ESPN and the 21st Century

1/1/16

Dear ESPN:

Cord cutter here. I must admit I miss sports, just a bit, but binge watching Netflix more than makes up for it. While I find your stranglehold on sports draconian, I can see you are trying to evolve. Thank you for allowing me to watch UM vs. PSU and MSU vs. OSU, back to back. And thank you for the Citrus Bowl, UM vs. FLA.

I thought I was blacked out of the Rose Bowl, but then I tried that “Skycam” thing (that remote controlled camera that floats in the middle of the field, for those not aware.) Expecting a Goodrich blimp view of the game, I was treated to a 21st century view of a football game. In addition to a new camera view to the game, I only had to listen to Brett Musburger out of one ear, and virtually no commercials. You seem to be trying to degrade this experience, but you can make this the future of football.

“Skycam” is the future of football, with a couple of tweaks. First, you should hold a wider camera angle, you completely missed Stanford’s second touchdown. Less camera movement would be a better viewing experience. Second, an offensive and defensive angle would be awesome. Let me watch the game from the perspective of my home team. Maybe show the replay from the opposing view, or best view. The coverage of Stanford’s 4th touchdown was awesome.

Whatever you do, you need to monetize the experience. I get that. I got a free lunch watching “Skycam.” I’m sure you lost money showing me the Rose Bowl. Having said that, I gave up on cable and network television when you went to 3 minute commercial breaks. Too much of a good/bad thing, depending on your perspective. I’m willing to pay, but I’m willing to pay only so much.

I feel the cable industry has long enjoyed the opportunity to charge me twice, once for the subscription, and once for the commercials. I’ve cut the cord, see ya! It’s up to you to earn me back. You need to run the numbers, but today is different than yesterday, you know that. A cable subscription is WAY too much, but I’m willing to pay more than it cost me today.

It’s half time at the Rose Bowl and the Iowa marching band is playing Another One Bites the Dust. Most of you missed that, and most you probably don’t care. But that, to me, that’s college football. ESPN, here’s hoping the target of the song is not you. I was distracted during what happened next, but now I’m listening to the “B” track interviews on the field. You didn’t really want me to here this, did you?

OK, Brett’s back. Iowa’s 3 and out. This one’s over.

Hospice – Killing a Loved One

My mom had congestive heart failure. Others have cancer. There are many other diseases, I’m sure. All share a common thread. They are “terminal.” When you can get 2 doctors to sign off that you have less than 6 months to live, you qualify for Hospice. Before that, they talk about palliative care. In the case of my mom, she went from palliative care to home Hospice care to dying in 2 weeks time. Perhaps that was a blessing.

Read any of the literature about Hospice and it will describe the goal to be “comfort care” and “symptom management.” Additionally, it will talk about providing the patient and their families with a team of nurses, social workers, spiritual counselors, and volunteers to support and educate family members. Sounds good on paper, but I see the reality of the situation a little differently.

In an age where we overuse euphemisms to put a positive spin on reality, I think we sugar coat things to the point of distortion. In the case of “comfort care” and “symptom management,” what they are really saying is that they will prescribe and administer powerful narcotics to knock the patient out. In the case of my mom this included Risperidone (Resperdal), Alprazolam (Xanax), Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), Haloperidol (Haldol), and Quetiapine (Seroquel).

As with any medication, proper dosage is the key to effectiveness. Initially, we were all over the map trying to find “comfort care” and “symptom management.” This was exasperated by the fact that our assigned nurse went on vacation the day after her first visit. Thankfully, nurses were on call 24/7, but with every call it was a different nurse, and a different dosage assessment.

My family and I quickly learned the drug’s effects, and soon we became better able to control symptoms. It wasn’t till we said, “We’re driving this bus” that we found any stability in symptom management. This came after my Dad was awoken every 2 hours one night because of my mom’s agitation. Much of her agitation were new symptoms that I attribute to the reaction to the drugs being prescribed. The Hospice solution was of course, more drugs.

The Hospice drug treatment consisted of scheduled medications, as well as drugs that could be used on an as needed basis. My mom must have had a low tolerance to these medications because we didn’t need to administer these drugs near as often as we were allowed. My mom was pretty much out of it, most of the time, but at least my Dad could get some sleep. Quality of life for my mom digressed from the very beginning of Hospice care.

As a side note, most, if not all of these drugs had warnings that they should not be given to elderly patients with dementia, which described my mother quite accurately. I have no idea whether there were alternatives. I doubt there were. I’ll chalk this up to the nature of the beast.

Another claim made by the Hospice literature is that Hospice neither speeds up nor slows down the dying process. I vehemently disagree with this notion. I see Hospice as one step away from euthanasia. Euthanasia would have been much harder for my family to come to grips with than Hospice care, but in hind sight, euthanasia may have been more humane. Tough decision. Really. Tough. Decision. Not that euthanasia was a choice.

In the end, my mom died in her sleep. I guess we should find solace it that. But the process wasn’t pretty, and I think Hospice could have done a better job of managing her care. Requests for volunteers went unanswered. It wasn’t until the last nurse to visit my mom that we had any confidence it their collective abilities. The social worker did nothing to help, and had the audacity to tell me she did. She was trying to cover her butt in front of a case worker, and I did not let that slide.

Dying is tough, and Hospice seems to be a difficult and necessary step in patient care. I have heard many positive Hospice stories from friends, so I guess I will write this off as a bad experience. I suppose this document is my attempt to draw closure on the passing of my mother. I’m not going to name names, as that would serve no real purpose. My intent is to share my story in the hopes that people see the need to actively and aggressively manage the Hospice care their loved ones receive. Remember, you are driving the bus.

I’d like to finish with a description of the overall health care my mother received. All of her care was through the same health care system. From her long time personal physician, to the 2 hospitals she visited, to the out patient home health care, and finally Hospice, all services were under the same health care system. For the most part, care was good. Hospice care was far and away the least competent group we worked with.

In particular, the RNs in the hospital and the RNs visiting her at home were exemplary. From my experience, the RNs are the backbone of our health care system. To a person, I couldn’t be more happy with the care they provided, both to the patient and the family. Doctors were hit and miss, to the point where the doctor assigned to mom in her last hospital stay was virtually missing in action.

Perhaps, the most disturbing thing to me were the medical records systems. Nobody had access to my mom’s medical records. Each group had their own information system, and their own version of mom’s information. And the hospital must throw their information away after each visit because each visit started at square one. Same basic information, over and over and over. And all this under the umbrella of one health care system.

Keeping track of my mom’s medications was a difficult task. Her personal physician’s records were chronically one version behind the latest changes. And it was up to us to correct their records. The list of medications shared with the hospital must have been in the form of a printout (or fax), then entered by hand, because drugs would mysteriously fall off the list.

As a software developer and systems analyst, I am sensitive to these things. There is no concept of a central repository of patient information. Instead, they all have their own version of the same information, all entered by hand. I know, I watched this exercise repeated many times. Until they can cooperatively share and maintain one version of my mom’s information, the system is fraught with mistakes, inconsistencies, and repetitive tasks unrelated to the direct care of the patient. The health care information system is fundamentally flawed.

Additionally, the computer systems used to maintain this information are antiquated. I swear the hospital systems are based on Windows 2000. More secure than Windows XP, but completely out of date. The software running on these systems is a hodgepodge of applications, each with their own operational idiosyncrasies, making it unnecessarily difficult for the health care professionals to do their job. All of these applications are based on design principles of yesteryear, and software tools that are no longer being supported.

Am I bitter? I didn’t think so until I re-read this post. I’d like to think I made a pretty accurate assessment of our experiences. Perhaps I’m jaded. Perhaps we have a problem. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide.

endOfTheWintelDynasty

I’ve tracked Net Applications data for years. For those who don’t know, Net Applications monitors web site traffic and analyzes the computers accessing those sites. They track a variety of information, but my interest is in operating system usage.

In 7 years, Apple’s market share doubled, from 3% to to 6%. Kind of like watching paint dry. That’s great for Apple, but in comparison to Windows, it is a David and Goliath scenario. Apple’s growth hardly shows on a chart. In an effort to look at Apple and Microsoft from something other than a David and Goliath perspective, I came up with the year over year change in market share view.

alt

Source: massaged Net Applications data

The chart shows that Macintosh has been slowly adding market share and Windows slowly losing market share. Far less dramatic an outcome than I was expecting when I started capturing the data. In addition to boredom, I lost confidence in the data I was collecting. Net Applications once dramatically changed the way they reported their data. Macintosh suddenly lost half their market share. It was hard to trust data that changed that dramatically overnight.

Net Applications has been criticized for the validity of their data, and as someone who has closely monitored the data reported, I can verify the data is heavily massaged, and the techniques for collecting information have changed over time. Net Applications recently broke out mobile o/s coverage and the early data was rather wonky as they figured things out.

These data have proven fodder for tech blogs. Every month, several articles highlight the monthly increases and decreases in market share for various products. I find no value in this discussion as the data is all over the map. It can’t hold up to that kind of scrutiny. At best, the data can be used to look at trends in the long term. For years, I have watched these data. Macintosh market share up a little, Windows market share down a little. Then we entered the Post-PC era.

By looking at the chart, it appears Apple was hurt by the ‘economic adjustment’ more than the rest of the market, but has recovered nicely. Windows, on the other hand, seems to have fallen off a cliff. A monthly drop in market share is not noteworthy, but string a dozen bad months together and you have a real problem. 2011 may prove to be the beginning of the Post PC era.

As a possible explanation, let me offer this up. People are using mobile devices more and more to access the Internet (remember what information Net Applications is tracking). People still have their PCs, and they’re still using them to access the Internet. It’s just that they now have additional devices. People are supplementing PC Internet access with a variety of mobile devices.

The PC is not dead, perhaps it’s just taking a breather. Gartner and IDC confirm that PC shipments are not good, but the sky is not falling, yet. One thing I do believe is dead, is the Wintel dynasty. No one platform is ever going to dominate like Intel and Microsoft did. And I don’t believe they can get it back. The Internet is becoming a truly open system, open to any device willing and able to support open standards.

I’m reminded of the movie, Toy Story. Woody (played by Microsoft in this version) is Andy’s favorite toy. That is, until Buzz Lightyear (played by Apple and Google [you need 2 to get to infinity and beyond]) shows up. Suddenly, Woody isn’t the center of attention anymore. Too bad for Woody. In the end, everything works out and everybody gets along. It’s just different. Pleasant dreams.

iPad3ScreenSize

Originally published December 29, 2011

At the end of 2011, the tech world is swirling in rumors about the new iPad. I want to focus on the conversation regarding screen size and resolution. There has been talk of a 7.85 inch iPad. There’s be talk of a 2048 x 1536 (QXGA) screen resolution. Gruber thinks it will be 2048 x 1536 display on a 9.7 inch screen. The numbers don’t add up to me.

For this to be true, the display will have to be around 264 pixels per inch (ppi). There is probably an AMOLED or Super AMOLED screen to do that, but that would be new to Apple. The Retina display of the iPhone is 326 ppi. And it just so happens that a 2048 x 1536 display at a density of 326 ppi, has a 7.85 inch screen.

If you want to use a Retina display, and you want QXGA resolution, you’re going to end up with a 7.85 in screen.

$5MillionOughtaDo

Originally published August, 25, 2008

Recovered after first disaster February 4, 2010

When you start talking about a man’s paycheck, the discussion is going to get serious in a hurry. Over 95% of you don’t need to worry, I’m not talking about you. I’m not talking about the poor or the rich, I’m talking about the super rich. I’m all for the American Dream of being able to work hard and reap the benefits, but there’s been a little too much reaping going on at the high end. Top salary and benefits packages continue to escalate. Is there such a thing as too much? How much is too much? Let’s find out.

Minimum wage is still less than $10/hr. Manufacturing jobs might get you $20/hr. Electricians and plumbers and other skilled trades are making $50/hr on up, but they have to buy your own tools. Technology experts command $100-200/hr. The big time lawyers, representing the big time innocent until proven guilty, are getting three, four, five hundred dollars per hour. So just to keep the math simple, let’s settle on $1000/hr. Your pay rate is one thousand dollars for each and every hour worked.

So, how many hours a week are we going to work? Don’t get greedy and say 200 hours a week. There are only 168 hours in a week. Once again, to keep the math simple, lets say we’re going to work 100 hours per week. Go ahead and calculate your weekly paycheck, not too shabby, eh? Finally, I’m going to require a 2-week unpaid vacation. So after working 50 weeks a year, 100 hours a week, for 1000 dollars per hour, how much did we make? Five million bucks.

My point is this: I’m all in favor of people being able to make lots of money and pay a fair and reasonable tax, but at some point the income becomes obscene and excessive. And at that point, I think the tax rate should become obscene and excessive as well. Before you get bent out of shape, keep in mind that what I’m saying doesn’t affect 95% or more of the population. Most of us didn’t earn anywhere near $5 million last year.

The groups most effected by this include corporate leaders, professional athletes and entertainers. There are certainly more, but this is representative. Many corporate leaders are making more than $5 million a year. What gets me is these large payouts to leaders that failed to produce results. Carley Fiorina got paid over $20 million when she left HP. I have a problem with that.

The professional athlete is in a little bit different situation. They’re just sharing the wealth with the team owners, right?. After all, they’re the reason we fans show up. We are paying to see T.O., not Jerry Jones. They’re entitled, right? My response is; to a point. I’m all about the American Dream, but I think there can be too much of a good thing.

So what happens to the money if it doesn’t go to taxes? You could give the offensive line a raise. This means more rich people, that’s a good thing. You could cut the price of a ticket in half. Being able to afford to take the family to game is a good thing.

Athletes will say that their careers are often very short. Good point. So lets look at the average Joe. Assume for the moment that he enters the work force with a starting salary of $100,000 (that math thing again). Then assume he works for 50 years, longer than most of us will work. And a hundred thousand is still pretty good take home pay. What do you get? Five million bucks. Any further discussion would include the words athlete and whine in the same sentence.

Similar results could occur in the corporate world. For every executive making over $5 million, there are hundreds of minions underneath, making it all happen. You could give them all a raise, or at least a bonus. You could make a small number of them rich. More rich people, always a good thing. Cheaper products and services, I like that. Increased pay outs to the shareholders, Wall Street likes that. Make a charitable contribution to a truly charitable organization. Or pay taxes.

Now, for the 5% who want to lynch me right now, get over your bad self, you ain’t that good. Nobody is. That’s my point. I can only imagine you’ve had a moment where you’ve said to yourself, ‘I’m filthy, stinking rich!’. Perhaps you yelled it at the top of your lungs. You know it too.

This is not so much political commentary as it is a numbers thing. Five million is a huge number. We throw big numbers around all the time, but we don’t really grasp the significance. We lost sight of how big five million is. In a world of billions of dollars in oil profits, and trillions of dollars in national debt, five million dollars is chump change. To a family, it’s a lifetime of income. In reality, most of us won’t see anywhere near that in our lifetimes.

Just because we can afford to pay these guys all this money, doesn’t mean we should. Econ. 101 taught us about the marginal propensity to consume, and we maxed out on some of these guys a long time ago. Couldn’t this money be better used elsewhere? Couldn’t this money get distributed a little differently? Which brings me to a future topic, Greed.