Viento

El viento es parte de un sistema que involucra nubes, polvo, océanos, temperatura. Creo que el sistema de un Estado debería ajustarse de forma similar —como variables ligadas unas con otras—. Esto permitiría analizar y ajustar esas variables. Pero claro, los autodenominados defensores de la libertad y el individualismo —que en realidad defienden la ley de la selva, en el sentido de que el poderoso hace lo que le da la gana y el resto debe someterse— no quieren un sistema que les marque reglas fuera de su control, y por eso buscan eliminar el Estado. Similar a cómo algunos sionistas quieren eliminar la Corte Penal Internacional porque aún no la controlan —si la controlaran, no la atacarían—.

El sistema debería vincular, para empezar, cosas como el coste de la cesta básica con el salario mínimo. Deben evitarse los valores fijos; las multas, por ejemplo, no deberían ser cantidades fijas sino depender al menos del salario mínimo o de la cesta básica.

La idea, entonces, es progresar optimizando, buscando crear un equilibrio. Por supuesto, quien quiere poder no quiere tal cosa si no la controla —y dirá que se atenta contra la libertad: su libertad, la que aplasta la de los demás—. Y es que un buen sistema tiene límites. Pueden ajustarse según otras variables, pero deben estar presentes para que el sistema no colapse. Y como en todo sistema, el problema es la avaricia, el no ajustarse a la Regla de Oro —porque vivimos en una sociedad, vivimos con otras personas, vivimos en un ecosistema formado por otros seres, elementos y sistemas: uno en el que el viento también es parte—.

Limit

Every well-designed system has limits. Exceed them and the system fails. We apply this logic to software, to bridges, to aircraft. We do not apply it to society — and that is why society keeps failing. We need to put limits on bad things. We can be more indulgent with someone who stole a phone, a purse, or bread — because society may be lacking jobs, or in crisis, or at war. But if there are jobs and someone simply prefers to steal, then even if the amount is small, they must be punished in order to deter them from doing it again. There must be a limit — as there can be a threshold to define petty theft, there must also be a limit on reoffending. At some point, a person must go to prison and follow an education programme designed for their type of crime.

There must also be other limits — such as how much a person should have to spend on shelter or basic food. It cannot be the case that eating requires half a basic salary, or that shelter requires a full one.

We are in an era of technology, complex and efficient systems, variables, and limits. Engineering thinking does not seem to have reached politics. To prevent a programme from failing, we set limits — and if we want to change a limit, we work on improvements that allow the system to function at the new level. We must apply the same thinking to society in order to improve people's lives. Instead, we use variables, limits, and technology — and our brightest minds — to generate more money for investors, even when that goes against the public interest.

Foreman

People in power need persons who get things done. And in every hierarchy there are more than two levels — those at the top use a foreman to control and manage the others. People who had slaves to work the fields or mines used slaves who were put in charge of overseeing the rest. These foremen received perhaps a bed instead of sleeping in a group; they got the first portion of the slaves' food — but not the same food their owner ate. Perhaps they could have some of that food as a gift when they reached a milestone, but it could not be always. The separation was always maintained. The foreman received very little and made promises to serve and control others — but he would never become one of the owners. Sociologists call this the intermediary class — close enough to power to enforce it, far enough away to never share it.

Similar structures are still present today. There may be a few exceptions, and these exceptions are used as the promises and small rewards that motivate foremen to follow orders and act as the middle layer that does what the upper class wants. They even protect those above them by their own initiative. They are an indispensable part of keeping hierarchies in place. And they have the power to tip the balance in favour of the top or the bottom.

Precision

In communication, it is said that simplicity, precision, and confidence are key. But does that demand for precision lead us towards lies? People complain about politicians because they lie — yet politicians and executives communicate the way they do because they are taught to project certainty, never to transmit doubt. And that leads to dishonesty.

Why do they do that? Because they have learnt that people prefer certainty. People tend to choose someone who conveys that they know what they are talking about; if someone transmits doubt, people do not believe them. The more honest you are about uncertainty, the less people trust you — and the more you lie with confidence, the more they follow you. But is it not precisely when we reach a higher level of knowledge that we discover our own ignorance? The more we learn, the more aware we become that we know less than we thought. In other words, people who are ignorant of their own ignorance are the most confident about their beliefs.

This behaviour is part of knowing ourselves — both as individuals and as a group. Knowing this, instead of letting ourselves be drawn to whoever speaks with the most certainty, we can pause and think. Perhaps the one who seems not to have all the answers is actually the one who knows most. Perhaps we need to rethink how we communicate: being clear about what we know and honest about what we do not, whilst finding better ways to identify those who lie.

Indication

When someone asks for answers, they expect a clear option — practically, they want you to choose for them. But what you can often offer instead is an indication: a direction to search, a prompt to think.

Many times people ask from ego or from laziness. From laziness, because they do not want to seek the truth — they just want easy answers, a simple affirmation that matches what they already believe. And that, at bottom, is also ego: they want to know what you choose either to judge you or to confirm that you belong to the same tribe.

Indications can take the form of questions — questions that serve as examples of what we should be asking ourselves to find the truth. Questions that reveal whether we are thinking with genuine criteria: Am I only absorbing the knowledge that reaches me by default? Am I seeking different perspectives, comparing, and searching for truth? Am I aware that media is not impartial? Am I aware if I am only consuming news from one side? Do I truly understand? Who really benefits from this? Is this aligned with my values? Is this coherent?

I think that most of the time the best way to offer an indication is to show a mental model for thinking — not an answer, not a conclusion. We must let the other person find their own.

Century

In the twenty-first century, we must resolve how to coexist with new technology. Around the world, more and more robots and agentic AI systems are being developed. Many large companies are laying off tens of thousands of people. AI is the stated reason, but I want to point out a couple of things worth thinking about.

First, cheaper labour. Companies fire thousands of people but may, within months or immediately after, hire thousands of people remotely from countries where wages are lower — typically from India. In this scenario, Europe needs to protect its workforce — otherwise people will be left without jobs and social crises will follow. Companies, driven by greed, simply want to increase profits, and labour is one of the largest costs they can reduce. This leads to a widening gap between the lowest-paid employee and those at the top. If in the 1950s the ratio might have been five to one, today it is more than twenty — though I do not recall the exact figure.

A second thing to consider is whether AI is actually cheaper in the long run — because I believe there is a bubble. AI consumes enormous resources, and AI companies are currently operating on borrowed money. They are not yet profitable. When they need to become self-sufficient, they may find that prices must rise sharply — and those prices may end up higher than the cost of a human worker.

Presente

Cuando éramos niños nos decían que éramos el futuro. Ese futuro ya está aquí. Es nuestro turno de asumir la responsabilidad. El presente es ya ese futuro del que nos hablaban. Debemos centrarnos en él, resolver los problemas que tenemos y trabajar por hacer realidad el sueño de una vida mejor para todos. ¿Cómo lograrlo? Les presento un marco que puede servirnos de guía, compuesto por cinco partes: cimientos, misión, valor, objetivo y propósito.

1. Cimientos. Consiste en lo básico que una sociedad necesita para vivir: salud, seguridad, justicia y educación. Cada uno de estos elementos debe cumplir unos mínimos para que el siguiente funcione, y los cuatro juntos son las áreas sobre las que se sustenta toda sociedad.

2. Misión. El desarrollo del conocimiento en las áreas física, mental y espiritual. El conocimiento es parte esencial del desarrollo de una sociedad, y debemos seguir invirtiendo en estas tres áreas.

3. Valor. Sí, hay uno que es el principal, es la regla de oro: amar al prójimo como a uno mismo, como a nuestros padres, hijos y hermanos. Como a nuestra propia alma.

4. Objetivo. Como sociedad debemos aspirar al desarrollo de una sociedad ética, filosófica y de hermandad —una sociedad que busca la sabiduría—.

5. Propósito. Todos unidos como un todo con un propósito común: amar, servir y buscar la verdad.

Con este marco de cinco puntos podemos encontrar algo común que respete nuestras diferencias y nos permita desarrollarnos y convivir en paz —hoy y en el futuro—. ¿Cuándo empezamos? Hoy. El presente, ese futuro del que nos hablaban, ya está aquí.

Load

We were told, as children, that the future would be in our hands. Nobody told us it would feel this heavy. As humans we must be accountable for the load our generation carries. The load of making society better. The load of strengthening the foundations of society: health, security, justice, and education. The load of making it our mission to develop knowledge in the physical, mental, and spiritual areas — and to invest in them. The load of upholding the Golden Rule as our main moral value, so that it may serve as a guide for better decisions. The load of building cohesion in society so that, as a whole, we reach the objective of creating an ethical and philosophical society — a society that seeks wisdom, a society of brotherhood. The load of helping people reach their potential and fulfil their purpose of loving, serving, and seeking truth.

When we were children we were told that the future would be in our hands. Now is that future. Now is our turn. Now we must work together as one. Now we must work as good and kind brothers and sisters. Now we take accountability. Now is when we make dreams happen. Now is our present. Now we must act.

Meadow

I like green meadows in spring. They are so beautiful. They show life and transmit peace and calm. That peace can be felt in the body, in the mind, and in the spirit.

That spring came after winter, and winter came after autumn. It is a cycle. This serves as a reminder that if we are going through a difficult time, it will pass — and we must remain calm, imagining the spring that will come. That hope keeps us going. And if we are going through a good time, we must enjoy it and remain calm too, knowing that spring will end. That is not meant to depress us, but to keep us humble. Understanding this is part of becoming wiser.

We must also avoid always judging things as simply good or bad. Using the example of seasons: spring is not necessarily good, and autumn is not necessarily bad. We must find joy in all seasons. There is beauty in autumn too, when we see meadows covered in leaves — those reds, yellows, and browns are beautiful. As is the white of winter or the golden light of summer.

The search for wisdom will help us understand that there is beauty in all seasons. And we can see it if we prepare our mind and spirit to look for it. How? By seeking wisdom and following the Golden Rule.

Next time you stand in a meadow, whatever the season, ask yourself: can I find the beauty here? If you can, you are on the right path.

More inefficient when we take on more projects

When we work in two projects, and we swap from one to the other we have a cost. We know that two times 50% equal 100%, but it is not always as a valid analogy to use in some context. When two people work half time that not necessary mean one person can do the same work in a day.

"While it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, nine women can't make a baby in one month."

From Brooks's Law

At the end of the former century it was when we use the term multitasking operatins system with computers that only had one CPU. It appears to work in many tasks at the same time but it is not. What really happen is the CPU work in one task A during certain time, save the status of the task A, then start or continue with a task B during certain time, and so on. That means the computer works for a lapse of time in one task at a time and then in another, then to finish one task it could takes many work lapses on the task. This happen so quickly that seems to do many tasks at the same time. But this context switching have a cost.

Multitasking is not as effective as appears

Also, people must let all ready to continue a tasks in the future when is stoping a current task that is not finished yet. Then when they retake on the task it would be easier to continue and to go in a flow state, be productive. Sometimes to change context is necessary to refresh ideas, let time to creativity, have other perspectives. This is context switching in order to rest some area that need it. If the sight sense is tired then to move to other project does not mean to rest the sight if both projects need an effort of sight.

For each additional project someone undertakes, he lose up 20% of his time to the act of context switching. (1). In the next figure we can see if we work in three projects we lost up 40% in context switching instead of doing the work then the time to work would be 20% to each project instead 33,33%.

• (100% – 20%) / 2 = 40% available to each of the 2 projects.
• (100% – 40%) / 3 = 20% available to each of the 3 projects.
• (100% – 60%) / 4 = 10% available to each of the 4 projects.
• (100% – 80%) / 5 = 4% available to each of the 5 projects.

From the side of a client we can think about if we hire someone who is working in many projects, as more they would be less would be the time to our project (it could affect in quality or the time to finish the work).

How to cut the cost of switching context?

First at all, we can delegate, pospone, do it. For a company to delegate would be assigned it to a free group. Same as a computer uses more than one CPU.

If we will work on several project then we need to find a way to do the context switching efficiently, to reduce as much as posible the cost and to do a quick switching and continue where it was paused. We can learn agile frameworks and metrologies where it is used small task that are atomised, that meas they are divided in small tasks, detailed, understandable to not lost time understanding what is the task and if something is necessary, they have an precisely action to do.

Brooks' Law is about projects that are behind schedule and if we add manpower, it will cause them to be further behind schedule. Then when we can add manpower at the beginning of a project with less cost than if we do it in a later time. More later more cost. Also, there are tasks that can do new manpower and it does not necessary cause delay to the project because these tasks are complementary, do not have an impact in others tasks, need to be started, are not complex.

Just as two part-time people do not necessarily do the work of one. If both people are inexperienced, neither full-timer will do the job of a part-time expert. For this reason, introducing highly qualified personnel, without being more than necessary, can shorten times if it does not entail the incorporation of other techniques, methodologies whose use or learning of these is another impediment. The knowledge of the tools, knowledge about the needed area, similar projects, etc. have a great influence.

So, do not make the mistake of lightly using an engineer, architect, programmer as any other resource (a battery) as a replacement for another without this causing a cost. If in the change of a battery can be repercussions then there can be much more repercussions in the change of people. And the more specialised or complex the project, the more notorious the change in human resources.

References

(1) Gerald Marwin Weinberg. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking.
Don McGreal, Ralph Jocham. The Professional Product Owner.