Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Joel on Architecture Astronauts

Joel Spolsky, of Joel on Software fame, has penned a vicious indictment of my new employer's latest software offering. Because he's trashing my tribe, I feel more than a little bad calling attention to it, but there's a passage in his essay that is so perfect that I feel compelled to point it out.

At it's core, the post goes after what Joel calls architecture astronauts, high-end engineers who are so convinced of their greatness that they build what they want, without a care for what will actually move their company forward. Once he's defined terms and developed a full head of steam, he busts out the following:
What is it going to take for you to get the message that customers don't want the things that architecture astronauts just love to build. The people? They love twitter. And flickr and delicious and picasa and tripit and ebay and a million other fun things, which they do want, and this so called synchronization problem is just not an actual problem, it's a fun programming exercise that you're doing because it's just hard enough to be interesting but not so hard that you can't figure it out.

Anyone who's been face to reddened face with an architecture astronaut should, at this point, be out of their chair shouting "Amen Brother!" I certainly was.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Chaser's War

An Australian tipped me to the Australian show "Chaser's War." He describes it as "somewhere between The Daily Show and Jackass." Some of it makes me laugh.

- Their spoof of "The Secret"

- Airport security

However, a lot of it is pretty uncomfortable stuff, mostly in service of satire and taking the piss out of .. well, everybody.

- Americans who can't remember when 9/11 happened

- The "mufti muzzler"

Fathoming the Depths of JJ's Psyche

Recently it seems that I'm spending more time than I'd like lying awake in bed from 2am to 4am. Most nights I just lie there wishing I was asleep, listening to the BBC on NPR, or thinking about how tired I will be at work the next day. However, the other night I decided to get up and grab the laptop from the other room.

I decided to catch up on my Boing Boing reading. However, for some reason Firefox had lost its ability to render Flash content which means every video link stopped working. At this point, unbeknownst to me at the time, an interesting psychological experiment began -- what link would finally get me to reinstall Flash on my laptop? Here's the list of video links I passed by and the final link that got me to reinstall Flash. I'll leave it to the reader to determine what this says about me.

Videos that didn't make the cut.
Subterranean Japanese bike-parking robot
Creepy/catchy "It's not a compound" polygamists remix
Re-creation of "Who's On First routine"
Experiment: 96% of passers-by ignore famous artist's street painting
NYPD cop: videoing me breaking the law is a terrorist act
BBtv: Krach der Roboter, the circuit bending noise-bot

The video that finally caused me to reinstall Flash.
Inflatable tube man dances to Cream's "Glad"

Behind The Scenes At Telepatch

Earlier today, JJ wrote me an email complaining that he didn't understand this sentence in my Deep Purple post: "I can't tell if they're taking the piss, or if..."

The following IM conversation ensued:

me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_mickey Does that help?

Jon: Ah, didn't know you were British. I think you should assume most people will not know what the fuck you are talking about.

me: It's a bit of slang I learned from Jay, from when he was performing at the Millenium Dome.

me: I considered that problem, I even thought about linking the wikipedia article, or rewriting to avoid the obscure slang. But the thing is, that phrase means exactly what I want to say.

Jon: You should rewrite it. If you link to wikipedia people will just think you are being a snob / douche.

me: To rewrite would be wordier or less precise.

Jon: Eskimos have 14 words for snow but it turns out that we call it snow.

me: I tell you what: when you catch up to me in posts, I'll rewrite it.

Jon: Don't know if I want my posts associated with Douchy McDouche.

me:
As you wish.

me: How about I post this converstaion? That would be amusing.

Jon: Do what you want.

Jon: You can say that I think your use of language makes you a wanker (here's a wikipedia link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker :-)

Jon: I am, of course, using wanker in the metaphorical way that is common in Australia.

me:
Ha

me: I'll post this later tonight. I'll send you the edited transcript before posting.

Jon: Don't edit out my cussing is all I ask.

me: Will do.

Boing Boing vs. Ford Motor Company


Earlier today Boing Boing (my favorite blog on the net) ran a story claiming that the web site for Bob Turner's Ford was the one of the worst designed sites on the Interweb. Strangely, the Bob Turner's Ford site has now reverted to some bogus boilerplate Ford type web site and the story on Boing Boing is totally gone. Google still has a cached version of the train wreck that was Bob Turner's Ford site (sadly without the Flash that really put it over the top).

Given that we know Ford has been a thug in the past when it comes to dealing with Internet savvy folks. One can only wonder what may have happened to the Boing Boing post.

SJN, you own a Ford right? How about leveraging your extensive power with the company :-)

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Graham analysis of GOOG

Note: slightly edited from first post.

To try to remember some principles of The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, I thought I would apply some of the analyses to Google. I own some Google stock (GOOG) because I used to work there. When Graham says "the defensive investor" he is talking about someone who is not willing to spend the equivalent of a full-time job (whether professional or amateur) tracking stocks.

Page 159: "For the defensive investor we suggested an upper limit of purchase price at 25 times average earnings of the past seven years." Google has only been public since 2004, so it does not have seven years of history.

Page 259: Simplified formula for valuation of growth stocks:

value = (current (normal) earnings) * (8.5% + (2 * (expected growth rate)))

or

P = E * (8.5 + 2*G)

or

P/E = 8.5 + 2*G

On the flip side, given the price/earnings ratio, one can calculate what the market is predicting for the expected growth rate by solving backwards:

G = (P/E - 8.5)/2

GOOG has a P/E of 38.25, which corresponds to an annual growth rate of ~14.9% or 401% in ten years. Wow!

Page 290:

Factors affecting capitalization:

1. General long-term prospects.

GOOG does not seem to be taking huge special charges or borrowing lots of money, and it has lots of different customers, although only one real source of revenue (ads make up 99%). The company has a very strong brand, and somewhat of a "moat" (people won't switch search engines quickly, especially if they are tied to other apps). The company has a famously long-term focus, and spends 10% of money on 'crazy' R&D.

2. Management.

I think the management team has been executing pretty well, through boom and bust times for the market.

3. Financial strength and capital structure.

Strong. No debt, few liabilities, a building up of cash.

4. Dividend record. "Continuous dividend payments for the last 20 years or more."

It's never paid a dividend.

5. Current dividend rate.

Again, no dividend. Note in chapter 19 (page 506), they make strong claims that often companies building up cash don't actually know how to make lots of money from it. They cite studies showing earnings growth is actually higher when dividends were higher, and companies that "..raise their dividend not only have better stock returns but that 'dividend increases are associated with [higher] future profitability for at least four years after the dividend change."

Most of the information is in Jason Zweig's commentary in the latest edition of Graham's book.
Jason claims a company keeping cash helps management of a company weather downturns, but not the stockholders because it relieves pressure on management to seek highest-yield returns. Moreover, Jason claims big cash allows management to make dumb bets like the AOL/Time Warner merger. Finally, Jason also claims stock buybacks (as an alternative to dividends) just inflate executive compensation (through options for example).

Page 348: Stock screening criteria.

1. Adequate size. Updated commentary (2003) says total market value of >= $2 billion. GOOG has $171B. Check.

2. Strong financial condition. Current assets at least twice current liabilities. GOOG has $27.6B in assets and $3.3B in liabilities (2008 Q1). Check.

3. Earnings stability. Some earnings for common stock in each of past 10 years. FAIL. GOOG common stock is only 4 years old. It's not obvious where to look to see if GOOG has had earnings each year without digging through all the annual reports. I suspect it has.

4. Dividend record. Uninterrupted payments for at least the past 20 years. FAIL. GOOG common stock is only 4 years old and has never paid a dividend.

5. Earnings growth. A minimum increase of at least one-third in per-share earnings in the past ten years using three-year averages at the beginning and end. FAIL. Again, GOOG too new.

6. Moderate price/earnings ratio. Current price <= 15 times average earnings of the past three years. FAIL. GOOG price is $540/share, earnings/share (EPS) is $13.52, $9.94, $5.02 over the last three years (see here), or $9.40 average earnings, so P/avgE is 540/9.40 = 57.4. Note Graham does not believe in forward-looking price/earnings ratio (F P/E) at all.

7. Moderate ratio of price to assets. Current price <= 1.5 times book value last reported or (p/e) * (price/book) <= 22.5. FAIL. Book value is total assets minus intangible assets and liabilities such as debt. Total assets $27.6B, intangible assets $1.2B, goodwill assets $4.7B (not sure if I should subtract that but I will), debt 0, total liabilities $2.4B. So, book is $19.3B and 313.7M shares outstanding would lead to book value/share of $61.5. Current price is 8.8 times book. Am I doing this calculation correctly??

Looking at all the above, I believe Graham would never have bought the stock, and clearly would never hold it.

For fun, here is a link to a Google stock screener that embodies as many of the above criteria as I could find: #1, #5, modified #6, #7. There are only 5 companies on it, and I've never heard of any of them.

Japanese arrangement of Deep Purple's Smoke On The Water

This video made me happy.

The measured pace at which elements are added makes it especially delicious. By the time they were going full bore, I was nearly out of my chair with laughter.

I can't tell if they're taking the piss, or if this is somehow representative of what a traditionally trained Japanese musician perceives when they hear Deep Purple.

Via reddit. Further reading, and viewing.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Some finance reading

For our amusement, here's a post on finance. Many in the patch have well-developed financial thoughts, so I hope patch comments teach me a thing or two.

Here's a few books I've read over the years that have influenced my thoughts, some of their claims, and random musings interspersed. Claims are not facts, since everything in economics is debatable. Still, many of them I believe (not all).

- A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Filled with wonderful stories and fascinating analyses, its major theme is the now oft-repeated truism:

Claim #1: most active money managers perform worse than passively managed index funds, especially after trading costs.

The author Burton Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton, a strong proponent of the "efficient market hypothesis" (that a stock price rapidly reflects all known information about the stock), and closely affiliated with the Vanguard Group that offers index funds in line with Malkiel's philosophy. Other themes:

Claim #2: over the last hundred years, stocks have produced higher long-term returns than any other investment vehicle (bonds, gold, art, etc.)

Claim #3: there are two basic ways to value stocks: "firm foundation" (try to determine the true value of the underlying company) and "castles in the air" (try to determine whether someone else will pay more for the stock in the future).

These two basic ways are both present in the market, an essential dualism we will never fully resolve.

He also reviews many past trends in the markets, and updates every decade, so I should buy the new edition.

- One Up on Wall Street. The author is Peter Lynch, manager of the Fidelity Magellen Fund for decades. "If you had invested $10,000 in the Fidelity Magellan Fund when Lynch became manager, ten years later you would have $190,000."

Claim #4: It is possible to beat the market over the long term, but really damn unusual.

I only can remember two people who have beat the market consistently for decades on a large scale, and they are financial superstars. One is Lynch, and the other Warren Buffett, press-dubbed "the sage of Omaha" who manages the fantastically successful Berkshire-Hathaway conglomerate.

A fun parable about after-the-fact observations: mail 512 people that the stock market is going up next week and 512 it is going down. Whichever direction it goes, you correctly predicted the future to 512 people. Divide your remaining trusting audience in two, and repeat. After 10 weeks there is one schmuck who may very well be convinced you are the seer of wall street. Now .. well, if you're a finance guy, you fleece him. To restate generally, out of a large population following random variation may emerge a few exceptional events. Similarly, Lynch and Buffett may simply have been lucky guessers out of a huge pack of fund managers. However, it's hard not to pay attention anyway, especially when they write well.

Claim #5: Don't pick stocks unless you're willing to spend a lot of time doing it right and monitoring the market for when conditions change.

Actually every finance book I've read said the above, but it is a precursor to Lynch's

Claim #6: Buy what you know, especially if your knowledge is uncommon.

If you use a product and like it a lot, if you see a company in your area doing well, chances are you know something more than Wall Street. Research it carefully (claim #5) and buy. This claim can't really be proven or disproven, but it is one of Lynch's big claims. Note it opposes directly the "efficient market hypothesis" claimed above.

- The Intelligent Investor. Warren Buffet (aforementioned star) says "By far the best book on investing ever written." It was written by his mentor, Benjamin Graham.

Claim #7: Successful investment requires a margin of safety.

Graham is a firm "value investor", i.e. look for stocks representing companies that have a proven record of solid earnings and with a price under-representing the "true value." Then in the long term you can't lose. He goes into great detail about many ways to judge solid earnings (e.g., a low price-to-earnings ratio averaged over a number of years, no forward-looking statistics, read the proxy carefully for crazy "nonrecurring charges" which are actually recurring, "pro forma" accounting which means to report earnings as if accounting rules weren't important, avoid odd constructions like preferred stock, warrants to purchase stock, convertible issues) and under-representing true value (e.g., sufficiently low price-to-book value, low debt). This is a 500 page book that reads mostly like an accounting manual, and I wish someone would extract his rules into a concise form.

Claim #8: Successful investing requires emotional discipline.

Graham says several times (and the between-chapter commentary reinforces) that the market sometimes is paying too much, sometimes too little. If you really want to make money, you have to discount what the market is telling you. This turns out to be rare. In fact, I believe Buffett claims that some people can do this right away, but most will never be able to learn it.

- Berkshire Hathaway's shareholder letters. You've heard Warren Buffett is smart and rich. What you may or may not have heard is that he's a great writer. He talks about economics, business, and people in a precise, readable, lively way. He describes a large reinsurance deal in his 2006 letter "Our tale begins around 1688, when Edward Lloyd opened a small coffee house in London." In his 2007 letter: "Former Senator Alan Simpson famously said: 'Those who travel the high road in Washington need not fear heavy traffic.' If he had sought truly deserted streets, however, the Senator should have looked to Corporate America's accounting." Especially you should read his Fortune article describing why for the first time in decades he started betting against the U.S. dollar, taking us to the two-island world of Squanderville and Thriftville.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Fun with google trends part 3

Here's a fun game to play with google trends: find word pairs whose trends move in opposition. I stumbled upon this pair almost by accident. Finding more wasn't as easy as I thought it would be.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Wills and The Great Stork Derby

After many years of procrastination, Pam and I met with a lawyer recently to start the process of getting a proper will prepared. Having no kids has made this long delay somewhat less irresponsible than it sounds: we're joint tenants of our main assets, each other's primary beneficiary, etc., so one of us dying is "easy" in that all the assets shoot directly to the spouse. But it would be a waste of some perfectly good life insurance proceeds if we check out at the same time while intestate.

The task list is pretty basic from Mr. Lawyer: think through who we want assets to go to, chose secondaries, decide who we'd want to have power to pull a plug if needed. A bit bleak, but not unexpected. As with any homework assignment, I came home and consulted the interwebs for help, to see if I could find some examples similar to the sorts of scenarios we might choose. After a bit of somewhat useful research (e.g., notions like per stirpes, which we may use), my good intentions derailed into random link chasing, landing eventually on one Charles Vance Millar, whose whimsical will led to a decade of legal entertainment back in the Great Depression. A good summary is on Snopes, but you have to like any will that opens with:

This Will is necessarily uncommon and capricious because I have no dependents or near relations and no duty rests upon me to leave any property at my death and what I do leave is proof of my folly in gathering and retaining more than I required in my lifetime.

The clause that led to all the fun:

All the rest and residue of my property wheresoever situate I give, devise and bequeath unto my Executors and Trustees named below in Trust to convert into money as they deem advisable and invest all the money until the expiration of nine years from my death and then call in and convert it all into money and at the expiration of ten years from my death to give it and its accumulations to the Mother who has since my death given birth in Toronto to the greatest number of children as shown by the Registrations under the Vital Statistics Act. If one of more mothers have equal highest number of registrations under the said Act to divide the said moneys and accumulations equally between them.

The winning count of births? Nine.
The number of women who so inherited? Four.

It all amused me, anyway...

Monday, April 21, 2008

Nutjob high achiever

Nutjobs are nothing new. However, this guy really keeps the bar high. Jesus Christ is telling him to "take out" (!) a judge involved in his trial about not paying taxes on $5.6 million in income. He joins his own made-up court and starts issuing subpoenas .. well, frankly I can't sort it all out.

Hey, does anyone know what happened to Wesley Snipes in his tax evasion case?

DF

Update: Actual quote:

"Are you trying to force me to present myself as a U.S. person against my will? Well that is a capital crime," Beale said. "Is the defendant a fictional corporation?"

Uh .. this guy can make $5.6 million? There are mysteries I cannot unravel.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

A little context

If you've stumbled upon telepatch at random and are wondering who we are and what we're up to, you can get some context over here.

Why being the latency monkey makes you want to shoot yourself

Dan brought to my attention this nice post summarizing some research on the effect of gratefulness on mood. Three groups were asked to write down a list of 5 events and to fill out a survey on their mood and health at regular intervals. One group wrote down things they were grateful for, another group wrote down things they found irritating, and the control group wrote down events of any nature.

As you might expect, the grateful group had a more positive outlook than the irritating group. Beyond that, the grateful group was healthier, they got more exercise, they slept better, and so on.

"Ok fine," you say, "why is there a monkey over there?" For a while at Amazon, I was the Manager of Website Performance and Availability. Very fancy sounding title, but I liked to refer to myself as the latency monkey, because a major part of my job was to make sure the site was running fast (i.e. with low latency). Whenever something went wrong, and some chunk of the site got slow, I tracked down why and got people to fix it. Each week I wrote a report summarizing everything that went wrong in excruciating detail, and presented it to a room of directors and VPs in a weekly metrics meeting. It was as sisyphean a task as any you can possibly imagine. In a software system as large, complex and constantly changing as amazon.com, something is always going wrong; documenting failures is an endless task.

In short, my job was to make a list of irritating things each week, and I was widely regarded as having done it as well as anyone ever had. Given the present research, it's no wonder that I found this job to be the most soul-crushing work I've ever done. I totally burned out in a year, as did the person who held the job before me.

I tell you this story as a cautionary tale. Try to find work that allows you to focus on positive things. Avoid like the plague any work that focuses on negative things.

The authors of the study speculate that simply enumerating things you are grateful for might be a treatment for mild forms of depression. I suggest the opposite: enumerating things that you find irritating might cause a mild form of depression.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

50 Greatest Comdey Sketches of All Time

What's that? You want to lose the next hour of your life? Glad I could help.

50 Greatest Comedy Sketches

It's super annoying how you hop from one site to the other when you page through the results, but I can't help that.

Although Dave Chappelle makes the list in a couple spots I couldn't believe that his Internet sketch didn't make it.

Dave Chappelle Internet Sketch

Our Childhood Writings

Here are two of my favorite links from MORTIFIED (a comedy show featuring people reading their childhood writing). Undoubtedly the first link will make Dan a bit uncomfortable, but there's a chance that he will find it to be funny. I, of course, can always lose myself in the inherent humor in pain.

I Hate Drake

Stairway to Winnipeg

Oops, that was a lawyer we just stepped on...

On slashdot, so maybe already by seen by everyone, but I was amused. Monster Cable sent a C&D letter to a competitor not realizing the target's president was a lawyer. The guy's response:

Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable

It's long, but the entertaining part is the last three or so large paragraphs. I especially liked, "Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it."

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Liveblogging the World Curling Championships

I get the CBC here in Seattle, and they often carry curling on the weekends. Today it's the final of the men's world championship with Canada's Kevin Martin facing Scotland's David Murdoch.

12:24: 1st end was a blank, Canada stole one in the 2nd. The third end just finished with Scotland scoring 1 and giving up the hammer. Score is tied at one all.

12:31: 4th end is looking to be a blank. For the uninitiated, when you have "the hammer" it means that you get to throw the last rock, which is an advantage. Generally you want to score two or more when you have the hammer. If it looks like you'll only score one, you generally prefer to score none to keep last rock advantage.

12:34: 4th end is a blank. Canada keeps the hammer. Score is still one all.

12:40: Canada setting up to score in the fifth.

12:43: Scotland picks their own stone, Canada lying two.

12:48: Scotland, faced with a tough double peel on their second to last stone, chooses the easier hit and roll, but leaves their shot stone exposed.

12:53: Scotland plays a great hit and roll to lie shot. Martin barely makes a tap, clearing Scotland's stone to score two. His hit was a lot thinner than he was hoping for, and I thought he'd only get one, but he stuck it for two. Score is 3-1 after 5 ends. Scotland has the hammer.

12:58: 6th end underway. The announcer says that since 2000, Martin is 28-0 when up 2 without the hammer after 5.

1:08: The 6th is a blank. 3-1 Canada, Scotland keeps the hammer.

1:15: Great sweeping from team Canada!

1:22: Martin misses his double, Scotland has a shot at two.

1:25: Murdoch's first stone is good, to the top of the four foot. Martin will try to hit and roll to the button to lie buried.

1:26: Martin's hit and roll looks perfect! Canada may steal?

1:28: Murdoch tries a very difficult in-off for two, but misses it thick. Canada steals one! Canada now up 4-1 after 7. Correction: it was an angle raise, not an in-off.

1:41: Martin plays a heavy peel with his last rock, rolling across the rings and behind one of Scotland's rocks to lie shot.

1:45: Murdoch clears Canada's rock to score their deuce. 4-3 after 8, Canada has the hammer.

1:56: Murdoch's first stone in the 9th wrecks on his guard. Canada lying shot, though exposed. Good chance to Canada to score two.

2:01: Martin's first stone is heavy, leaving an out for Murdoch. Murdoch throws a freeze, and lies shot. Martin has a shot for three, will likely get two.

2:02: Canada scores one for sure, but the officials will have to measure the second...

2:04: Canada gets their deuce! 6-3 Canada going into the 10th.

2:13: Martin with an easy out-turn hit for the championship... and he makes it! Canada wins!

Saturday, April 12, 2008

What was the #1 song on the day you were born?

Via reddit: http://www.joshhosler.biz/NumberOneInHistory/SelectMonth.htm

It seems inauspicious that for me it's "Mama Told Me (Not to Come)."

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Red vs. blue on the web

A blog post graphing blue vs. red of several popular web sites, as
measured by Nielsen.

http://gawker.com/5005006/the-most-liberal-sites-in-america

DF

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Why records sound the same

Ok, I'll try a post.

I spent some of my weekend gathering scattered mp3 files from a couple machines, so bumping into this article seemed an odd coincidence:

Why records DO all sound the same

Find out about playlist generation for Hot Adult Contemporary stations and other exciting music biz trivia.

- Scott

More fun with google trends

This chart has something interesting to say, though I'm not quite sure what.

Walking a pack of dogs

A blog of a guy who walks lots of dogs for a business, just interviewed in the Southwest Journal. Some pictures included.

http://citizenkanine.wordpress.com/

DF

Google trends == Art?

I found this chart to be aesthetically pleasing.