. The base and acid combines to form water and salt.

That's why dabbing ammonia on a mosquito bite takes away the sting. And why after you dab the ammonia on the bite, you get a droplet of water forming over the spot. When the water evaporates, you flake off the salt. After all of this, the sting is gone!

Qualitative Chemistry:
acid (mosquito bite) + base (ammonia application) = water (droplet bubble) + salt (resulting crust)

What I described above can be understood as Requirements. According to the laws of chemistry, mixing an acid and base yields water and salt. When that doesn't happen, it is a defect.

You must understand stoicheometry in order to detect a defect in the equation. Only then can you qualify the defect. But understanding only the defect without knowing the requirements is stupid.

Quantitative Chemistry:
HCl (hydrochloric acid) + NaOH (sodium hydroxide - base) = H2O (water) + NaCl (sodium chloride - salt)

People who focus solely on the defects and not on the total equation with requirements itself focus on the horse's ass and not on the horse itself. Defects are the horse's ass and
Requirements are the horse. Recognizing something does not mean you see everything.

It's like seeing a confusing equation above and thinking that just because you recognize the elements on the Periodic Table means you understand chemistry itself. As if that makes you an expert at Stoichiometry when it doesn't because you fail to grasp the significance of its elegant equation.

Titan Track vs. Daddy Track - Appreciating Men's Ambitions

Men are either on Titan Track or Daddy Track. When selecting a husband for marriage, realize which path he's on and whether you will support him on it.

Men on Titan Track pursue greatness, expressed through corporate dominance and its attendant financial prowess. These men are hard to please with their high expectations, imposing their standards on themselves and on others.

Their women must reflect his greatness, contributing to his image of invincibility. These are the CEOs with serial wives, all trophies but the first one who was his stepping stone, looking like a boulder at the end of her run.

Men on Daddy Track are equal opposites. They are born family men whose success is measured by happy children and one marriage. These are the Disney Dads with either a very contented bovine wife or a skinny shrew resentful that he hasn't achieved more in creating a castle of her own imagination.

The mistake women make is forcing a Daddy Track man to be more ambitious that serves solely to fulfill her Lady Macbeth ambitions. Whereas women who marry men on Titan Track mistakenly force him to be home early every night for dinner and babysit the kids in full view of her scathing eye when he would rather continue plotting his world domination.

Homely women are best for Daddy Tracks for there is harmony. Stunning beauties belong to men on Titan Track, one marriage after the next and mistresses along the way. Choose wisely.

To Those About To Ride - I Salute You, Ladies

There's nothing more glorious than witnessing a woman holding her own. Women who ride motorcycles embody the feminine mystique.

This conjures up an image of Lady Godiva on horseback. No hag on a Hog is she. When it comes to the open road, I would rather be a bitch riding than riding bitch.

We've come a long way, baby. But there are many more miles to go. Ride on.

If Owners Look Like their Cars, Then Make Mine Beautiful

Beauty is aspirational because we all aspire to be beautiful, even if only through acquisition. The free market rewards beauty and punishes ugly, profits quality and costs crap.

A perfect example is the car industry. American cars are ugly. Japanese and German cars are gorgeous.

American cars fall apart. Japanese and German cars age very, very well, retaining their Blue Book value a decade later.

American cars make fat old man noises heaving itself off the recliner when it's just off the production line. Japanese and German cars hum at top speed and growl in idle, wanting to be challenged by the open road.

Simply put, American cars are not aspirational the way Japanese and German cars are. I think this is due solely to looks. We all aspire to be better looking and to look our best.

Beautiful people surround themselves with beauty. This extends itself to our second largest purchase - our car. There is so much commuting in America that the car is more than mere transportation, it is an emblem of ourselves.

I am Lexus with its clean lines of a lithe cat. I am a Range Rover shuttling between Town and Country. Buying American is an admission of defeat - I am an Olds because I am old.

Athletic Girls Become Gorgeous Women

The best women compete in sports as girls.

Athletics introduces people to the game of life. It defines the player's roles, acknowledges the playing field, and agrees to the rules. You play to win, you learn to lose, and you move on to the next match.

The greatest lesson is taking a punch to the nose and knowing it won't kill you. Hurt like hell, yes, but you're not dead.

Taking a hit and landing a punch builds confidence. In other's eyes, you are competent, win or lose, which among men is the highest form of praise.

Earning your chops with guys wins you lifelong loyalty. They will help you bury the body.

The only real offense is betrayal, not ineptitude. This is because when you prove yourself inept, they know you are trying your hardest and respect the effort.

Men admire anyone who goes to bat and swings for the fences, despite striking out. It's the quitter they despise for the valid fear that you'll abandon them in battle.

Competing in beauty pageants doesn't count, unless you consider backstabbing a blood sport.

The Virtues Of Competing Are Winning The Game of Life

Competition is essential to personal development for its instruction. From beauty pageants to pee wee t-ball, winners learn how to win again and losers learn how to win the next time. Every endeavor yields a winner and a loser. A win is not eternal and a loss is never permanent because any game is situational and the rules are circumstantial.

What might seem competitive could actually be collaborative. When a beautiful woman enters into a room, the other beautiful woman is not made ugly. Instead, all women are considered more attractive than each would otherwise be on their own.

There is no eliminating competition. It will emerge elsewhere. When children can't declare a win or a loss in recreational sports, reality television pits lives of adults against each other for survival. We hunger for competition because we want winners and we want losers. We want road maps that point out the paths to success and the pitfalls to failure.

To eliminate competition is to extinguish intelligence, which emerges as the final score. Playing makes sense of game. The game is nothing but a study in outcomes when there is a level playing field. The thrill lies in the clock ticking down prompting the final jump shot or Hail Mary pass.

To be happy, we have to play the game to win and learn to lump the losses. There is no opting out whether you suit up or not. Participating is the game of life itself.

Something For Nothing and Your Ticks For Free

A tick on the balls of a dinosaur. That's what women are who marry men for money. Yes, they might extend their longevity by clinging to a big, warm body. But still, they die. Clinging to the corpse of delusion.

Death by Intellectual Deceipt

The greatest deceit against intellectual honesty is the significance of our appearance. That inner beauty is of greater virtue is a pernicious lie told with frightening vigor.

Beauty is something not talked about because concern for one’s presentation is cause for secrecy, shame, and ridicule – unless you’re a celebrity whose sale is in derision. What secret are we keeping exactly? And why should my efforts at looking great require such clandestine secrecy?

Germany under Hitler and China under Mao had youth squads who would turn in their parents and neighbors if someone spoke ill of the regime. Violators were publicly humiliated and often executed.

The fervid “Gotcha!” attacks against celebrities spotted with puffy upper lips get more media attention than the mass graves from genocidal atrocities of aggrandizing dict-o-crats. As though primping, pricking, and preening is more scandalous, more personally offensive, than slaughtering citizens of your own country.

Women are more emboldened about abortions and bankruptcies than they are about their desire for plastic surgery. And yet more righteous about having the bong water look of limp hair and sallow skin called sexy when it’s clearly not. Beauty is skin deep down to the bone.

The Orwellian campaign to convince us that our ugliest disheveled state is somehow more sublime than a tended to façade would be comical – if the campaigner weren’t so violent. Ruining one’s reputation out of sheer jealousy is murder, just short of snuffing out one’s soul.

Slashing clothes off fur-wearing backs, splashing fast-food diners with bloodied water, hurtling food at faces with malevolent force, setting McMansions on fire to punish the landowner is somehow a tolerable if not celebrated assault in our society. No animals were harmed in the making of this movie, yes. But humans are ritually sacrificed on the altar of righteous indignation.

The jackbooted SS of old is the suede footed Birkenstock of now insisting that they had to destroy the village in order to save it. What’s to save? And my God, what’s been lost?