As we have been planning for the coming year, we have asked our scouts what life goals they have or what they want to do when they grow up. Now, I know that no one really knows what they want to do at 12, and many of us will be doing things that don't even exist when we are in high school. We want to support them in our activities. So what do a couple of them have in common? They want to be YouTubers.
I guess that makes sense, as that is the media that people connect with. I don't see their personalities fitting that model, but it's all acting and production quality.
The ironic thing is that I was at the Wal-Marts a couple weeks after this conversation, and we happened to see some local actors and YouTubers. On their channel or on Instagram they are polished, smiling, and traveling the world. From what they have shared, I know they have had some crazy trials to work through, but it is always still poised. Not at the Wal-Marts, though. This was real - unshaven, no makeup, no show.
I guess we all put on a show in whatever we do. Here's to being more real in 2020!
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Triple Constraints
Seth Godin got in on the action a bit, in making fun of Elon Musk's fancy new truck.
Regardless of what his choice to throw a ball at a window of his brand new truck says about his showmanship skills, the big technology development of the future is related to transportation. As well as mass transit works in places with high population density and a large number of tourists such as New York and San Francisco, most places don't have enough of either of those two items to make mass transit really work. This means self-driving cars will be the real growth area.
I was reading the following article...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613399/the-three-challenges-keeping-cars-from-being-fully-autonomous/
...and realized not too far into it that we were just talking about the triple constraints. The three big challenges are that they must be safe, usable, and affordable. They go on to discuss that you could make a vehicle so safe that it would be unusable, since it wouldn't drive very fast or be fuel efficient. This is similar to how the most secure computer is one that is not connected to the internet and with no keyboard or monitor.
But for a vehicle to be useful/usable, some safety constraints have to give way. If we push on both the usability and safety levers at the same time, the cost will be through the roof. Cheap and usable? Not safe. Cheap and safe? Not usable. Safe and usable? Not cheap.
Regardless of what his choice to throw a ball at a window of his brand new truck says about his showmanship skills, the big technology development of the future is related to transportation. As well as mass transit works in places with high population density and a large number of tourists such as New York and San Francisco, most places don't have enough of either of those two items to make mass transit really work. This means self-driving cars will be the real growth area.
I was reading the following article...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613399/the-three-challenges-keeping-cars-from-being-fully-autonomous/
...and realized not too far into it that we were just talking about the triple constraints. The three big challenges are that they must be safe, usable, and affordable. They go on to discuss that you could make a vehicle so safe that it would be unusable, since it wouldn't drive very fast or be fuel efficient. This is similar to how the most secure computer is one that is not connected to the internet and with no keyboard or monitor.
But for a vehicle to be useful/usable, some safety constraints have to give way. If we push on both the usability and safety levers at the same time, the cost will be through the roof. Cheap and usable? Not safe. Cheap and safe? Not usable. Safe and usable? Not cheap.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Dual Specialties
Or is it duelling specialties?
Growth is good. Being stretched and challenged is good. But sometimes we can be pushed into something that is actually more of a shift than growth.
If someone is an excellent server at a restaurant - they make good money from tips, their customers are happy and ask for them by name, and the restaurant makes more money due to their upselling skills. So what's the best course of action? Promote them to managing the servers or to managing the entire restaurant? When do those skills translate to management and when are we taking someone out of a win-win-win situation and changing it to one where everyone loses?
If someone is a good programmer, does that automatically mean we should promote them to be a project manager or product manager as a reward? What if they don't like the new job, or worse yet, what if they are bad at it?
Is the best cellist in the orchestra a perfect fit to replace the conductor when they retire? Or did we just lose the best cellist in the orchestra and gain a mediocre conductor?
Is a faculty member who is a good researcher by default also a good teacher? Should we promote the best teacher to department head or dean in the name of personal growth?
Managing people, operations, and projects well is a skill. It is its own specialty. You don't have to be a good programmer to specialize in managing programmers or a good cellist to be able to conduct cellists. A project manager may focus on a certain industry, but at the end of the day a good PM should be able to manage any project.
The biggest issue it seems with most "good" managers is that when they see people under them who are good at what they do, they want to promote them to be a manager just like them. It's time to flip the conventional wisdom on its head and start rewarding people for being good at what they do and helping them achieve true growth in their lane rather than convincing them that it is a reward to shift into a completely different lane.
Growth is good. Being stretched and challenged is good. But sometimes we can be pushed into something that is actually more of a shift than growth.
If someone is an excellent server at a restaurant - they make good money from tips, their customers are happy and ask for them by name, and the restaurant makes more money due to their upselling skills. So what's the best course of action? Promote them to managing the servers or to managing the entire restaurant? When do those skills translate to management and when are we taking someone out of a win-win-win situation and changing it to one where everyone loses?
If someone is a good programmer, does that automatically mean we should promote them to be a project manager or product manager as a reward? What if they don't like the new job, or worse yet, what if they are bad at it?
Is the best cellist in the orchestra a perfect fit to replace the conductor when they retire? Or did we just lose the best cellist in the orchestra and gain a mediocre conductor?
Is a faculty member who is a good researcher by default also a good teacher? Should we promote the best teacher to department head or dean in the name of personal growth?
Managing people, operations, and projects well is a skill. It is its own specialty. You don't have to be a good programmer to specialize in managing programmers or a good cellist to be able to conduct cellists. A project manager may focus on a certain industry, but at the end of the day a good PM should be able to manage any project.
The biggest issue it seems with most "good" managers is that when they see people under them who are good at what they do, they want to promote them to be a manager just like them. It's time to flip the conventional wisdom on its head and start rewarding people for being good at what they do and helping them achieve true growth in their lane rather than convincing them that it is a reward to shift into a completely different lane.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Local News
Over a decade ago, my old hometown paper was downsizing, but my new hometown paper seemed to be doing okay. Over the past several years, my small town has apparently caught up with the big town trends.
The local paper has been struggling for years, going from 7 day delivery to 6 day delivery for subscribers and a minimal ad-filled paper on the seventh day for non-subscribers (TMC or Total Market Coverage was the product).
My kids delivered papers, up to three routes at once at times, but the TMC products which they had been getting paid for eventually just sort of stopped showing up at our house. At one point, one route wasn't getting it at all and the other was getting twice as much as we needed.
Then they moved to ditching Sunday for a big Saturday paper, so down to 5 delivery days per week.
Near the end of that, they did a big push for the Saturday-only subscription - a one day paper that was fairly inexpensive. A couple months later, they got rid of the one day subscription, so bumped everyone who had subscribed to it up to a regular subscription. Bait and switch.
Now they are delivering three days per week, through the mail. They claim there have been issues with finding enough carriers due to low unemployment. I think they lost good carriers due to a reduction in a quality newspaper and issues with getting them out on time to the carriers (which I suppose could be back to a low unemployment thing).
It's not a good day to be in the newspaper business. I don't have the solution for it. I'm a fan of the local interest story. I like community traditions and letters to the editor from local crazies. It used to be you paid for something that was scarce, because someone had to produce and deliver it to you. Now there is no physical production, and distribution is free electronically, so how do you still make enough money to create something no one is willing to pay for?
More and more of what is delivered to us electronically is in the hands of just a few massive media conglomerates, meaning the independent voice is being stifled. I have a feeling those free stories are being sold by someone who has something more than a nice story to tell.
The local paper has been struggling for years, going from 7 day delivery to 6 day delivery for subscribers and a minimal ad-filled paper on the seventh day for non-subscribers (TMC or Total Market Coverage was the product).
My kids delivered papers, up to three routes at once at times, but the TMC products which they had been getting paid for eventually just sort of stopped showing up at our house. At one point, one route wasn't getting it at all and the other was getting twice as much as we needed.
Then they moved to ditching Sunday for a big Saturday paper, so down to 5 delivery days per week.
Near the end of that, they did a big push for the Saturday-only subscription - a one day paper that was fairly inexpensive. A couple months later, they got rid of the one day subscription, so bumped everyone who had subscribed to it up to a regular subscription. Bait and switch.
Now they are delivering three days per week, through the mail. They claim there have been issues with finding enough carriers due to low unemployment. I think they lost good carriers due to a reduction in a quality newspaper and issues with getting them out on time to the carriers (which I suppose could be back to a low unemployment thing).
It's not a good day to be in the newspaper business. I don't have the solution for it. I'm a fan of the local interest story. I like community traditions and letters to the editor from local crazies. It used to be you paid for something that was scarce, because someone had to produce and deliver it to you. Now there is no physical production, and distribution is free electronically, so how do you still make enough money to create something no one is willing to pay for?
More and more of what is delivered to us electronically is in the hands of just a few massive media conglomerates, meaning the independent voice is being stifled. I have a feeling those free stories are being sold by someone who has something more than a nice story to tell.
Friday, August 30, 2019
App Proliferation
I'm about done with apps.
Don't get me wrong - I like software on my phone that gives me useful functionality, such as being able to tune my ukulele or cello, send email, and take pictures.
I also like appetizers.
But what about all the apps that every company wants you to install? You have to install the Kohl's app to get the best discounts. You order Little Caesar's through their app so they can put your pizza in a special box that only you can open. Facebook lets you use their IM function through the browser on a standard computer, but if they see you're on mobile, they disable IM and push for you to install their Messenger app.
I saw an ad somewhere recently that was touting how amazing it now is that you can place your order through their app instead of online. Guess what - you're still going online. Try accessing the app when you aren't in cell coverage.
A well-designed mobile webpage in your browser can do everything you do in an app without installing the app, that is without giving every company access to all your contacts and whatever other permissions it asks for, and without taking up extra storage space or having to create a bunch of extra screens to store all the icons.
Don't get me wrong - I like software on my phone that gives me useful functionality, such as being able to tune my ukulele or cello, send email, and take pictures.
I also like appetizers.
But what about all the apps that every company wants you to install? You have to install the Kohl's app to get the best discounts. You order Little Caesar's through their app so they can put your pizza in a special box that only you can open. Facebook lets you use their IM function through the browser on a standard computer, but if they see you're on mobile, they disable IM and push for you to install their Messenger app.
I saw an ad somewhere recently that was touting how amazing it now is that you can place your order through their app instead of online. Guess what - you're still going online. Try accessing the app when you aren't in cell coverage.
A well-designed mobile webpage in your browser can do everything you do in an app without installing the app, that is without giving every company access to all your contacts and whatever other permissions it asks for, and without taking up extra storage space or having to create a bunch of extra screens to store all the icons.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Discomfort of change; Comfort of known problems
Have you ever noticed that while we all have problems, we are generally grateful to not have the problems belonging to our neighbor? Growing up middle class but not necessarily on the upper end of the spectrum, we always talked about how we would some day successfully solve the challenge of not having enough money, looking forward to inheriting the problem of having too much money.
I'm still waiting...
But when it comes to actual, real issues that go deeper than simple first world problems, we will settle into a rut of wallowing in our current problem, without really trying to get out of it. We're just happy that we don't have THAT problem. Of course our friend or family member or associate who does suffer from THAT problem is probably subconsciously saying the same thing about ours.
Of course, if we actually solved our current problem, maybe a worse one will come along. Or maybe a better one will. Or maybe the real problem under it all is being averse to change.
I'm still waiting...
But when it comes to actual, real issues that go deeper than simple first world problems, we will settle into a rut of wallowing in our current problem, without really trying to get out of it. We're just happy that we don't have THAT problem. Of course our friend or family member or associate who does suffer from THAT problem is probably subconsciously saying the same thing about ours.
Of course, if we actually solved our current problem, maybe a worse one will come along. Or maybe a better one will. Or maybe the real problem under it all is being averse to change.
Friday, June 28, 2019
Debt
I recently read two articles within a day or two of each other, both about debt. One basically went right for the throat and provided very little wiggle room (other than setting up a cash emergency fund) around the idea of paying off all debt. The other more or less said that if you feel that strongly about it, I guess, but you can make more money by investing the money in something else with a higher return than the interest rate you're paying.
Are we still debating this in 2019?
Pay off your debt...
If you look at a student loan with a low, tax-deductible interest rate or a similar situation with a mortgage, it can be tempting to want to invest the money you could use to pay down the principal to earn a 10% return, compared to the 3-5% interest rate you're paying.
There are a few problems with that. The first is that if you're investing in long term retirement accounts, you can't get to that investment for up to several decades when you actually retire without losing all that extra return and probably more. This puts you into a major cash flow crisis, where you have assets but no cash.
The second is that if you're investing in something like stocks and mutual funds that aren't part of a retirement account, you're going to be paying capital gains taxes on those returns, again eating away a chunk of your earnings.
The third is that with recent tax changes, much of the middle class is no longer itemizing, so the marginal tax savings for charitable contributions and mortage or student loan interest is not what it was. It was always a bad idea to hang onto a mortgage just for the tax deduction (spending $800 to save $200 makes no sense), but now even that carrot is largely gone.
The fourth is that when your house or car or any other large asset that you need is the collateral for a loan, you risk losing that item. The article in favor of keeping around your mortgage anchor basically said that peace of mind might be worth it to you, but you should really think hard before making such a poor decision. This isn't just peace of mind. This is your house. If you can get your housing expenses down to no more than utilities, taxes, insurance, and maintenance, you're still paying out of pocket monthly, but a doable amount that you can work through if there is a disaster of some kind.
The final item is a positive, rather than a negative. I know there are huge differences in what people are paying for mortgages or rent, but let's go with a nice around number of $1,000 per month. In most places, people probably pay quite a bit more than that. Ignoring for just a minute the idea of principal vs. interest, just look at the cash flow of $1,000 per month going out of your pocket to the bank. You can save up $1,000 per month to do whatever you want with it if the house is paid off.
If you have 120-150k in some account earning you 10% interest, you are going to end up with about 1,000 per month from that investment. But it all goes into the house payment. If you take that 120-150k and finish paying off your house, you aren't making the investment income, but your expenses also go down by $1,000 per month. Reducing your investments and your debt by the same amount also reduces the risk of holding that debt.
Are we still debating this in 2019?
Pay off your debt...
If you look at a student loan with a low, tax-deductible interest rate or a similar situation with a mortgage, it can be tempting to want to invest the money you could use to pay down the principal to earn a 10% return, compared to the 3-5% interest rate you're paying.
There are a few problems with that. The first is that if you're investing in long term retirement accounts, you can't get to that investment for up to several decades when you actually retire without losing all that extra return and probably more. This puts you into a major cash flow crisis, where you have assets but no cash.
The second is that if you're investing in something like stocks and mutual funds that aren't part of a retirement account, you're going to be paying capital gains taxes on those returns, again eating away a chunk of your earnings.
The third is that with recent tax changes, much of the middle class is no longer itemizing, so the marginal tax savings for charitable contributions and mortage or student loan interest is not what it was. It was always a bad idea to hang onto a mortgage just for the tax deduction (spending $800 to save $200 makes no sense), but now even that carrot is largely gone.
The fourth is that when your house or car or any other large asset that you need is the collateral for a loan, you risk losing that item. The article in favor of keeping around your mortgage anchor basically said that peace of mind might be worth it to you, but you should really think hard before making such a poor decision. This isn't just peace of mind. This is your house. If you can get your housing expenses down to no more than utilities, taxes, insurance, and maintenance, you're still paying out of pocket monthly, but a doable amount that you can work through if there is a disaster of some kind.
The final item is a positive, rather than a negative. I know there are huge differences in what people are paying for mortgages or rent, but let's go with a nice around number of $1,000 per month. In most places, people probably pay quite a bit more than that. Ignoring for just a minute the idea of principal vs. interest, just look at the cash flow of $1,000 per month going out of your pocket to the bank. You can save up $1,000 per month to do whatever you want with it if the house is paid off.
If you have 120-150k in some account earning you 10% interest, you are going to end up with about 1,000 per month from that investment. But it all goes into the house payment. If you take that 120-150k and finish paying off your house, you aren't making the investment income, but your expenses also go down by $1,000 per month. Reducing your investments and your debt by the same amount also reduces the risk of holding that debt.
Friday, May 31, 2019
Choices
A fun thought-provoking question has been floating around the social media recently. Here's a screenshot of the image:
I will note that in different contexts with different people, I saw different choices being made.
But the one I was most surprised about was how many people chose the perfect credit score. When they did, every time, the explanation was that if they had that, they could afford all the other things. It's just a fun game that is not realistic, but I do wonder in this theoretical offer whether you are guaranteed to keep a perfect credit score or if it only resets now and could still go down later.
It sort of reminds me of Homer's monkey paw, where he would wish for something but always get some cursed side result that he didn't expect.
But the one I was most surprised about was how many people chose the perfect credit score. When they did, every time, the explanation was that if they had that, they could afford all the other things. It's just a fun game that is not realistic, but I do wonder in this theoretical offer whether you are guaranteed to keep a perfect credit score or if it only resets now and could still go down later.
It sort of reminds me of Homer's monkey paw, where he would wish for something but always get some cursed side result that he didn't expect.
How many of those people wishing for good credit wish for it because they have bad credit? But why do they have bad credit to begin with? Well, that's a misleading question, as nobody starts with bad credit. You can start with no credit, but not with bad credit. The thing is, everyone can have perfect credit. You just have to be careful what you buy, and when you do buy something pay it off. If you had perfect credit and bought a bunch of stuff you couldn't pay for, you're just going to lose it.
The car and the house both end up on the same road as the perfect credit. If you're buying something that you can never sell, that's always going to be a bad deal, especially if you can't ever own another car? At all? Even if that one gets in a wreck? In 20 years?
Free rent for 6 months and $10,000 could end up being close to the same, depending on where we are living. I'd be tempted to have the 6 months rent be in Hawaii or New York City or Barcelona. I could totally live in Amsterdam for 6 months. But either of those would be burned through pretty quickly.
Free groceries for 5 years would honestly save us something like $60,000. By the end of the 5 years, most of the kids would be out of the house, and it would be saving us less.
I think the only options that make any sense are the two truly unlimited ones. Unlimited airline tickets would be more useful now, although could continue being useful even when we're old. Unlimited medical care would be less useful now while we're all pretty healthy, but it has the potential to skyrocket in the long run. It would take some self-control to choose the free medical care, since we don't spend much on it now.
If I didn't have the self-control to pick the medical care one, the best combination of options would probably be the brand new home, along with unlimited airline tickets. If the home is paid for, who cares if I can't sell it. I'm assuming there is some choice in terms of how big or nice it is or where it is located. If I have no house payment, and I can fly anywhere anytime I want, that's a pretty good vacation every 2-3 months, with free airfare and a couple thousand dollars to pay for hotel or a cruise, which is freed up from not having a house payment.
Yes, forget old me and my future medical needs - free house and airline tickets it is!
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Clickbait
Is it just expected that everything these days has to rely on clickbait to get people into their stories? I understand the idea of writing an interesting or intriguing headline, but it's getting taken to an extreme lately.
Today while reading a newspaper online, there was a link that was something to the effect of a specific skill you have to have in order to be accepted into the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Of course, reading the article never stated a specific skill. It said something about how you would need to be a good singer, and they did talk about how just being a good soloist wasn't enough. They have classes to help learn what they expect. But what was the skill? I still don't know.
I have noticed on some newspaper websites that sometimes a page will load partially, and you can see most of the article titles, but then at some point while the page is loading some titles will change. Usually one version of the title will be fairly boring and the other one extra clickbaitish. Other times, you don't see the title change while the page is loading, but if you refresh the page or navigate around and come back to an article list, it will be a different headline than the last time you looked at it. I'm sure there's some type of A/B testing going on. That means the key to stopping the clickbait is to never click the link if it looks too good to be true.
Today while reading a newspaper online, there was a link that was something to the effect of a specific skill you have to have in order to be accepted into the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Of course, reading the article never stated a specific skill. It said something about how you would need to be a good singer, and they did talk about how just being a good soloist wasn't enough. They have classes to help learn what they expect. But what was the skill? I still don't know.
I have noticed on some newspaper websites that sometimes a page will load partially, and you can see most of the article titles, but then at some point while the page is loading some titles will change. Usually one version of the title will be fairly boring and the other one extra clickbaitish. Other times, you don't see the title change while the page is loading, but if you refresh the page or navigate around and come back to an article list, it will be a different headline than the last time you looked at it. I'm sure there's some type of A/B testing going on. That means the key to stopping the clickbait is to never click the link if it looks too good to be true.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Know what you're talking about
It's kind of amazing how we have so much information at our fingertips, yet rarely take advantage of that information. Due to systems that fix spelling errors pretty well, we often type something in sort of like what we wanted and assume it will be fixed.
I like to know what acronyms stand for and what technical terms mean before I use them. For example, I work with Gantt charts regularly. I am amazed how often people who should know better use all sorts of alternate names for the chart.
I hear Gnatt regularly. Like the insect. I see it written as GANTT, as if it were an acronym. There are a lot of acronyms in project management (PERT, RACI, PMI, BCWP, WBS), but it isn't Graphical Analysis of Numerical Task Timelines. It also isn't gantt. It's a last name. The chart was invented by Henry Gantt (or least that's who got credit for it).
You get into sketchy territory with some names, such as the Apgar test used to check newborn health and improvement within the first few minutes of birth. It is a 10 point scale, with 5 characteristics, which can be given a 0, 1, or 2. It was created by Virginia Apgar, a doctor in the 1950s. She came up with the 5 items, which were later given the eponymous backronym of Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration (APGAR). How awesome is it that it is her name but also a mnemonic to help remember the points? Isn't it good to take a few minutes and learn where it came from before you use it? I was working with a group of nurses on a curriculum development project several years ago, and we were all surprised by the origin of the acronym. I feel like the nurses shouldn't have been.
I think Henry Gantt would agree.
I like to know what acronyms stand for and what technical terms mean before I use them. For example, I work with Gantt charts regularly. I am amazed how often people who should know better use all sorts of alternate names for the chart.
I hear Gnatt regularly. Like the insect. I see it written as GANTT, as if it were an acronym. There are a lot of acronyms in project management (PERT, RACI, PMI, BCWP, WBS), but it isn't Graphical Analysis of Numerical Task Timelines. It also isn't gantt. It's a last name. The chart was invented by Henry Gantt (or least that's who got credit for it).
You get into sketchy territory with some names, such as the Apgar test used to check newborn health and improvement within the first few minutes of birth. It is a 10 point scale, with 5 characteristics, which can be given a 0, 1, or 2. It was created by Virginia Apgar, a doctor in the 1950s. She came up with the 5 items, which were later given the eponymous backronym of Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration (APGAR). How awesome is it that it is her name but also a mnemonic to help remember the points? Isn't it good to take a few minutes and learn where it came from before you use it? I was working with a group of nurses on a curriculum development project several years ago, and we were all surprised by the origin of the acronym. I feel like the nurses shouldn't have been.
I think Henry Gantt would agree.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
FLL Competition
Last month we had the final competition for the Lego Robotics team. I say final, because it was the last one for us, although it was actually the qualifier for the state competition. Spoiler alert: we didn't qualify for state. And that's okay.
The competition was on a Saturday (back in January). It was cold and early, but it wasn't very far from our house, which I appreciated. There were 11 teams, including two from our school. I think there was supposed to be 10 teams, but due to some lack of communication all around, our team got registered late, and they were kind enough to let us still register. Poor communication was something I fought with the entire season.
We showed up early and set up on our table. Each team had a table about two and a half feet by two and a half feet in the hallway to set up our things on. We didn't have a poster like many other teams did. We had a laptop with a PPT presentation for our research problem, so we fired that up and would run through it with those who stopped to take a look.
There were several tables set up in an open area right next to us, which we could practice the missions on. We found that on one of our missions the robot was running short for some reason. I don't know how that happened, but it did, and the kids fixed it.
There are four main aspects to the judging. The first is the most obvious - points scored in actual competition. We ran three times and took our highest score. The second is the robot design discussion, where the team meets with some judges and talks to them about how they designed the robot, both physically and the programming behind it. The third is a research problem related to the theme for the year (this year was space - last year was water). The fourth is team dynamics - how well everyone gets along and works together.
We had four missions we attempted. There are some others we could have done if the team had more focus. Two missions we pretty much had solid. One was so-so, and the other one we pretty much knew it wasn't going to work. In all three runs, the robot got stuck at some point and had to be rescued, which is a small penalty. Only having to grab it once each was pretty good, I thought. After the first run, the kids thought of a way to add some rubber pieces to add more grip to the robot arm to help it accomplish the task they were struggling with. After the second run, they decided to bag the mission that they knew wasn't going to work and just focus on the one they had a chance with. In the third run, they were able to get the third mission completed by running the mission several times, utilizing the extra time they saved by not attempting the one they knew wasn't going to work. I was so proud of them. They were as focused as they had ever been and worked well as a team. The were troubleshooting and adjusting and improving each time.
In the robot design portion, they did okay. We had a large team, and the judges noted that with so many team members, we should have been able to accomplish more missions. That said, at the coaches meeting in the morning, other team coaches were surprised that both teams from our school were the max size (10). I think the coaches recognized something that the judges didn't, which was that more people on the team doesn't mean more work gets done. The phenomenon is clearly addressed in one of my favorite books, The Mythical Man Month (Brooks). The three second version is that just adding more people to your project doesn't mean you're going to get more work done in less time. I can see how having a team of 3 or 4 would be much more effective and efficient than dealing with 10 (we actually had 12, which was over the official limit).
In the research project portion, they had talked about a variety of space-related problems, such as getting attacked by aliens and how to sleep without floating around the space station. They ended up going with scratching your nose with a space suit on. I had turned the kids over to another volunteer to work on deciding what problem to go with, and that's what they came up with. They did really well with it. They started by showing the below video, stepped through several possible ideas they came up with (the best was a trained pet squirrel that could move around in the suit and scratch where you needed), and then showed why their solution was the best choice to provide relief safely, while keeping the hands free to work on the space walk. The judges appreciated both the video to show that it was a real problem and the prototypes they made and brought.
The part that we prepared for the least and that they performed the worst on was the core values (or team building) portion. I hadn't spent much time looking into what that part of the competition would look like, so we kind of winged it going into it. Each team member had one core value that they provided a brief description of. After discussing each of the values, the judges had the team solve a problem together. They had some sand in a little foil tray and a pile of straws and rubber bands and popsicle sticks and had to build a Mars lander that could sit on the surface and not get blown away by the fierce Martian wind. I'll just say they provided good counterexamples to most of the values they had so aptly described moments earlier. The highest score they got on the rubric was related to the team working on their own without interference from the coach, since I pretty much turned around and looked out the window as I couldn't watch. That said, I honestly think it was a fair approximation of how we worked together throughout the season. They did work well in most of the competition other than this component, but our twice-weekly meetings were very chaotic.
I really was proud of them, and so was our principal who attended the competition. A few weeks later in February, we had a STEM night at the school and met one more time just before that event to talk about what we would do for a demonstration. The team was all wondering why we weren't still meeting and wanted to continue working on things even though the competition was over. I appreciated that and gave them one of the secret mission challenges to work on. It was fun to work on it, but it reinforced to me that it was time to be done meeting. Having the competition to work towards was one of the few things keeping them mildly focused.
Based on how things went last year and this year, I think the thing to do is to have a couple levels of teams. I think having an introductory team that meets in the second half of the year to learn basic skills and then from that group have tryouts for next year's competition teams would help. The competition teams need to be 5 or fewer team members, made up of only those with enough technical skills and maturity/focus. We had something like 50 or 60 students sign up wanting to do the team, so we maxed out our teams to get as many involved as we could, while still not being able to include everyone. The competition team needs to be chosen before the year even starts, so that in August, they can set up the missions and immediately begin working. Both this year and last year, we lost a lot of time due to the mission field not being set up. We had a variety of skill levels on the team, with some members very advanced and able to perform complex tasks, and others that just wanted to build random things out of Legos and couldn't write a program to make a robot drive in a straight line. Having an introductory team to draw from based on observing their work would make the competition team much stronger, as well as allowing more time to teach some of the basic skills to those that were brand new to robotics.
The competition was on a Saturday (back in January). It was cold and early, but it wasn't very far from our house, which I appreciated. There were 11 teams, including two from our school. I think there was supposed to be 10 teams, but due to some lack of communication all around, our team got registered late, and they were kind enough to let us still register. Poor communication was something I fought with the entire season.
We showed up early and set up on our table. Each team had a table about two and a half feet by two and a half feet in the hallway to set up our things on. We didn't have a poster like many other teams did. We had a laptop with a PPT presentation for our research problem, so we fired that up and would run through it with those who stopped to take a look.
There were several tables set up in an open area right next to us, which we could practice the missions on. We found that on one of our missions the robot was running short for some reason. I don't know how that happened, but it did, and the kids fixed it.
There are four main aspects to the judging. The first is the most obvious - points scored in actual competition. We ran three times and took our highest score. The second is the robot design discussion, where the team meets with some judges and talks to them about how they designed the robot, both physically and the programming behind it. The third is a research problem related to the theme for the year (this year was space - last year was water). The fourth is team dynamics - how well everyone gets along and works together.
We had four missions we attempted. There are some others we could have done if the team had more focus. Two missions we pretty much had solid. One was so-so, and the other one we pretty much knew it wasn't going to work. In all three runs, the robot got stuck at some point and had to be rescued, which is a small penalty. Only having to grab it once each was pretty good, I thought. After the first run, the kids thought of a way to add some rubber pieces to add more grip to the robot arm to help it accomplish the task they were struggling with. After the second run, they decided to bag the mission that they knew wasn't going to work and just focus on the one they had a chance with. In the third run, they were able to get the third mission completed by running the mission several times, utilizing the extra time they saved by not attempting the one they knew wasn't going to work. I was so proud of them. They were as focused as they had ever been and worked well as a team. The were troubleshooting and adjusting and improving each time.
In the robot design portion, they did okay. We had a large team, and the judges noted that with so many team members, we should have been able to accomplish more missions. That said, at the coaches meeting in the morning, other team coaches were surprised that both teams from our school were the max size (10). I think the coaches recognized something that the judges didn't, which was that more people on the team doesn't mean more work gets done. The phenomenon is clearly addressed in one of my favorite books, The Mythical Man Month (Brooks). The three second version is that just adding more people to your project doesn't mean you're going to get more work done in less time. I can see how having a team of 3 or 4 would be much more effective and efficient than dealing with 10 (we actually had 12, which was over the official limit).
In the research project portion, they had talked about a variety of space-related problems, such as getting attacked by aliens and how to sleep without floating around the space station. They ended up going with scratching your nose with a space suit on. I had turned the kids over to another volunteer to work on deciding what problem to go with, and that's what they came up with. They did really well with it. They started by showing the below video, stepped through several possible ideas they came up with (the best was a trained pet squirrel that could move around in the suit and scratch where you needed), and then showed why their solution was the best choice to provide relief safely, while keeping the hands free to work on the space walk. The judges appreciated both the video to show that it was a real problem and the prototypes they made and brought.
The part that we prepared for the least and that they performed the worst on was the core values (or team building) portion. I hadn't spent much time looking into what that part of the competition would look like, so we kind of winged it going into it. Each team member had one core value that they provided a brief description of. After discussing each of the values, the judges had the team solve a problem together. They had some sand in a little foil tray and a pile of straws and rubber bands and popsicle sticks and had to build a Mars lander that could sit on the surface and not get blown away by the fierce Martian wind. I'll just say they provided good counterexamples to most of the values they had so aptly described moments earlier. The highest score they got on the rubric was related to the team working on their own without interference from the coach, since I pretty much turned around and looked out the window as I couldn't watch. That said, I honestly think it was a fair approximation of how we worked together throughout the season. They did work well in most of the competition other than this component, but our twice-weekly meetings were very chaotic.
I really was proud of them, and so was our principal who attended the competition. A few weeks later in February, we had a STEM night at the school and met one more time just before that event to talk about what we would do for a demonstration. The team was all wondering why we weren't still meeting and wanted to continue working on things even though the competition was over. I appreciated that and gave them one of the secret mission challenges to work on. It was fun to work on it, but it reinforced to me that it was time to be done meeting. Having the competition to work towards was one of the few things keeping them mildly focused.
Based on how things went last year and this year, I think the thing to do is to have a couple levels of teams. I think having an introductory team that meets in the second half of the year to learn basic skills and then from that group have tryouts for next year's competition teams would help. The competition teams need to be 5 or fewer team members, made up of only those with enough technical skills and maturity/focus. We had something like 50 or 60 students sign up wanting to do the team, so we maxed out our teams to get as many involved as we could, while still not being able to include everyone. The competition team needs to be chosen before the year even starts, so that in August, they can set up the missions and immediately begin working. Both this year and last year, we lost a lot of time due to the mission field not being set up. We had a variety of skill levels on the team, with some members very advanced and able to perform complex tasks, and others that just wanted to build random things out of Legos and couldn't write a program to make a robot drive in a straight line. Having an introductory team to draw from based on observing their work would make the competition team much stronger, as well as allowing more time to teach some of the basic skills to those that were brand new to robotics.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Almost There
The Lego robotics team met several times in December and are now in January, with the competition in two days!
We have pretty much put together their space-related problem presentation. We had decided initially on several possible issues and voted on the one they wanted to go with. There were a lot of unrealistic things, such as alien attacks and so forth, which got dropped out of the running. At the end of the day, they voted on the problem of sleeping while weightless and something to keep them tethered so they wouldn't float around. On the day they were working on the presentation, I was helping one group and someone else another group, and the problem somehow got changed to scratching an itch on your nose while on a spacewalk. So that's what we're going with.
We have four missions they are going to attempt. One of them pretty much works 90% of the time. Another works about 75% of the time. On both of them, it comes down to whether they can get the robot positioned in the right place when it starts. We practiced having every team member know where to place the robot in case anyone doesn't make it. Last year, we had the issue of someone who didn't come for the final presentation and he was the only one who knew where to place the robot to make his program run. On the other two, they work maybe 10% of the time.
Suddenly yesterday, with just one meeting before the competition, we had some of the team members come up with some new ideas, hey, why don't we change the arm on this one and why don't we try to do this other mission, too? I basically told them that those would be great things to do if we had more time, but with the competition Saturday, there's not time to get it just right and practice it so it is polished.
We have pretty much put together their space-related problem presentation. We had decided initially on several possible issues and voted on the one they wanted to go with. There were a lot of unrealistic things, such as alien attacks and so forth, which got dropped out of the running. At the end of the day, they voted on the problem of sleeping while weightless and something to keep them tethered so they wouldn't float around. On the day they were working on the presentation, I was helping one group and someone else another group, and the problem somehow got changed to scratching an itch on your nose while on a spacewalk. So that's what we're going with.
We have four missions they are going to attempt. One of them pretty much works 90% of the time. Another works about 75% of the time. On both of them, it comes down to whether they can get the robot positioned in the right place when it starts. We practiced having every team member know where to place the robot in case anyone doesn't make it. Last year, we had the issue of someone who didn't come for the final presentation and he was the only one who knew where to place the robot to make his program run. On the other two, they work maybe 10% of the time.
Suddenly yesterday, with just one meeting before the competition, we had some of the team members come up with some new ideas, hey, why don't we change the arm on this one and why don't we try to do this other mission, too? I basically told them that those would be great things to do if we had more time, but with the competition Saturday, there's not time to get it just right and practice it so it is polished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)