Leaving Valhalla, Experimenting with car replacement

Well, the news is I left @ValhallaVC after 12 years.

I had been thinking for some time of ways to expand my writing, speaking, teaching, coaching, and mentoring, which have given me more and more satisfaction in the past few years.  When the opportunity presented itself, my partners at Valhalla and I worked through an amiable separation, and, since April 30, here I am.

Lots of food for thought in this, and I’m talking with friends and business buddies about the implications and the next steps.

But, unexpectedly, I’ve begun to wonder about keeping 2 cars in the family.

I had toyed with alternative commutes to Tysons (some 13 miles each way) over the years.  I tried the Silver Line several times (apologies to non-DC audience for these local details) and found it was pretty good in the morning and routinely problematic in the afternoons.  There was, as Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, “always something.”

I also looked into a ZipCar at the Tysons end of the commute, figuring that I could get out there by public transportation and then use the ZipCar for errands.  The arithmetic never seemed to work out: it was way too much per putative errand.

Now that I’m not commuting at all, however, the arithmetic looks a little different.

If I could bike around for a batch of local local errands and then use either Car2Go or ZipCar for less local trips, it might actually work out.

First, the bike.

I trotted out my hybrid bike from the garage last weekend and found that it has a broken spoke.  I’ll either fix it or have “them” fix it.  My (Valhalla) partner Harry says that a spoke replacement is either easy or it isn’t.  That makes sense to me.

Car2Go and ZipCar are not entirely competitors.  The wisdom of the InterTubes seems to be that Car2Go is more like a taxi and ZipCar is more like a rental car.

Car2Go cars are small and relatively useless for anything besides getting your body someplace (or back from someplace).  New Yorkers I know will schlep groceries or plywood or even (in the case of my friend Ellen) 50-lb bags of sand in a taxi, but that’s extreme.  It’s mostly about personal transportation.

ZipCar is for longer trips, with a more varied selection of cars/trucks, and the possibility of doing some serious hauling if necessary.

Car2Go has one fee for a lifetime signup, and then hourly usage fees.  ZipCar has an annual fee (as well as — how lame is this? — an “initiation” fee) in addition to hourly fees.  And apparently Car2Go pays out for short trips, ZipCar for longer ones.

So I signed up for Car2Go, and am waiting for them to approve my membership (based, they say, on my driving record, which is decent).  And then I’ll see about ZipCar, which has those Other Fees.

Debbie’s take on Trump

We’ve been poring over Trump commentary in the past couple of weeks with horrified fascination.

On the one hand, it’s delightful to preside over the collapse of a political party devoted to hating science and keeping women barefoot and pregnant.

On the other hand, the idea of Trump-as-President is scary.

There’s no shortage of Hitler comparisons around, but he really isn’t much like Hitler (at least not yet).  He’s not very ideological.  He doesn’t lead a fascist movement.  (Although he does smart over past wounds to the US.  And he is a racist, down to the remarks about who some of his best friends are.)

But my wife Debbie came up with the right analogy today.

“Trump’s really like Kim Jong Un in a nice suit,” she said.  And that said it all.

“Elevator Pitch” and her sisters

Crisply saying what you’re up to is a real art form, and, like any art, there are more bad examples than good.

One of my pet peeves is the “Uber of <mumble>” tag line.

“What do you guys do?”

“Oh, we’re the Uber of musical instruments.”

OK.  What does that mean?  It has to be explained anyhow.  It’s almost never obvious.  And so the tag line fails in its mission, which is to crisply say what you’re up to.

In fact, cutesy metaphors like this almost never work.

In this case, if you said, instead, “we let owners lend out their musical instruments to paying users, like Uber,” you would accomplish much more with fewer net words, and, by the way, you’d say something about your business model and your value proposition.

Tag lines, elevator pitches, one-liners, one-minute summaries, they are invitations to confuse instead of summarize.

Why?

I think people hate elevator pitches because they make the power assymetry between the pitch-or and the pitch-ee obvious.

Imagine the situation: you’re in the elevator with your “prospect”, and you have a very short amount of time to get his/her interest for your project.  It’s sell or die.  You are the Pursuer, and they are the Pursued.  It’s an invitation to a Righteous Indignation Party, and, as we know, crappy humor and indignation are closely related.

 

But put yourself in the recipient’s shoes for a moment.  Someone you know nothing about is about to make a demand on you: for your time, for your attention; for your investment, perhaps.  If the first words out of their mouths are, “think of it like Uber for musical instruments,” the encounter will not go well.

If the first words, instead, are “I’m trying to raise money for a business idea letting owners lend out their musical instruments for money.  Are you interested?” it’s, as they say, a horse of a different color.

Spend the time to boil down your statement to something crisp, not something cute.

ISO good readings on “mastering fear”

I’m noodling the topic of “mastering fear”, partly for personal reasons — gotta master The Fear one of these years — and partly for possible writing/blog/book topics.

I recall the comments in Dune on “fear is the mind-killer”.  I recall Carlos Castenada’s Don Juan on the topic of fear: I believe he thought fear was the first Great Enemy (btw, the last great enemy is Old Age, that creeps up on you while you’re battling the other Great Enemies).  Actually, I may well re-read Don Juan on this subject; he’s worth listening to.

I recall Aristotle’s idea that courage was the mean between fear and foolhardiness, but I don’t recall he gave much practical advice on how to move into the Zone of that golden mean.

I’m after practical steps Average Joe’s and Jill’s can use to master fear rather than hymns of praise to courage.   Would appreciate any help you can offer.

A day that will live in mini-bar infamy

Just got back from a week-long project in Sao Paulo.

Great people, good work, our team did a great job.

The hotel they put us up in was nice, and very pleasant.

Except that the only way to get a drinking glass was to “buy” one from the mini-bar.

I’ve had my share of plastic drinking glasses, plastic-wrapped “sanitized” drinking glasses, and fancy ones too.

But I’ve never been in a hotel where you had to buy your drinking glass.

A day that will live in min-bar infamy.

Down Payment on a PIM use case discussion

My friend Bob and I are teaching together the next couple of days, and I know he gets excited about PIM stuff.  Not quite a PIM-head, perhaps, but a PIM-head-in-training.

We had a not-altogether-clear preliminary conversation about what PIM use case would make Bob buy PIM software.

What excites him, like many, is making better use of his contacts.  Matt may be a doc at Hopkins with life-science research cred (complete fictional example btw) but he’s also an expert on smoking meat.    And his wife is a patent attorney.

You could imagine several ways to code up Matt as a contact (using categories or labels or the like) but two things rise up to bite you: 1) you don’t know all the uses of Matt you’re going to make downstream (you may take an interest in scuba later on, and Matt is a certified dive instructor) and 2) the collection of all the possible labels becomes unwieldy itself; you can’t remember how to code up a smoked-meats expert and end up inventing several labels and making the mess worse.  You now have to scroll down through a hairy ontology-ish beast in order to search or browse, and chances are you won’t.

This was a down payment on a further discussion.  Someday when magically there’s more time Bob and I are going to sit down for a hour or two and work through the various use cases.  It’ll be fun.

Cheap Home Automation

My son is a new homeowner, so we naturally have a boatload of homeowner-ly things to talk about now.  One of them was home automation.

I’ve been automating lights and timers for many years now, going back to the X.10 days.  For the past ten years I’ve pretty much used Insteon equipment, form SmartHome, because it’s pretty cheap, pretty broad in terms of kinds of switches and sensors and controllers, and because, although it’s proprietary, you can get the APIs and hack at it.

So I told him about Insteon, and got as far as, “well, smart lightswitches and smart outlets in Insteon cost about $30 each…”  He said, “Whoa.  That’s not cheap.  How can I get home automation cheap?”

So we both started looking, and found a boatload of open-source work on home automation.  Most of it involves someone writing controller-side code — or even a whole controller-side platform — to command “various” peripherals.

OK, that’s great.  If you wrote your own controller and put it on an old computer — or a new cheap Pi-class computer — you could save the cost of a controller and its software.  These run about $150 for Insteon, and seem similar for other protocols.  The Zonoff hub (full disclosure: my firm Valhalla Partners is an investor in Zonoff), found in Staples Connect home automation sets, retails for maybe $50, but you get the idea.  That’s not chump change, but if you have 20 peripherals at $30 a pop, the total system cost is (20*$30)+$150= $750, so by doing your own controller you’re only saving 20%.

The main question seems to be: can you get down the price of the peripherals from $30 to something more Earth-bound?

The disconnect between to-dos, habits, and calendar entries

I’m still vexed by the disconnect between these three kinds of commitments, which I discussed in an earlier post.

I still use one app for to-dos (MLO) and one for habits (most recently Habitica, as suggested by Chris Bailey.  I’ve had the feeling with my to-do app that things are somehow converging: I’m getting more and more of the features I want each time I do a kaizen improvement and switch to a somewhat better app.

I don’t get the same feeling at all with the habits apps.  I want two things from a habits app which I don’t care about (as much) with a to-do app:

  1. Fuzzy recurrence.  I’ve talked about that here: basically the ability to specify things like “every 2-3 day” or “at least 6 times a week”.
  2. Accountability.  I want some mechanism in the app that makes me feel good when I do the habit and makes me feel bad when I leave the habit out.

These things wouldn’t be terrible in a to-do app, but they’re not as important.  With a habits app, you’re interested in showing up, in Jerry Seinfeld’s unbroken chain.

Habitica gets a C- for fuzzy recurrence.  There are “dailies”, which are things that have to be done every day and if you miss you get dinged.  And there are habits, where you get + or – (depending on the habit) if you engage in the habit, whenever.  There’s some ability to pick which days of the week the habits apply, but it’s far from a rich set of fuzzy recurrence operations.

But the daily-ness of the app (and maybe its very clunkiness) helps me with the accountability.  I have a drive to check off those daily things, because I know the system has no flexibility, and I know I’ll be punished if I don’t.

Punished how?  The gamification elements in the app help me with staying accountable.   I lose Strength and Health if I don’t do my good dailies or if I do do my bad dailies.  Ditto with the habits, although it’s less hortatory with the habits (maybe because they don’t need to be done every day).

My ultimate PIM would combine some of this stuff with the to-do functionality.  Right now I have some things I want to do every day that are in both MLO and Habitica.  And, btw, perhaps the ultimate PIM could link accountability to bank account or reputation or other stuff that some of the “do or die” apps have.

And then having that stuff project to my calendar would be the Holy Grail.

The Magic Invulnerability of blockchain

OK, so last time I gave my impressions of how a coin transaction might be enacted in blockchain.

But now we get to the magic.  How can Bob and Alice be confident that someone won’t abuse their transfer of coin?

Let’s consider the case where Bob himself wants to spend Alice’s bitcoin twice.

He might have a couple of strategies for doing so, but they all involve, in one way or another, fudging the first transaction.  For example:

Erase the first transaction.  Bob has everything he needs to create a “spend” of Alice’s coin: her signed transaction giving the coin to his public key, and his private key.  If he can get erase transaction 1 (after his payee from tx 1 has re-transacted the bitcoin, of course) it would seem he could cover his tracks.

Blockchain makes it very hard to erase a transaction (or change it in any way) because all the transactions are hashed and linked.  Hashed means that there is a unique code generated by the transaction that can’t be duplicated.  And linked means that all the transactions ever are all linked together — and hashed — so that the only way you could fake a change to an old transaction would be to re-do all the transactions since.

And, hard as that might be, blockchain makes it harder by requiring a certain level of effort in the hashing.  Not just any hash result will do: the hash has to be smaller than a certain fraction of the maximum hash value.  Since each time you hash you get a different answer you have to keep hashing until you get an answer below the threshold.  Which means you have to do a lot of computational work.

But who even checks on this stuff?  In a centralized world where there’s a trusted central database, they do the checking.  In a decentralized world, who’s to even notice that a bunch of transactions have been faked or re-done?

The miners, that’s who.  What coin miners do is build valid blocks for the blockchain out of raw transactions.    Since there’s a large number of miners mining, the chances of all of them collaborating on a fraud are low (although I guess it could happen??)  And because they’re doing all this work to prop up the blockchain, they are rewarded by getting a small fee for most or all transactions that they block-ify, which is how miners end up with new coin.

I think I’ve got it, and I think I’ve explained it somewhat clearly, which probably means I’ve missed something profound and simple.  Can people who know more about this tell me where I messed up?

Benefit from my 35 years of tech industry experience