Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main'
This commit is contained in:
@@ -5,37 +5,8 @@ title: 2025-11-01
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/complete
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-01
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-01 05:41:?? --- Saturday Morning
|
||||
|
||||
Somehow I've already let an hour get away from me.
|
||||
Today I need to do some cleaning: a load of laundry and leftover dishes
|
||||
at least. I'll do those after I finish this note, plus some pushups, before
|
||||
I shower and change to go visit the birds across the street. Later I'll need
|
||||
to go to the store for more sliced almonds and coconut oil so I can make granola
|
||||
for tomorrow's breakfast. I'll go to Walmart so I can get a new mattress
|
||||
protector, too. Copy paper, a 3-hole punch and a small binder would also be
|
||||
nice for my typewriter journaling.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-01 07:06 --- Saturday Morning
|
||||
|
||||
I wasted more time doomscrolling after my last note, but I did manage
|
||||
to do the laundry, dishes, and pushups. Now I need to shower and dress in time
|
||||
to see the birds.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-01 08:25
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/birding
|
||||
|
||||
There were fewer than yesterday, but still a ton. There was a chill, but
|
||||
I was dressed well for it. I think with exposure the birds will get used to
|
||||
mg presence. I saw a bald eagle (_Haliaeetus leucocephalus_) for the first time
|
||||
in Florida. They are ugly creatures, of both body and spirit, unlike the wood
|
||||
stork (_Mycteria americana_) which is uglier of body, but pure of heart.
|
||||
There was also some guy getting dumped on the phone and not taking it well.
|
||||
|
||||
+9
-5
@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-10
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-10 06:53:?? --- Monday Morning Before Work
|
||||
# 2025-11-10 06:53:??
|
||||
|
||||
_Monday Morning Before Work_
|
||||
|
||||
#original-format/typewritten-print #topic/mindfulness
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -41,7 +43,7 @@ as I'm concerned. It feels good to be introspective
|
||||
and to have time to build skills people care about,
|
||||
like music and style and... birdwatching...
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-10 10:40
|
||||
# 2025-11-10 10:40:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #occupational #original-format/digital-text
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -50,7 +52,7 @@ is that I now tend to expect that (within reason)
|
||||
"holes" in takeoff scripts are _intentional omissions_,
|
||||
not holes in cost coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-10 11:14
|
||||
# 2025-11-10 11:14:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational/takeoff #original-format/digital-text
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -100,7 +102,7 @@ that guestrooms are not interpreted to be dwelling units.
|
||||
If it's the latter, I believe it's far too conservative
|
||||
to be used whole-cloth on all estimates.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-10 15:15
|
||||
# 2025-11-10 15:15:??
|
||||
|
||||
### "Feeder"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -115,7 +117,9 @@ It _does not_ include power conductors to
|
||||
[[nfpa-70_100_definitions#Utilization Equipment.|utilization equipment]],
|
||||
those are [[nfpa-70_100_definitions#Branch Circuit.|branch circuit]] conductors.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-10 20:00 --- Monday Evening, Before Bed
|
||||
# 2025-11-10 20:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
_Monday Evening, Before Bed_
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #occupational #original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+4
-2
@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-11
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-11 06:06 --- Tuesday Morning, Before Work
|
||||
# 2025-11-11 06:06:??
|
||||
|
||||
_Tuesday Morning, Before Work_
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -37,7 +39,7 @@ In these ways we're actually more like court
|
||||
wizards than artists, which is an understandably
|
||||
desirable position.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-11 14:41
|
||||
# 2025-11-11 14:41:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #topic/transparency #original-format/digital-text
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+4
-4
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-13
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-13 08:03:??
|
||||
# 2025-11-13 08:03:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/writing
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ but that to use the same constructions
|
||||
would require a level of forethought
|
||||
that I'm not capable of under the pressure of conversation.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-13 08:19:??
|
||||
# 2025-11-13 08:19:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #occupational
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ before they receive our proposal?
|
||||
|
||||
Is it clear they understand what we're excluding?
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-13 20:41:??
|
||||
# 2025-11-13 20:41:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/shorthand
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -71,5 +71,5 @@ enough times independently
|
||||
that I would likely benefit from it.
|
||||
|
||||
I added [[leslie-et-al_1968_gregg-notehand|a book]]
|
||||
on [[shorthand#Gregg Notehand]]
|
||||
on [[shorthand#Gregg Notehand|Gregg Notehand]]
|
||||
to my calibre library.
|
||||
|
||||
+4
-4
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-02
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-02 10:40:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-02 10:40:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/construction/electrical
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
|
||||
![[alternating-current#Ferroelectric Hysteresis]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-02 10:57:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-02 10:57:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Set Notation Example
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ sharing some but not all elements.
|
||||
($B$ has at least one element not in $A$).
|
||||
Equivalent to $B \setminus A \neq \varnothing$.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-02 13:20:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-02 13:20:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Panel Schedule Relationship Diagram
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ may or may not have multiple schedules.
|
||||
Schedules may be typical of multiple panelboards
|
||||
`PANEL H(2-6)`
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-02 15:35:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-02 15:35:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Bluebeam Model Context Protocol Tools
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+2
-2
@@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-16
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-16 09:20:52
|
||||
# 2025-12-16 09:20:52
|
||||
|
||||
[Probability Management](https://www.probabilitymanagement.org/)
|
||||
|
||||
[Handbook of Decision Analysis | Wiley Online Books](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118515853)
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-16 20:04:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-16 20:04:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Metalog Distributions
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+2
-2
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-17
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-17 05:39:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-17 05:39:??
|
||||
|
||||
One aspect of estimating that I find most interesting,
|
||||
but that is criminally understudied,
|
||||
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ to the conceivably far more broad
|
||||
|
||||
New Note: [[ambiguity]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-17 12:32
|
||||
# 2025-12-17 12:32:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/ambiguity
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+6
-6
@@ -11,23 +11,23 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-18
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-18 08:32:18
|
||||
# 2025-12-18 08:32:18
|
||||
|
||||
[[uncertainty-in-construction-estimating]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-18 10:38:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-18 10:38:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
I definitively think my new approach
|
||||
of putting nascent ideas in [[daily-notes|daily notes]]
|
||||
of putting nascent ideas in [[periodic-notes|daily notes]]
|
||||
rather than separate fleeting notes
|
||||
is superior.
|
||||
|
||||
The unfortunate reality is I'll never look at most of them again,
|
||||
so better that they don't crowd out my main notes.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-18 14:18:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-18 14:18:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Estimating Golf
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -54,14 +54,14 @@ or must be questioned like project details.
|
||||
The most interesting part of this problem is choosing when to stop,
|
||||
since it requires one to estimate their certainty of their estimate.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-18 15:22:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-18 15:22:??
|
||||
|
||||
PDI has moved up the schedule to transition to Accubid Anywhere
|
||||
and will be signing a contract with Trimble in late January.
|
||||
|
||||
[Drawer AI | Automated Electrical Takeoff & Estimating](https://drawer.ai/)
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-18 15:30:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-18 15:30:??
|
||||
|
||||
[Kip (unit) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_\(unit\))
|
||||
[Construction Cost Estimating](https://www.quantity-takeoff.com/index.htm)
|
||||
|
||||
+3
-3
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-19
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-19 06:22:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-19 06:22:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[music-theory-as-code]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-19 10:44:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-19 10:44:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational/takeoff
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
> (e.g mineral wool, spray foam) is to be applied,
|
||||
> add extension rings to compensate for the thickness
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-19 10:44:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-19 10:44:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational/takeoff
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+2
-2
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-02
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-02 10:10:18
|
||||
# 2026-01-02 10:10:18
|
||||
|
||||
### Harborside Plaza 4
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
* [x] [[telecom-takeoff#Backbone Riser|Telecom Backbone]]
|
||||
* [x] [[distributed-antenna-systems-takeoff|DAS]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-02 19:21:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-02 19:21:??
|
||||
|
||||
Without apparent prompt I was reminded of a practical joke
|
||||
that my fellow apprentice Joe used to play often
|
||||
|
||||
+3
-3
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-06
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-06 07:47:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-06 07:47:??
|
||||
|
||||
### _Let Them Theory_ Theory
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
3. Person feels that they are doing a service
|
||||
by not engaging in said toxic behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-06 10:00:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-06 10:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
Paraphrased Teams conversation with a peer
|
||||
about [[distribution-designations#Terminations]].
|
||||
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ but I'd probably name them
|
||||
"... 1-Section, ~25% Fill"/"... 1-Section, ~75% Fill" instead.
|
||||
But that's a lot of mental overhead.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-06 10:57:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-06 10:57:??
|
||||
|
||||
Tracking contractor growth by project square footage
|
||||
rather than contract value dollars.
|
||||
|
||||
+6
-6
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-07
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-07 06:41:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-07 06:41:??
|
||||
|
||||
> [!quote] _The Shadow of the Torturer_, Chapter 17: "The Challenge"
|
||||
> No intellect is needed to see those figures who wait beyond the void of death---
|
||||
@@ -30,12 +30,12 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
> One wakes within us and we are ridden like beasts,
|
||||
> though the rider is but some hitherto unguessed part of ourselves.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-07 10:03:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-07 10:03:??
|
||||
|
||||
At Ace, "residential" always meant single-family/duplex construction,
|
||||
but I think now we were the outliers.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-07 10:05:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-07 10:05:??
|
||||
|
||||
See [[pdi-breakdowns#Location]].
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ For lack of a better example,
|
||||
whether a "101 - KITCHEN", without provisions for cooking,
|
||||
would be broken down under "Kitchen".
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-07 10:42:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-07 10:42:??
|
||||
|
||||
When I got to work today Art admonished a fellow estimator
|
||||
for not uploading _all_ of a project's drawings,
|
||||
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ doesn't seem to be at the front of every estimator's mind
|
||||
when doing takeoff or considering process changes,
|
||||
like it was for my mentors and peers at Ace.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-07 12:13:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-07 12:13:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational #topic/estimating #topic/organization
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ everywhere bare was necessary.
|
||||
|
||||
See [[realism-vs-instrumentalism]].
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-07 16:03:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-07 16:03:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational #topic/estimating #topic/organization
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-08
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-08 13:33:34
|
||||
# 2026-01-08 13:33:34
|
||||
|
||||
### 2100 Crystal Drive Takeoff Review
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+4
-4
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-09
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-09 10:00:03
|
||||
# 2026-01-09 10:00:03
|
||||
|
||||
### 2100 Crystal Drive
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ $$
|
||||
|
||||
High Rise .110--.120 hr/sqft
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-09 12:00:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-09 12:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{gather*}
|
||||
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ $$
|
||||
= 4.348125~\text{Weeks Per Month}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-09 14:45:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-09 14:45:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[bid-price-modeling]]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ $t>0$ is time until the final payment.
|
||||
> Figure: lognormal distributions with the same [location](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_parameter)
|
||||
> varied by [scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_parameter).
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-09 16:28:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-09 16:28:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Occam's razor
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+2
-2
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-11
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-11 09:00:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-11 09:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[2026-01-09#2026-01-09 14:45]]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
|
||||
[[decrease-in-sigma]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-11 11:00:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-11 11:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
![[favorite-quotes#"It Takes an Engineer to Build a Bridge that Barely Stands"]]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
-113
@@ -10,116 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-12
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-12 10:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### ECH3 Executed Contract Revision WBS
|
||||
|
||||
For Executed Contract Revisions, Bid GP% must be maintained.
|
||||
In this case a negative variance was added to the buyout budget
|
||||
in order to compensate for an increase in permit fee coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-12 10:42:30
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### Woodbrook Executed Contract Revision Takeoff Check
|
||||
|
||||
#### Unit Dishwasher/Disposal
|
||||
|
||||
Drawings show 2 separate duplex receptacles for dishwasher and disposal
|
||||
Takeoff used `DW & DISPOSAL DUAL CIR - ...`,
|
||||
which includes only one receptacle.
|
||||
|
||||
According to Joel this takeoff is correct for the scenario.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-12 12:23:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
Travelling with Brian Smarslok and Joel Jansen on [[2026-01-15]]
|
||||
to visit [[#Woodbury Heights|an awarded project]] in New Jersey.
|
||||
Flying from TPA to PHL, departure @ 7:00AM.
|
||||
We'll be meeting with the developer, [Greystar](https://www.greystar.com/).
|
||||
|
||||
### Woodbury Heights
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
project-name: GSC Ltd. Woodbury Heights (aka Academy Pointe)
|
||||
sector: Residential
|
||||
market-type: Apartment
|
||||
bldg-type: Garden
|
||||
construction-method: Wood Frame
|
||||
construction-type: V
|
||||
unit-wiring-method: Romex
|
||||
code-data: NEC2020
|
||||
mech-system: Split Dx
|
||||
buildings: 9
|
||||
floors: 3
|
||||
units: 234
|
||||
gross-area: 266,272
|
||||
area-by-type:
|
||||
- exterior-amenity: 12,306
|
||||
- interior-amenity: 5,031
|
||||
- garage: 3,788
|
||||
- saleable: 223,172
|
||||
division: MA 1
|
||||
geographic-region: Northeast
|
||||
metro-area: New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
|
||||
municipality-or-ahj: City of Woodbury
|
||||
power-company: PSE&G
|
||||
stakeholders:
|
||||
- developer: Greystar (HQ - Charleston, SC)
|
||||
architect: LS3P Associates Ltd
|
||||
electrical-engineer: Hurst Engineering
|
||||
contract-value: 2,305,000.00
|
||||
start-date: 2025-05-01
|
||||
end-date: 2026-08-26
|
||||
duration: 11 months
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### GP Variance
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]
|
||||
> "GP%" is **margin** (see [[markup-vs-margin]]).
|
||||
|
||||
The job appears to be doing poorly, at current GP variance of -$299,356.
|
||||
|
||||
About $93,000.00 profit on a $2,391,378 job (~3% margin, down from 16.4% as bid).
|
||||
|
||||
Intend to ask Joel what was missed if he knows,
|
||||
and more generally if he has a strategy for figuring out,
|
||||
between BPM, The Hub, and however many other places we can look.
|
||||
|
||||
I doubt very seriously that mismanagement
|
||||
can be blamed for any significant portion of variance that extreme.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-12 13:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/construction
|
||||
|
||||
**Dry utilities:** utilities other than "wet" utilities (water, sewer, stormwater),
|
||||
namely power, data, and natural gas.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-12 13:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
Joel attributes the [[#GP Variance|apparent variance]] to
|
||||
1. missed Polaris lugs for feeders for one building,
|
||||
2. insufficient budget for equipment rental, and
|
||||
3. upfront costs already paid (construction is 50% complete).
|
||||
|
||||
He also said that operations accused ConEst
|
||||
of providing insufficient length for subfeeds,
|
||||
which he said was true,
|
||||
but not to the extent accused
|
||||
(only ~600ft missed total).
|
||||
|
||||
The award WBS shows $32,382 for equipment rental
|
||||
|
||||
I'm dubious of all these explanations,
|
||||
but I don't have another one.
|
||||
I can't find the ConEst folder or Accubid file.
|
||||
|
||||
+2
-2
@@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-15
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-15 08:11:10
|
||||
# 2026-01-15 08:11:10
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-up to [[2026-01-12#2026-01-12 12:23|2026-01-12 12:23]]
|
||||
|
||||
Left Apartment at 05:30, at terminal around 06:10.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-15 08:15:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-15 08:15:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[2025-11-13#2025-11-13 08:19]]
|
||||
I spoke to a peer about this yesterday.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,60 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-19
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-19 11:57:39
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-up to [[2026-01-10#2026-01-10 08:42]]
|
||||
|
||||
A **natural language parser** would be a big help
|
||||
for the sort of formatting I've been doing recently.
|
||||
|
||||
[[nfpa-70_national-electric-code]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[semantic-line-breaks]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[2025-10-26#2025-10-26 18:36 --- Sunday evening]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-19 12:32:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/construction #topic/estimating
|
||||
|
||||
Real example of [[location-vs-scope]]:
|
||||
|
||||
450-460 James Robertson Parkway Phase II (fka James Roberston Pkwy Mixed Use Development)
|
||||
|
||||
Project is two buildings: Residential and Hotel,
|
||||
entirely separate physically and electrically.
|
||||
Generators for both are located on a lower roof of Residential.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-19 18:13:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Smart Home
|
||||
|
||||
One of the most exciting aspects of home ownership to me
|
||||
is that I'll finally be able to go full smart home.
|
||||
|
||||
A programmable thermostat is at the top of my todo list,
|
||||
for energy efficiency, but mostly habit enforcement.
|
||||
I can not sleep without blankets, and I can not sleep hot.
|
||||
Turning on the lights as an alarm is usually effective,
|
||||
but when it's cold I find it hard not cover my face and go back to sleep.
|
||||
|
||||
In general the ability to make one's house unfit for relaxation
|
||||
at certain hours of the week is very powerful.
|
||||
|
||||
Google's Nest is the stereotypical smart thermostat,
|
||||
but devices using a local, non-Wi-Fi protocol
|
||||
like [Zigbee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zigbee)
|
||||
or [Z-Wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Wave)
|
||||
ought to be preferred.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ulysses Pacts
|
||||
|
||||
The most challenging part of implementing Ulysses pacts with yourself
|
||||
is that sometimes you really _do_ need to jump in after the sirens, %% that's a stretch %%
|
||||
but if you allow yourself an out for emergencies
|
||||
you will almost certainly use it inappropriately in a moment of weakness.
|
||||
I know I will, anyway.
|
||||
Rarely can my fear of disappointing myself
|
||||
overwhelm the immediate appeal of whatever I'm keeping from myself.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,29 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-20
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-20 09:09:12
|
||||
|
||||
Stumbled upon this line while waiting on my computer to restart.
|
||||
|
||||
> [!quote] [[hubbard_2020_failure#The Measurement Inversion]]
|
||||
> Unless we estimate the value of information,
|
||||
> we may go down the deep rabbit hole of adding more and more detail to a model
|
||||
> and trying to gather data on less relevant issues.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-20 10:10:??
|
||||
|
||||
I was reminded again of [[2025-12-04#2025-12-04 09:51]].
|
||||
I added a [[small-tasks|task]] for it.
|
||||
|
||||
[html-calculators](https://github.com/ZaneMeyers/html-calculators)
|
||||
|
||||
I'm now certain that common estimating calculators
|
||||
(e.g. voltage drop)
|
||||
could be easily replaced with documents like this one.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-20 14:25:??
|
||||
|
||||
Jfarrari The Unknowing (Acoustic)
|
||||
|
||||
[[music-analysis]]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,79 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-22
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-22 09:55:42
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
The lighting drawings for
|
||||
450-460 James Robertson Parkway Phase II
|
||||
(fka James Roberston Pkwy Mixed Use Development)
|
||||
show occupancy sensors serving electrical rooms.
|
||||
I knew this was understood to be prohibited,
|
||||
but could not have provided a code reference.
|
||||
|
||||
[[nfpa-70_110_requirements#110.26(D) Illumination.|110.26(D)]]
|
||||
is the relevant section.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-22 11:58:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### 463 Davison Contract Dates
|
||||
|
||||
[[463-davison-ave-ne]]
|
||||
|
||||
Effective date: [[2026-01-21]]
|
||||
|
||||
* [x] Escrow deposit due by [[2026-01-26]]
|
||||
* [x] Loan application submitted by [[2026-01-26]]
|
||||
* [x] Inspection period ends [[2026-01-28]]
|
||||
* [x] Loan approval due by [[2026-02-11]]
|
||||
* [ ] Title commitment due by [[2026-02-27]]
|
||||
|
||||
Closing: [[2026-03-04]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-22 14:56:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating
|
||||
|
||||
### Accurate Budget Vs. Accurate BOM
|
||||
|
||||
#### Quote
|
||||
|
||||
> [!quote] Joel Jansen [[2026-01-15#2026-01-15 13:27]] (pp.)
|
||||
> I'd rather have an accurate budget than an accurate BOM.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Context
|
||||
|
||||
#### Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
It may be counterintuitive to BOM-oriented estimators
|
||||
(typical of those with an electrical background),
|
||||
but deviating from organization standard practice
|
||||
to make an assembly "more accurate"
|
||||
(read: to make the estimate BOM
|
||||
more closely resemble the construction BOM),
|
||||
may make the budget _less_ accurate.
|
||||
|
||||
The review and adjustment process
|
||||
is based on standard practice,
|
||||
so deviations may have unpredictable effects.
|
||||
|
||||
Our assemblies do not include screws.
|
||||
It would be more accurate to the BOM to add them,
|
||||
but we budget for that cost in the summary,
|
||||
so to do so would be double dipping.
|
||||
|
||||
Though not stated as such,
|
||||
we budget for takeoff-to-install deviations the same way.
|
||||
|
||||
\
|
||||
|
||||
An organization's takeoff database
|
||||
ought to include exactly what is necessary for takeoff
|
||||
at the acceptable level of detail, and nothing else.
|
||||
It ought to be assumed by estimators that the previous is true,
|
||||
and that acceptable takeoff of any scope
|
||||
must be possible with the contents of the database.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -11,33 +11,4 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-23
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-23 08:18:53
|
||||
|
||||
This morning I was thinking about the "slippery slope fallacy"
|
||||
and how it's a common instrument of an appeal to fallacy fallacy.
|
||||
As it turns out, the potential validity of slippery slope arguments is well studied.
|
||||
|
||||
[Sorites paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Continuum_fallacy)
|
||||
|
||||
[Many-valued logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic)
|
||||
|
||||
[Fuzzy logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic)
|
||||
|
||||
Strictly speaking, a slippery slope argument is only fallacious
|
||||
if it is not _necessarily_ true that one event must follow another.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-23 12:34:??
|
||||
|
||||
Migrated several notes from Google's Keep
|
||||
|
||||
[[2025-10-20#2025-10-20 ??:??]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[2026-01-04#2026-01-04 ??:??]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[my-resoluute-banjo]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[pats-browning-a5]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-23 12:56:??
|
||||
|
||||
Today the vault hit 50,000 words not including reference material.
|
||||
|
||||
-114
@@ -10,117 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-25
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-25 18:46:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/finance
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Monthly Principal & Interest Payment
|
||||
|
||||
For a **fixed-rate, fully-amortizing mortgage**,
|
||||
the monthly payment is computed using the **standard amortization formula**:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Standard Amortization Formula
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
A = P \cdot \frac{i(1+i)^n}{(1+i)^n-1}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
Where:
|
||||
|
||||
* $A$ = periodic payment amount
|
||||
* $P$ = amount of principal, net of initial payments
|
||||
* $i$ = periodic interest rate
|
||||
* $n$ = total number of payments
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]
|
||||
> $A$ is constant over the term,
|
||||
> the interest portion decreases while the principal portion increases.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Example
|
||||
|
||||
For a 30-year mortgage of $268,000 at 5.75% annual interest:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
P &= 268000
|
||||
i &= \frac{0.0575}{12} = 0.004791\bar{6} \\
|
||||
n &= 30 \cdot 12 = 360
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
The monthly payment amount $A$ is given by:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
A &= 268000 \cdot \frac{0.004791\bar{6} \cdot (1+ 0.004791\bar{6})^{360}}{(1+ 0.004791\bar{6})^{360} - 1} \\
|
||||
A &\approx 1563.98
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Annual Percentage Rate (APR)
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\text{APR} = \frac{\frac{\text{Interest} + \text{Fees}}{\text{Principle}}}{\text{Term Years}}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-25 21:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[the-failure-of-risk-management]]
|
||||
|
||||
If I have a general complaint about [[hubbard_2020_failure]] it's this:
|
||||
Hubbard fails to recognize logical parallels between his different arguments,
|
||||
so to a critical reader they appear contradictory:
|
||||
|
||||
In [[hubbard_2020_failure#Break It Down, Then Do the Math]]
|
||||
Hubbard introduces decomposition as a method for reducing error in estimates,
|
||||
Providing Fermi's "piano tuners in Chicago" problem as an example,
|
||||
without acknowledging that _Fermi_ supplied the decomposition.
|
||||
Hubbard also references [[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition]]
|
||||
which is a similar case.
|
||||
Neither of these examples suggest that decomposition is a magic bullet,
|
||||
or even that a layman's decomposition wouldn't be worse than nothing.
|
||||
Despite this, Hubbard ends the section without qualifier:
|
||||
"Clearly, decomposition helps estimates."
|
||||
|
||||
This section comes only pages after
|
||||
[[hubbard_2020_failure#The Measurement Inversion]]
|
||||
in which Hubbard warns against seeking detail for the sake of it.
|
||||
|
||||
See also [[the-failure-of-risk-management#_Exsupero Ursus_]].
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-25 22:59:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition]]
|
||||
|
||||
I really hate this study.
|
||||
|
||||
I may be out of my league,
|
||||
but it seems wrong to draw conclusions about decomposition as a method
|
||||
when the work was done by the researchers,
|
||||
especially when some of their decompositions really suck.
|
||||
|
||||
> ##### Circumference of 50¢ coin
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * Diameter in inches of a 50¢ coin
|
||||
> * Number of pieces of string the length of the diameter needed to wrap around circumference
|
||||
|
||||
That's not a decomposition.
|
||||
If you don't remember $\pi$
|
||||
that's a harder problem than it was before.
|
||||
|
||||
> ##### Bushels of wheat
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * Population of the world
|
||||
> * Number of bushels of wheat consumed per person per year
|
||||
> * Proportion of wheat wasted per year
|
||||
|
||||
I might have included how much a bushel is,[^1]
|
||||
there's an order of magnitude right there.
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: $1~\text{US bushel} \equiv 9\frac{3571}{11550}~\text{US Gallons} \approx 9.3~\text{US Gallons}$
|
||||
|
||||
The study suggests decomposition has no effect on estimate _confidence_
|
||||
---which I'm tempted to believe because its funny
|
||||
and it tracks with my anecdotal experience---
|
||||
but I wonder if subjects using their own decompositions would present similarly.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,38 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-28
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-28 09:51:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### ConEst OneNote Template
|
||||
|
||||
The ConEst OneNote template concept
|
||||
is flawed in ways that can not be addressed in OneNote,
|
||||
but it has good ideas, too;
|
||||
some I would not have thought could work so well.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Takeoff Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
At Ace my takeoff notes were entirely freeform,
|
||||
and I would have balked at the idea of using a standard checklist.
|
||||
Our projects were so varied
|
||||
that no list could be generic enough
|
||||
to approach universal applicability
|
||||
without being so shallow
|
||||
as to be useless to an experienced estimator.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Estimator Initials
|
||||
|
||||
Voluntary commitment to responsibility.
|
||||
An estimator adding their initials
|
||||
knows they are expected to be familiar with the scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-28 10:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
I'm tempted to replace [[daily-notes]] with timestamped notes
|
||||
from core plugins Unique Note Creator,
|
||||
however the utility of the calendar widget is hard to concede.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,98 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-29
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-29 10:07:37
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating
|
||||
|
||||
A peer's senior, expressing frustration,
|
||||
told them that it if they disagree with an instruction,
|
||||
they must have a reason,
|
||||
implying that the estimator's previous complaints,
|
||||
which were based on conflicting direction
|
||||
received from other estimators and seniors,
|
||||
were made _without_ reason.
|
||||
|
||||
See [[realism-vs-instrumentalism]].
|
||||
|
||||
The peer's senior is looking for a _realist_ objection to his methods,
|
||||
which an estimator without field experience (which the senior has)
|
||||
would be unlikely to be able to provide.
|
||||
Their dismissal of legitimate _instrumental_ complaints
|
||||
(misplaced effort, and deviation from more widely accepted standards)
|
||||
speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of estimating.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-29 17:57:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/finance
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Utility of Above-Minimum Mortgage Payment
|
||||
|
||||
See [[2026-01-25#Calculating Monthly Principal & Interest Payment]].
|
||||
|
||||
Homeowners are often advised to make elective mortgage payments
|
||||
to reduce the total interest paid on the loan,
|
||||
but an unrelated investment with a sufficient return
|
||||
could outweigh the reduced loss.
|
||||
|
||||
Suppose you have a budget surplus of $E$ dollars
|
||||
and are deciding whether to make an elective payment on your mortgage
|
||||
or to invest in a promising opportunity.
|
||||
|
||||
The return on electing to pay $E$ to the mortgage
|
||||
is the
|
||||
(i.e., interest that will no longer accrue)
|
||||
at the end of the loan is:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
R_{\text{mortgage}} = E(1+i)^{n}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]- Explanation
|
||||
> This formula may seem suspiciously straightforward,
|
||||
> but suppose you did _not_ contribute $E$.
|
||||
> That portion of the principle would accrue interest
|
||||
> every month at rate $i$.
|
||||
> After $n$ months, the interest accrued by that portion is given by:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> $$
|
||||
> E(1+i)^{n}
|
||||
> $$
|
||||
|
||||
If the same $E$ is invested elsewhere at monthly return $j$,
|
||||
its future value after $n$ months takes the same form:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\text{FV}_{\text{investment}} = E(1+j)^{n}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, $j$ must exceed $i$
|
||||
for the alternative investment to be preferable to elective payment.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that $i$ and $j$ are adjusted rates,
|
||||
including respect for taxes and utility.
|
||||
|
||||
On second thought, in a utility context,
|
||||
time preference could make $j$ preferable
|
||||
even when slightly lower.
|
||||
|
||||
Short-term investments may be favored
|
||||
when liquidity is needed during the term,
|
||||
and tax deferred investments (IRA)
|
||||
are strongly favored over elective payment
|
||||
since interest is deductible
|
||||
(effective interest < nominal).
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Effect of Elective Payment on Term Length
|
||||
|
||||
The monthly payment and interest rate are fixed,
|
||||
so the term length must decrease
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{align}
|
||||
A &= P \cdot \frac{i(1+i)^n}{(1+i)^n-1} \\
|
||||
P &= A \cdot \frac{(1+i)^n-1}{i(1+i)^n} \\
|
||||
n &= \frac{\ln\left(\frac{A}{A-Pi}\right)}{\ln(1+i)} \\
|
||||
\end{align}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,90 +10,3 @@ tags:
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-30
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-30 08:44
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-up to [[2026-01-28#2026-01-28 10:02]].
|
||||
|
||||
I really would like to implement timestamped notes,
|
||||
especially while it's still somewhat practical to split my old dailies.
|
||||
|
||||
Only the lack of plugin support stops me.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-30 09:06
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
I tried the Smart Connections community plugin.
|
||||
I can't imagine who it could be useful for.
|
||||
It seems to just identify large blocks of similar content,
|
||||
which means that every daily note is connected to every other.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-30 13:42
|
||||
|
||||
Often when I consider learning a new skill or improving an existing one,
|
||||
I conceive of a system that would _force_ me to improve,
|
||||
rather than forget about it (as I am won to do).
|
||||
See [[2026-01-19#Ulysses Pacts]].
|
||||
|
||||
Conventional "home assistant" tech and doctrine
|
||||
caters to a class of people I find bizarre,
|
||||
those that would spend enormous sums of cash and effort
|
||||
just for the marginal benefit
|
||||
of not having to touch light switches as often as normal people.
|
||||
Instead they get to take out their phone,
|
||||
find and open the light switch app,
|
||||
and touch a virtual light switch
|
||||
because the routines they programmed were too conservative.
|
||||
|
||||
Human or software,
|
||||
an assistant without agency
|
||||
_and the will to contradict you_
|
||||
is worthless.
|
||||
If the effort to _communicate_ your instructions
|
||||
exceeds the effort to perform them,
|
||||
you will always do the task yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-30 16:29
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/math/statistics
|
||||
|
||||
### Laplace's Rule of Succession (LRS)
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]
|
||||
> Pierre-Simon Laplace
|
||||
|
||||
If some event occurred $m$ times in $n$ observations,
|
||||
the probability the event will occur in the next observation
|
||||
is given by:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\frac{1+m}{2+n}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule of Five
|
||||
|
||||
The probability that any given sample is above the median is 50%.
|
||||
The probability that the minimum and maximum values of $n$ samples
|
||||
_don't_ straddle the median is $(\frac{1}{2})^{n}$,
|
||||
equivalent to getting the same result on a flipped coin
|
||||
$n$ times in a row.
|
||||
|
||||
There is a 93.75% chance that the median of a population
|
||||
is between the smallest and largest values
|
||||
in any random sample of five from that population.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-30 18:33
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/personal-productivity
|
||||
|
||||
Why is it that I find it so easy, even compulsory,
|
||||
to clean my house while working from home,
|
||||
even after returning from work on-site?
|
||||
Why again does that feeling of necessity
|
||||
persist even into the evening,
|
||||
when I would normally be home anyway,
|
||||
but unable to summon the will to do anything
|
||||
about rapidly growing piles of dirty dishes and clothes?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -19,83 +19,243 @@ J. Scott Armstrong _The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
|
||||
|
||||
## Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
We hypothesized that multiplicative decomposition would improve accuracy only in certain conditions. In particular, we expected it to help for problems involving extreme and uncertain values. We first reanalyzed results from two published studies. Decomposition improved accuracy for nine problems that involved extreme and uncertain values, but for six problems with target values that were not extreme and uncertain, decomposition was not more accurate. Next, we conducted experiments involving 10 problems with 280 subjects making 1078 estimates. As hypothesized, decomposition improved accuracy when the problem involved the estimation of extreme and uncertain values. Otherwise, decomposition often produced less accurate predictions.
|
||||
We hypothesized that multiplicative decomposition
|
||||
would improve accuracy only in certain conditions.
|
||||
In particular, we expected it to help for problems
|
||||
involving extreme and uncertain values.
|
||||
We first reanalyzed results from two published studies.
|
||||
Decomposition improved accuracy for nine problems
|
||||
that involved extreme and uncertain values,
|
||||
but for six problems with target values that were not extreme and uncertain,
|
||||
decomposition was not more accurate.
|
||||
Next, we conducted experiments involving 10 problems with 280 subjects making 1078 estimates.
|
||||
As hypothesized, decomposition improved accuracy
|
||||
when the problem involved the estimation of extreme and uncertain values.
|
||||
Otherwise, decomposition often produced less accurate predictions.
|
||||
|
||||
Keywords: Decision Analysis; Estimation; Extreme Values; Forecasting; Multiplicative Decomposition; Uncertainty
|
||||
Keywords: Decision Analysis; Estimation; Extreme Values;
|
||||
Forecasting; Multiplicative Decomposition; Uncertainty
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
Consider the following question: What is the estimated yearly circulation of a proposed new magazine on raising exotic animals? People are likely to respond that they have no idea. But do they? What are they likely to say if asked whether the number was greater than 100 million? Would they say that it is less than 1000? Most likely, people would say that the true value is somewhere between these two values. Obviously, they know more than they think they do when first asked.
|
||||
Consider the following question:
|
||||
What is the estimated yearly circulation of a proposed new magazine on raising exotic animals?
|
||||
People are likely to respond that they have no idea. But do they?
|
||||
What are they likely to say if asked whether the number was greater than 100 million?
|
||||
Would they say that it is less than 1000?
|
||||
Most likely, people would say that the true value is somewhere between these two values.
|
||||
Obviously, they know more than they think they do when first asked.
|
||||
|
||||
How well a person is able to forecast a quantity is related to the relevant information that they have at their disposal, either from information sources or from experts. It is also a function of whether they can break the problem into parts so that they can use their information effectively. Forecasters frequently break a problem into parts, make forecasts from each part, then recombine the separate forecasts to make a forecast of the target value. In 1968 Howard Raiffa (1968) claimed that such a procedure, _decomposition,_ is 'the spirit of decision analysis.' Since then, research has seemed to support the view that decomposition is a useful strategy with wide applicability and little risk.
|
||||
How well a person is able to forecast a quantity
|
||||
is related to the relevant information that they have at their disposal,
|
||||
either from information sources or from experts.
|
||||
It is also a function of whether they can break the problem into parts
|
||||
so that they can use their information effectively.
|
||||
Forecasters frequently break a problem into parts,
|
||||
make forecasts from each part,
|
||||
then recombine the separate forecasts to make a forecast of the target value.
|
||||
In 1968 Howard Raiffa (1968) claimed that such a procedure,
|
||||
_decomposition,_ is 'the spirit of decision analysis.'
|
||||
Since then, research has seemed to support the view
|
||||
that decomposition is a useful strategy
|
||||
with wide applicability and little risk.
|
||||
|
||||
Prior literature on judgmental decomposition (Armstrong et al., 1975, and MacGregor et al., 1988) concluded that decomposition would be especially effective for problems involving uncertain values. However, we do not know much about the conditions under which judgmental decomposition is most useful. Armstrong et al. (1975) had suggested that the scale of the problem might make further study worthwhile, and our paper addresses that issue. In examining the problem, we reanalyzed results from two studies. In addition, we, conducted experiments with new subjects. We also examined alternative approaches for assessing uncertainty to determine whether they would yield different recommendations about when decomposition is appropriate.
|
||||
Prior literature on judgmental decomposition
|
||||
(Armstrong et al., 1975, and MacGregor et al., 1988)
|
||||
concluded that decomposition would be especially effective
|
||||
for problems involving uncertain values.
|
||||
However, we do not know much about the conditions
|
||||
under which judgmental decomposition is most useful.
|
||||
Armstrong et al. (1975) had suggested that the scale of the problem
|
||||
might make further study worthwhile,
|
||||
and our paper addresses that issue.
|
||||
In examining the problem, we reanalyzed results from two studies.
|
||||
In addition, we, conducted experiments with new subjects.
|
||||
We also examined alternative approaches for assessing uncertainty
|
||||
to determine whether they would yield different recommendations
|
||||
about when decomposition is appropriate.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Hypotheses
|
||||
|
||||
The basic idea behind decomposition is simple. Given a target quantity that is difficult to estimate, one breaks the problem down into subproblems that are easier to estimate. The difficulty lies in translating this idea into practice. For decomposition to be done successfully, certain conditions are desirable. First, the target value should
|
||||
The basic idea behind decomposition is simple.
|
||||
Given a target quantity that is difficult to estimate,
|
||||
one breaks the problem down into subproblems that are easier to estimate.
|
||||
The difficulty lies in translating this idea into practice.
|
||||
For decomposition to be done successfully, certain conditions are desirable.
|
||||
First, the target value should be _one_ that is difficult to estimate.
|
||||
Second, estimation errors for each part should be less, relatively speaking,
|
||||
than the errors for estimating the target value.
|
||||
Third, estimation errors for the parts
|
||||
should not have strong positive correlations between one another.
|
||||
Negatively correlated errors are desirable so that one has offsetting errors.
|
||||
These conditions are not easy to specify in operational terms.
|
||||
|
||||
be _one_ that is difficult to estimate. Second, estimation errors for each part should be less, relatively speaking, than the errors for estimating the target value. Third, estimation errors for the parts should not have strong positive correlations between one another. Negatively correlated errors are desirable so that one has offsetting errors. These conditions are not easy to specify in operational terms.
|
||||
Traditionally, the term decomposition
|
||||
has been used to refer to the practice
|
||||
of breaking a problem into multiplicative elements.
|
||||
An additive breakdown is usually referred to as _disaggregation_ or _segmentation_.
|
||||
Our paper is restricted to multiplicative decomposition
|
||||
and we use the term decomposition to refer to this.
|
||||
|
||||
Traditionally, the term decomposition has been used to refer to the practice of breaking a problem into multiplicative elements. An additive breakdown is usually referred to as _disaggregation or segmentation_. Our paper is restricted to multiplicative decomposition and we use the term decomposition to refer to this.
|
||||
Decomposition is often viewed as a safe strategy.
|
||||
Rather than putting all of one's eggs into a single basket, estimates are provided separately.
|
||||
Errors in one element may compensate for errors in another.
|
||||
However, when errors are positively correlated, they can be explosive.
|
||||
For example, if two components are in the same direction and are each equal to 20%,
|
||||
this would translate into an error of 44% in the target value (1.2 × 1.2 = 1.44).
|
||||
|
||||
Decomposition is often viewed as a safe strategy. Rather than putting all of one's eggs into a single basket, estimates are provided separately. Errors in one element may compensate for errors in another. However, when errors are positively correlated, they can be explosive. For example, if two components are in the same direction and are each equal to 20%, this would translate into an error of 44% in the target value (1.2 x 1.2 = 1.44).
|
||||
Target values with extreme values
|
||||
are likely to create difficulties for subjects
|
||||
unless these numbers are well known.
|
||||
For very large numbers, people might make estimates that are too small.
|
||||
Lacking good intuition,
|
||||
an estimator might assign a 'more reasonable number' to a quantity in question.
|
||||
We would expect the converse for very small numbers, such as 'one in 10 million.'
|
||||
|
||||
Target values with extreme values are likely to create difficulties for subjects unless these numbers are well known. For very large numbers, people might make estimates that are too small. Lacking good intuition, an estimator might assign a 'more reasonable number' to a quantity in question. We would expect the converse for very small numbers, such as 'one in 10 million.'
|
||||
We hypothesized that decomposition would improve accuracy for problems with extreme values
|
||||
when subjects were highly uncertain about the target value.
|
||||
The reasoning is simply that large numbers are confusing to many people.
|
||||
With decomposition, the analyst might be able to avoid the extreme numbers associated with high uncertainty.
|
||||
Uncertainty is an important aspect of this hypothesis.
|
||||
Thus, we do not expect that decomposition would help to estimate well known numbers,
|
||||
such as the distance from the Earth to the sun
|
||||
(when most of the experts believe that the distance is about 93 million miles).
|
||||
|
||||
We hypothesized that decomposition would improve accuracy for problems with extreme values when subjects were highly uncertain about the target value. The reasoning is simply that large numbers are confusing to many people. With decomposition, the analyst might be able to avoid the extreme numbers associated with high uncertainty. Uncertainty is an important aspect of this hypothesis. Thus, we do not expect that decomposition would help to estimate well known numbers, such as the distance from the Earth to the sun (when most of the experts believe that the distance is about 93 million miles).
|
||||
The operational definition of an extreme value is difficult to determine.
|
||||
To provide a simple measure of an extreme value,
|
||||
we initially defined it as any number having more than seven digits
|
||||
(equal to or greater than 10 million).
|
||||
Certainly, many people have difficulty grasping numbers of this magnitude.
|
||||
For example, a book has been written with the sole purpose
|
||||
of helping people to understand the magnitude of one million.
|
||||
It consists of one million dots with comparisons at various points
|
||||
where examples are given (Hertzberg, 1970).[^1]
|
||||
Psychologists also refer to the ability of the human mind
|
||||
to handle only seven things (plus or minus two).
|
||||
|
||||
The operational definition of an extreme value is difficult to determine. To provide a simple measure of an extreme value, we initially defined it as any number having more than seven digits (equal to or greater than 10 million). Certainly, many people have difficulty grasping numbers of this magnitude. For example, a book has been written' with the sole purpose of helping people to understand the magnitude of one million. It consists of one million dots with comparisons at various points where examples are given (Hertzberg, 1970).[^1] Psychologists also refer to the ability of the human mind to handle only seven things (plus or minus two).
|
||||
[^1]: As an example of how difficult it is to think about extreme numbers, consider the following.
|
||||
A typographical error was made in Armstrong et al. (1975).
|
||||
The number of cards saying "Carefree Sugarless Gum"
|
||||
that were sent to a Philadelphia radio station
|
||||
was reported as 66.5 billion rather than the correct value,
|
||||
which was 66.5 million.
|
||||
We missed this in proofreading,
|
||||
and the number has subsequently been cited in other papers
|
||||
without any questions being raised.
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: As an example of how difficult it is to think about extreme numbers, consider the following. A typographical error was made in Armstrong et al. (1975). The number of cards saying "Carefree Sugarless Gum" that were sent to a Philadelphia radio station was reported as 66.5 billion rather than the correct value, which was 66.5 million. We missed this in proofreading, and the number has subsequently been cited in other papers without any questions being raised.
|
||||
The selection of the unit of measure causes problems.
|
||||
For example, one could change the units from miles to inches
|
||||
when asking someone to estimate the distance from New York to San Francisco.
|
||||
However, some important quantities are not amenable,
|
||||
either conceptually or computationally, to changes in scale.
|
||||
|
||||
The selection of the unit of measure causes problems. For example, one could change the units from miles to inches when asking someone to estimate the distance from New York to San Francisco. However, some important quantities are not amenable, either conceptually or computationally, to changes in scale.
|
||||
|
||||
We were also concerned about how best to assess uncertainty. In particular, would different approaches lead to different conclusions about when to use decomposition?
|
||||
We were also concerned about how best to assess uncertainty.
|
||||
In particular, would different approaches lead to different conclusions
|
||||
about when to use decomposition?
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Reanalysis of prior studies
|
||||
|
||||
In an early study of judgmental decomposition, Armstrong et al. (1975) concluded that multiplicative decomposition typically improves accuracy and is unlikely to reduce accuracy. The study involved such problems as estimating the number of packs of Polaroid film that were used in the United States in 1970. The results also supported the hypothesis that decomposition is especially useful for problems where the estimator's perceived uncertainty about the true value is high. A subsequent study by MacGregor et al., (1988) also found that judgmental decomposition improves accuracy. That study used similar problems, for example, estimating the value of imported passenger cars sold in the U.S. the previous year.
|
||||
In an early study of judgmental decomposition,
|
||||
Armstrong et al. (1975) concluded that multiplicative decomposition typically improves accuracy
|
||||
and is unlikely to reduce accuracy.
|
||||
The study involved such problems as estimating the number of packs of Polaroid film
|
||||
that were used in the United States in 1970.
|
||||
The results also supported the hypothesis that decomposition is especially useful for problems
|
||||
where the estimator's perceived uncertainty about the true value is high.
|
||||
A subsequent study by MacGregor et al., (1988)
|
||||
also found that judgmental decomposition improves accuracy.
|
||||
That study used similar problems, for example,
|
||||
estimating the value of imported passenger cars sold in the U.S. the previous year.
|
||||
|
||||
Armstrong et al. (1975) examined uncertainty by asking 151 subjects to rank problems according to the confidence that they had in their ability to provide accurate answers. MacGregor et al. (1988) addressed the same issue by using the variability among 45 subjects in their estimates for each target value. Specifically, they focused on the interquartile range. The interquartile range represents the middle 50% of a distribution and is calculated as the difference between the point at the 75th percentile of the distribution (Q3) and the point at the 25th percentile (Ql); the median of the distribution is at the 50th percentile (Q2). We expected that problems with extreme unknown values would create uncertainty among estimators and would therefore show up in the interquartile range. We examined this hypothesis by comparing the number of digits in each of the 16 problems in MacGregor et al. with the interquartile range of error ratios. As expected, the number of digits was related to uncertainty. The correlation between the number of digits in the actual values for each problem and the corresponding interquartile range was about +0.75.
|
||||
Armstrong et al. (1975) examined uncertainty
|
||||
by asking 151 subjects to rank problems according to the confidence
|
||||
that they had in their ability to provide accurate answers.
|
||||
MacGregor et al. (1988) addressed the same issue
|
||||
by using the variability among 45 subjects in their estimates for each target value.
|
||||
Specifically, they focused on the interquartile range.
|
||||
The interquartile range represents the middle 50% of a distribution
|
||||
and is calculated as the difference between
|
||||
the point at the 75th percentile of the distribution (Q3)
|
||||
and the point at the 25th percentile (Q1);
|
||||
the median of the distribution is at the 50th percentile (Q2).
|
||||
We expected that problems with extreme unknown values
|
||||
would create uncertainty among estimators
|
||||
and would therefore show up in the interquartile range.
|
||||
We examined this hypothesis by comparing the number of digits
|
||||
in each of the 16 problems in MacGregor et al. with the interquartile range of error ratios.
|
||||
As expected, the number of digits was related to uncertainty.
|
||||
The correlation between the number of digits in the actual values for each problem
|
||||
and the corresponding interquartile range was about +0.75.
|
||||
|
||||
To examine whether decomposition improved accuracy for problems involving extreme unknown numbers, we split the MacGregor et al. data according to magnitude and disagreement. This yielded five problems where scale was not extreme (using seven or fewer digits gave a roughly equal breakdown of the problems) and where assessors were in agreement (we used an interquartile range with a log l o of 1.3 or less, which means that the ratio between the lowest quartile and the highest quartile is less than two). The five problems were the numbers of physicians, marriages, alcoholics, university employees and hospital employees. Six problems had extreme magnitude (over seven digits) and high disagreement among estimators (interquartile range of 1.75 or more, implying a ratio of 5.6 of the largest to smallest quartile). These problems involved the numbers of welfare cases, imported cars, alcohol dollars, mail handled by post offices, gasoline and cigarettes.
|
||||
To examine whether decomposition improved accuracy for problems involving extreme unknown numbers,
|
||||
we split the MacGregor et al. data according to magnitude and disagreement.
|
||||
This yielded five problems where scale was not extreme
|
||||
(using seven or fewer digits gave a roughly equal breakdown of the problems)
|
||||
and where assessors were in agreement
|
||||
(we used an interquartile range with a log l o of 1.3 or less,
|
||||
which means that the ratio between the lowest quartile and the highest quartile is less than two).
|
||||
The five problems were the numbers of physicians, marriages,
|
||||
alcoholics, university employees and hospital employees.
|
||||
Six problems had extreme magnitude (over seven digits)
|
||||
and high disagreement among estimators
|
||||
(interquartile range of 1.75 or more,
|
||||
implying a ratio of 5.6 of the largest to smallest quartile).
|
||||
These problems involved the numbers of welfare cases, imported cars,
|
||||
alcohol dollars, mail handled by post offices, gasoline and cigarettes.
|
||||
|
||||
We estimated the average improvement for decomposition in MacGregor et al. in two steps. First, geometric mean estimates were calculated for the group of subjects who used the decomposed version (this being the computed full algorithm from Table 6 in MacGregor et al.) and for those who used the global version. These estimates were then compared with the actual values for each problem.
|
||||
|
||||
### Table 1 Decomposition versus global errors: reanalysis of prior studies
|
||||
|
||||
| Conditions | Number of problems | Median error ratios | | |
|
||||
| ------------------------------ | ------------------ | ------------------- | ------------- | --------------- |
|
||||
| | | Global | Decomposition | Error reduction |
|
||||
| | | | | |
|
||||
| _Not extreme, low uncertainty_ | 5 | 1.8 | 2.3 | -0.5 |
|
||||
| MacGregor et al. | 1 | 5.4 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
|
||||
| Armstrong et al. | | | | |
|
||||
| | | | | |
|
||||
| _Extreme, high uncertainty_ | | | | |
|
||||
| MacGregor et al. | 6 | 99.3 | 3.0 | 96.3 |
|
||||
| Armstrong et al. | 3 | 18.0 | 5.7 | 12.3 |
|
||||
| Conditions | Number of problems | | Median error ratios | |
|
||||
| ------------------------------ | ------------------ | ---------- | ------------------- | ------------------- |
|
||||
| | | **Global** | **Decomposition** | **Error reduction** |
|
||||
| | | | | |
|
||||
| _Not extreme, low uncertainty_ | 5 | 1.8 | 2.3 | -0.5 |
|
||||
| MacGregor et al. | 1 | 5.4 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
|
||||
| Armstrong et al. | | | | |
|
||||
| | | | | |
|
||||
| _Extreme, high uncertainty_ | | | | |
|
||||
| MacGregor et al. | 6 | 99.3 | 3.0 | 96.3 |
|
||||
| Armstrong et al. | 3 | 18.0 | 5.7 | 12.3 |
|
||||
|
||||
Decomposition errors were smaller than global errors for each of the six problems where dis agreement (interquartile range) was high and the actual values were extreme. Subjects who made global estimates were in error by a factor of 99.3 (9930%) on average. In contrast, the error ratio for the decomposed version for the same six problems was 3.0, or 300%.[^2] Thus, the median error was reduced by a factor of 96.3 (see bottom part of Table 1). For problems without extreme values and where disagreement was low, decomposition yielded less accurate estimates, as its error was 50% higher than that for the global approach. Table 1 summarizes these results.
|
||||
|
||||
[^2]: We calculated the geometric means of the two error ratios in the middle of the distribution for the global and decompositional conditions.
|
||||
[^2]: We calculated the geometric means of the two error ratios
|
||||
in the middle of the distribution for the global and decompositional conditions.
|
||||
|
||||
We did a similar analysis for the problems in Armstrong et al. (1975). Here, the analysis was based on individuals rather than groups. Error ratios were calculated for each subject's estimate for each problem by comparing their estimates with the actual values. The median error ratio was then obtained for each problem. Decomposition produced substantial gains (1230% error reduction) for the three extreme problems with the highest uncertainty.[^3] Decomposition also provided a lesser improvement for the one problem that did not involve an extreme number. Table 1 summarizes these results as well.
|
||||
|
||||
[^3]: We used the median error ratios across the new groups of subjects that were tested for the film and tobacco problems. Only two groups did the Contest problem, and here we used the geometric mean.
|
||||
[^3]: We used the median error ratios across the new groups of subjects that were tested for the film and tobacco problems.
|
||||
Only two groups did the Contest problem, and here we used the geometric mean.
|
||||
|
||||
Averaging across the two studies (weighting according to the number of questions), decomposition reduced error by a ratio of 68.3 for the nine problems involving extreme uncertain values. However, decomposition had no overall effect for the other six problems.
|
||||
Averaging across the two studies (weighting according to the number of questions),
|
||||
decomposition reduced error by a ratio of 68.3 for the nine problems involving extreme uncertain values.
|
||||
However, decomposition had no overall effect for the other six problems.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. An experiment on the effects of extreme uncertain values
|
||||
|
||||
We conducted an experiment to provide further evidence on the effects of multiplicative decomposition when applied to problems with extreme uncertain numbers. This section describes the problems and the subjects.
|
||||
We conducted an experiment to provide further evidence
|
||||
on the effects of multiplicative decomposition
|
||||
when applied to problems with extreme uncertain numbers.
|
||||
This section describes the problems and the subjects.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1. Problems
|
||||
|
||||
We selected problems in which the magnitude of unknown numbers to be estimated varied. Our extreme problems had seven or more digits, ranging in value from 3 540 940 to 4 243 000 000. As noted earlier, this definition of _extreme_ is somewhat arbitrary.[^4] Not extreme numbers in this set of problems had four digits or less, in order to provide a marked distinction from extreme numbers. Table 2 provides the 10 problems, along with, the correct answers taken from almanacs and fact books.
|
||||
We selected problems in which the magnitude of unknown numbers to be estimated varied.
|
||||
Our extreme problems had seven or more digits, ranging in value from 3,540,940 to 4,243,000,000.
|
||||
As noted earlier, this definition of _extreme_ is somewhat arbitrary.[^4]
|
||||
Not extreme numbers in this set of problems had four digits or less,
|
||||
in order to provide a marked distinction from extreme numbers.
|
||||
Table 2 provides the 10 problems, along with the correct answers taken from almanacs and fact books.
|
||||
|
||||
[^4]: After analyzing the prior research (Table 1), we revised our definition of extreme for this study from 'more than seven digits' to 'seven or more digits.' Extremity could also be defined in terms of small numbers. An example would be, 'What is the chance that a person in the U.S. will die next year because of botulism?' (The answer is 1/100,000,000.)
|
||||
[^4]: After analyzing the prior research (Table 1),
|
||||
we revised our definition of extreme for this study
|
||||
from 'more than seven digits' to 'seven or more digits.'
|
||||
Extremity could also be defined in terms of small numbers.
|
||||
An example would be,
|
||||
'What is the chance that a person in the U.S. will die next year because of botulism?'
|
||||
(The answer is 1/100,000,000.)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Table 2 Problems and magnitudes: versus actual versus estimated
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -103,13 +263,35 @@ We selected problems in which the magnitude of unknown numbers to be estimated v
|
||||
|
||||
All questions relate to the U.S. unless stated otherwise.
|
||||
|
||||
Because actual values would not be known to the subjects, we first determined whether it would be possible to identify problems that might involve extreme values. We reasoned that typical subjects would not do well at such estimates. Thus, we used the geometric mean of the upper quartile (top 25%) of the estimates. That is, if the upper quartile of subjects expected this to be an extreme number, then it was treated as such. By this measure, the expected number of digits was a good match of the actual number of digits, as shown in Table 2. The largest estimate for the small group was that Argentine immigrants would be a five-digit number, and the smallest estimate
|
||||
Because actual values would not be known to the subjects,
|
||||
we first determined whether it would be possible
|
||||
to identify problems that might involve extreme values.
|
||||
We reasoned that typical subjects would not do well at such estimates.
|
||||
Thus, we used the geometric mean of the upper quartile (top 25%) of the estimates.
|
||||
That is, if the upper quartile of subjects expected this to be an extreme number,
|
||||
then it was treated as such.
|
||||
By this measure, the expected number of digits
|
||||
was a good match of the actual number of digits, as shown in Table 2.
|
||||
The largest estimate for the small group
|
||||
was that Argentine immigrants would be a five-digit number,
|
||||
and the smallest estimate for the extreme problems
|
||||
was that the Circulation of TV _Guide_ would be a six-digit number,
|
||||
so the classification of the problems was the same.
|
||||
|
||||
for the extreme problems was that the Circulation of TV _Guide_ would be a six-digit number, so the classification of the problems was the same.
|
||||
To determine whether the large target values were uncertain,
|
||||
we examined the interquartile ranges.
|
||||
The smallest of these ranges for the group of problems having extreme values
|
||||
indicated that the upper quartile mean
|
||||
was more than 10 times as large as the lower quartile mean.
|
||||
|
||||
To determine whether the large target values were uncertain, we examined the interquartile ranges. The smallest of these ranges for the group of problems having extreme values indicted that the upper quartile mean was more than 10 times as large as the lower quartile mean.
|
||||
|
||||
For each problem we constructed a global version and a decomposed version. Table 3 summarizes the full set of 10 decomposed algorithms. For the sake of brevity, only the algorithm steps requiring subjects to make component estimates are provided; intermediate arithmetic steps are omitted. We also asked subjects to rate their knowledge about each target value, their expected accuracy and the probability that their answer would be within 10% of the true value.
|
||||
For each problem we constructed a global version and a decomposed version.
|
||||
Table 3 summarizes the full set of 10 decomposed algorithms.
|
||||
For the sake of brevity,
|
||||
only the algorithm steps requiring subjects to make component estimates are provided;
|
||||
intermediate arithmetic steps are omitted.
|
||||
We also asked subjects to rate their knowledge about each target value,
|
||||
their expected accuracy
|
||||
and the probability that their answer would be within 10% of the true value.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Table 3 Abbreviated descriptions of algorithms for the ten estimation problems
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -175,15 +357,36 @@ For each problem we constructed a global version and a decomposed version. Table
|
||||
> * Distance in miles from San Diego, CA to Seattle, WA
|
||||
> * Proportion of the U.S. that would fit into a rectangle with an area equal to the product of the above dimensions
|
||||
|
||||
For some of the problems, such as _Athletic shoes_, one of the components involved an extreme value. However, we were reasonably confident that subjects would know this value. Also, data on these values are readily available so that one could insert the known value.
|
||||
For some of the problems, such as _Athletic shoes_,
|
||||
one of the components involved an extreme value.
|
||||
However, we were reasonably confident that subjects would know this value.
|
||||
Also, data on these values are readily available so that one could insert the known value.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2. Subjects
|
||||
|
||||
Subjects for the experiment were individuals who answered advertisements in the University of Oregon daily newspaper. The advertisements called for participation in judgment and decision-making tasks. Two hundred and eighty individuals participated in the experiment, which was conducted in two sessions. Subjects were randomly assigned to either the global or the decomposition treatment. In the first session, the problems _$ coin, U.S. presidents, Argentine immigrants, Bank failures, Circulation of TV Guide_ and _Bushels of wheat_ were administered. Those subjects assigned to the global treatment received all six problems. Because of time constraints, subjects assigned to the decomposition condition received half of the problems. In the second session, the remaining four problems were administered. Again, subjects in the global condition received all four of the remaining problems, while decomposition subjects received half of the problems.
|
||||
Subjects for the experiment were individuals
|
||||
who answered advertisements in the University of Oregon daily newspaper.
|
||||
The advertisements called for participation in judgment and decision-making tasks.
|
||||
Two hundred and eighty individuals participated in the experiment,
|
||||
which was conducted in two sessions.
|
||||
Subjects were randomly assigned to either the global or the decomposition treatment.
|
||||
In the first session, the problems _$ coin, U.S. presidents, Argentine immigrants,_
|
||||
_Bank failures, Circulation of TV Guide_ and _Bushels of wheat_ were administered.
|
||||
Those subjects assigned to the global treatment received all six problems.
|
||||
Because of time constraints, subjects assigned to the decomposition condition received half of the problems.
|
||||
In the second session, the remaining four problems were administered.
|
||||
Again, subjects in the global condition received all four of the remaining problems,
|
||||
while decomposition subjects received half of the problems.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Results
|
||||
|
||||
As had been done in previous studies of judgmental forecasting (Armstrong et al., 1975, and MacGregor et al., 1988), we used the error ratio as an index of accuracy. The error ratio is computed as the ratio of the individual's estimated value to the correct answer, or the reverse, such that the result is greater than or equal to 1.0. Estimates for a given problem were summarized across subjects by computing the geometric mean of the error ratios.
|
||||
As had been done in previous studies of judgmental forecasting
|
||||
(Armstrong et al., 1975, and MacGregor et al., 1988),
|
||||
we used the error ratio as an index of accuracy.
|
||||
The error ratio is computed as the ratio of the individual's estimated value to the correct answer,
|
||||
or the reverse, such that the result is greater than or equal to 1.0.
|
||||
Estimates for a given problem were summarized across subjects
|
||||
by computing the geometric mean of the error ratios.
|
||||
|
||||
We had hypothesized that decomposition would improve accuracy for problems having extreme uncertain values. The results, shown in Table 4, were consistent with this hypothesis. We summarized the problems into two groups: extreme problems (correct answer greater than 3,540,940) and not extreme problems (correct answer 4,004 or less). Accuracy was superior for decomposition in five of the six extreme problems, with an error reduction that ranged from a factor of 4.10 (_Athletic shoes_) to 91.47 (_Auto accidents_). Only the _Circulation of TV Guide_ problem suffered a decrease in accuracy with decomposition. This decrease was modest compared to the gains in accuracy for the other five extreme problems, and this decrease was not statistically significant. Across all six problems, the median error was reduced by a factor of 19.78, approximately a 20-fold improvement in accuracy. Following Winer's method of adding is (as described in Rosenthal, 1978), these results were statistically significant at _p_ < 0.001 using a one-tail test.[^5]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -221,9 +424,21 @@ By contrast, accuracy for not extreme problems was reduced with decomposition. E
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.1. Uncertainty of estimation
|
||||
|
||||
Whether decomposition is appropriate depends on some measure of uncertainty. We propose that analysts first determine whether the problem, is subject to much uncertainty. If so, decomposition may be appropriate, especially if one can structure the problem to avoid extreme certain values.
|
||||
Whether decomposition is appropriate depends on some measure of uncertainty.
|
||||
We propose that analysts first determine whether the problem,
|
||||
is subject to much uncertainty.
|
||||
If so, decomposition may be appropriate,
|
||||
especially if one can structure the problem to avoid extreme certain values.
|
||||
|
||||
Otherwise, global estimates should be used. Uncertainty decreases the degree to which an estimate from various assessors exhibits a lower variance or a reduced range. Table 5 shows the interquartile ranges for the global and decomposed estimates. The entries consist of the logs of Q1 and Q3 as well as their differences. Q1 corresponds to the 25th percentile of the distribution, while Q3 corresponds to the 75th percentile. If decomposition reduces uncertainty, then a lower Q3-Q1 difference should result. Computed in this way, the differences in Table 5 can be interpreted as the number of digits by which the estimates of Q1 and Q3 differed.
|
||||
Otherwise, global estimates should be used.
|
||||
Uncertainty decreases the degree to which an estimate from various assessors
|
||||
exhibits a lower variance or a reduced range.
|
||||
Table 5 shows the interquartile ranges for the global and decomposed estimates.
|
||||
The entries consist of the logs of Q1 and Q3 as well as their differences.
|
||||
Q1 corresponds to the 25th percentile of the distribution, while Q3 corresponds to the 75th percentile.
|
||||
If decomposition reduces uncertainty, then a lower Q3-Q1 difference should result.
|
||||
Computed in this way, the differences in Table 5 can be interpreted
|
||||
as the number of digits by which the estimates of Q1 and Q3 differed.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Table 5 Analysis of interquartile ranges
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -231,13 +446,13 @@ Otherwise, global estimates should be used. Uncertainty decreases the degree to
|
||||
| ----------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------------------- | ---------- | ------ | ------------------- |
|
||||
| | Log Q3 | Log Q1 | Differences (Q3-Q1) | Log Q3 | Log Q1 | Differences (Q3-Q1) |
|
||||
| | | | | | | |
|
||||
| Not extreme | | | | | | |
|
||||
| \$ coin | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.21 |
|
||||
| _Not extreme_ | | | | | | |
|
||||
| $ coin | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.21 |
|
||||
| U.S. presidents | 1.71 | 1.59 | 0.12 | 1.70 | 1.53 | 0.17 |
|
||||
| Argentine immigrants | 4.30 | 3.30 | 1.00 | 5.74 | 3.60 | 2.14 |
|
||||
| Bank failures | 3.70 | 2.08 | 1.62 | 4.92 | 3.18 | 1.74 |
|
||||
| | | | | | | |
|
||||
| Extreme | | | | | | |
|
||||
| _Extreme_ | | | | | | |
|
||||
| Area of U.S. | 6.30 | 4.00 | 2.30 | 6.76 | 6.39 | 0.37 |
|
||||
| Circulation of TV Guide | 7.54 | 6.18 | 1.36 | 7.80 | 5.95 | 1.85 |
|
||||
| Athletic shoes | 8.00 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 8.84 | 7.75 | 1.09 |
|
||||
@@ -249,9 +464,7 @@ For not extreme problems, the interquartile ranges are higher for the decomposed
|
||||
|
||||
For extreme problems, the range for the decomposed estimate was less than that for the global, except for the _Auto accidents_ and _Circulation of TV Guide_ problems. In other words, decomposition often improved confidence for difficult problems when the agreement among assessors' estimates was used to gauge confidence. Furthermore, the differences between the global and decomposed ranges for the four problems with improvements were substantial, being typically greater than one digit. Although the number of problems is not sufficient to assess the relationship between the interquartile ranges arid errors, this result is consistent with that found in the seven problems examined by Aschenbrenner and Kasubek (1978).
|
||||
|
||||
A tenet of decomposition states that the parts of a problem are more tractable than the whole. This means that uncertainty in the estimates of a problem's components should be lower than that for the global estimate. We computed the interquartile ranges for each of the components of the six problems in Table 6. The parts were easier
|
||||
|
||||
to estimate than the target value for three problems: _50 ¢ coin, U.S. presidents_ and _Bushels of wheat._ The first two of these had target values that were easy to assess directly, whereas _Bushels of wheat_ had an extreme value that was difficult to measure. The _Bushels of wheat_ problem met all conditions for decomposition. As expected, decomposition was successful for this problem. Conversely, decomposition was less accurate for four of the other five questions.
|
||||
A tenet of decomposition states that the parts of a problem are more tractable than the whole. This means that uncertainty in the estimates of a problem's components should be lower than that for the global estimate. We computed the interquartile ranges for each of the components of the six problems in Table 6. The parts were easier to estimate than the target value for three problems: _50 ¢ coin, U.S. presidents_ and _Bushels of wheat._ The first two of these had target values that were easy to assess directly, whereas _Bushels of wheat_ had an extreme value that was difficult to measure. The _Bushels of wheat_ problem met all conditions for decomposition. As expected, decomposition was successful for this problem. Conversely, decomposition was less accurate for four of the other five questions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Table 6 Assessments of subjective confidence**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -260,7 +473,7 @@ to estimate than the target value for three problems: _50 ¢ coin, U.S. presiden
|
||||
| | Global | Decomposition | Global | Decomposition | Global | Decomposition |
|
||||
| | | | | | | |
|
||||
| U.S. Presidents | 6.16 | 5.46 | 6.02 | 5.38 | 64.4 | 35.2 |
|
||||
| \$ coin | 5.50 | 4.45 | 5.61 | 4.45 | 54.9 | 55.8 |
|
||||
| $ coin | 5.50 | 4.45 | 5.61 | 4.45 | 54.9 | 55.8 |
|
||||
| Circulation/TV Guide | 3.40 | 2.35 | 3.46 | 2.58 | 32.1 | 24.6 |
|
||||
| Bank failures | 3.19 | 2.17 | 3.06 | 2.20 | 28.0 | 18.9 |
|
||||
| Argentinie immigrants | 2.15 | 1.81 | 2.38 | 2.32 | 24.4 | 16.8 |
|
||||
@@ -270,7 +483,13 @@ to estimate than the target value for three problems: _50 ¢ coin, U.S. presiden
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.2. Subjective confidence ratings
|
||||
|
||||
A second source of uncertainty estimates is the subjective confidence that forecasters have in their knowledge about a problem. We addressed three questions with respect to subjective uncertainty. (1) Do alternative measures of uncertainty yield similar recommendations? If yes, then we could use the least expensive approach to assessing uncertainty. (2) Are judges more confident when they make decomposed estimates or global estimates? (3) Does decomposition lead subjects to become better calibrated about their confidence?
|
||||
A second source of uncertainty estimates is the subjective confidence
|
||||
that forecasters have in their knowledge about a problem.
|
||||
We addressed three questions with respect to subjective uncertainty.
|
||||
(1) Do alternative measures of uncertainty yield similar recommendations?
|
||||
If yes, then we could use the least expensive approach to assessing uncertainty.
|
||||
(2) Are judges more confident when they make decomposed estimates or global estimates?
|
||||
(3) Does decomposition lead subjects to become better calibrated about their confidence?
|
||||
|
||||
As the simplest and least expensive approach, we asked subjects to provide judgments of their knowledge about each target value, and the degree to which they thought their estimate would be accurate. Self-ratings of knowledge and accuracy were obtained from the subjects before they made their estimates by using the following scales.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -280,57 +499,168 @@ As the simplest and least expensive approach, we asked subjects to provide judgm
|
||||
>
|
||||
> "How _accurately_ do you think you will be able to estimate this quantity?"
|
||||
>
|
||||
> (1= low accuracy; 10 = high accuracy).
|
||||
> (1 = low accuracy; 10 = high accuracy).
|
||||
|
||||
Judgments were obtained for a subset of six problems. Table 6 shows alternative assessments of accuracy for these problems.
|
||||
Judgments were obtained for a subset of six problems.
|
||||
Table 6 shows alternative assessments of accuracy for these problems.
|
||||
|
||||
After subjects had estimated the value for each of the six problems, we asked them to indicate the probability that their estimate was within 10% of the correct answer. These results are also presented in Table 6. Finally, we calculated the interquartile ranges of the global estimate for each problem, shown in the last column of Table 6.
|
||||
After subjects had estimated the value for each of the six problems,
|
||||
we asked them to indicate the probability that their estimate was within 10% of the correct answer.
|
||||
These results are also presented in Table 6.
|
||||
Finally, we calculated the interquartile ranges of the global estimate for each problem,
|
||||
shown in the last column of Table 6.
|
||||
|
||||
With the exception of the interquartile range, the different approaches to subjective confidence produced similar results. The intercorrelations among the three measures across the six problems were all over 0.99. Given the close correspondence among the three measures, they were expected to be of roughly equal value in deciding when to use decomposition.
|
||||
With the exception of the interquartile range,
|
||||
the different approaches to subjective confidence produced similar results.
|
||||
The intercorrelations among the three measures across the six problems were all over 0.99.
|
||||
Given the close correspondence among the three measures,
|
||||
they were expected to be of roughly equal value in deciding when to use decomposition.
|
||||
|
||||
We applied the same procedures to subjects who received the decomposed versions of the problems. Across all six problems, subjects had higher self-ratings of problem knowledge in the global condition than in the decomposition condition. Because subjects in the decomposition condition received more than one estimation problem, their self-ratings of problem knowledge may have been influenced by the difficulties they experienced
|
||||
|
||||
with the complexity of the problem. This was also the case for self-ratings of accuracy, except for the _Bushels of wheat_ problem. Similar results were obtained when we asked the questions about confidence after subjects had completed their estimates. In other words, the different assessments each led to the conclusion that subjects in the decomposition condition thought that the problems were more difficult than did subjects in the global estimation condition. These results agree with the findings of Sniezek et al. (1990), who had concluded that the increased processing (for decomposed problems) leads to a reduction in confidence. In retrospect, it might have been better for us to have asked for estimates of the difficulty for each of the parts. Henrion et al. (1993) did this, and their subjects reported that the _components_ were easier to estimate than the global value.
|
||||
We applied the same procedures to subjects who received the decomposed versions of the problems.
|
||||
Across all six problems, subjects had higher self-ratings of problem knowledge
|
||||
in the global condition than in the decomposition condition.
|
||||
Because subjects in the decomposition condition received more than one estimation problem,
|
||||
their self-ratings of problem knowledge
|
||||
may have been influenced by the difficulties they experienced with the complexity of the problem.
|
||||
This was also the case for self-ratings of accuracy, except for the _Bushels of wheat_ problem.
|
||||
Similar results were obtained when we asked the questions about confidence
|
||||
after subjects had completed their estimates.
|
||||
In other words, the different assessments
|
||||
each led to the conclusion that subjects in the decomposition condition
|
||||
thought that the problems were more difficult than did subjects in the global estimation condition.
|
||||
These results agree with the findings of Sniezek et al. (1990),
|
||||
who had concluded that the increased processing
|
||||
(for decomposed problems) leads to a reduction in confidence.
|
||||
In retrospect, it might have been better for us
|
||||
to have asked for estimates of the difficulty for each of the parts.
|
||||
Henrion et al. (1993) did this, and their subjects reported
|
||||
that the _components_ were easier to estimate than the global value.
|
||||
|
||||
Are subjects better calibrated when they use decomposition? Probability assessments are said to be externally calibrated if, for a given probability assessment (e.g., 0.6), exactly that proportion (e.g., 60%) turn out to be correct. We summarized the calibration results for global and decomposed estimates, across all ten problems. Mean probability assessments were generally higher than the proportion correct for both approaches, indicating overconfidence. On average, those making global estimates expected 38.9% of their answers to be within 10% of the true value, but only 10.9% were that accurate. Those using the decomposed approach expected 32.6% of their estimates to be within 10% of the true value, but only 9.0% were that accurate. In effect, decomposition reduced overconfidence from 28.0% in the global case to 23.6% for decomposition, with the largest reduction occurring in those situations where subjects felt most confident, as shown in Fig. 1.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3. Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
Two of the four problems in the not extreme version _(Argentine immigrants_ and _Bank failures)_ involved elements with extreme values. Because each of the components had an element dealing with the U.S. population, we assumed that the subjects would be familiar with these values. To examine this assumption, we analyzed the population estimates for each of the problems. The median population estimate for the _Argentine immigrants_ problem was in error by a factor of 1.97 from the actual, while for _Bank failures_ it was in error by a factor of 1.42. For both problems, errors for the U.S. population component were less than errors for the global quantities. Nevertheless, we were surprised at the difficulty individuals had with estimating this value. In practical problems, of course, one could simply use the actual value. In their study of decomposition, Henrion et al. (1993) gave the U.S. population value to the subjects.
|
||||
Two of the four problems in the not extreme version
|
||||
_(Argentine immigrants_ and _Bank failures)_
|
||||
involved elements with extreme values.
|
||||
Because each of the components had an element dealing with the U.S. population,
|
||||
we assumed that the subjects would be familiar with these values.
|
||||
To examine this assumption, we analyzed the population estimates for each of the problems.
|
||||
The median population estimate for the _Argentine immigrants_ problem
|
||||
was in error by a factor of 1.97 from the actual,
|
||||
while for _Bank failures_ it was in error by a factor of 1.42.
|
||||
For both problems, errors for the U.S. population component
|
||||
were less than errors for the global quantities.
|
||||
Nevertheless, we were surprised at the difficulty individuals had with estimating this value.
|
||||
In practical problems, of course, one could simply use the actual value.
|
||||
In their study of decomposition, Henrion et al. (1993) gave the U.S. population value to the subjects.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fig. 1. Calibration of probability assessments that estimated answer is within 10% of true answer.
|
||||
> ##### Fig. 1. Calibration of probability assessments that estimated answer is within 10% of true answer.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> %% ![[figure_1.jpeg]] %%
|
||||
|
||||
%% ![[figure_1.jpeg]] %%
|
||||
The issue of 'how extreme is extreme' has not been resolved.
|
||||
We proposed a definition based on the number of digits (six or seven),
|
||||
but we did not examine alternatives.
|
||||
Nor did we resolve the issue of how to specify the unit of measure.
|
||||
|
||||
The issue of 'how extreme is extreme' has not been resolved. We proposed a definition based on the number of digits (six or seven), but we did not examine alternatives. Nor did we resolve the issue of how to specify the unit of measure.
|
||||
|
||||
We expect that other conditions might affect decisions on when to use decomposition. For example, question type may have some importance. We do not know the extent to which our problem selection may have affected findings.
|
||||
We expect that other conditions might affect decisions on when to use decomposition.
|
||||
For example, question type may have some importance.
|
||||
We do not know the extent to which our problem selection may have affected findings.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
Despite the improved accuracy it afforded, decomposition did not increase subjects' confidence in the accuracy of their estimates. However, the interquartile estimates were smaller for the decomposed estimates and confidence in the accuracy of estimates was slightly more appropriate.
|
||||
Despite the improved accuracy it afforded,
|
||||
decomposition did not increase subjects' confidence in the accuracy of their estimates.
|
||||
However, the interquartile estimates were smaller for the decomposed estimates
|
||||
and confidence in the accuracy of estimates was slightly more appropriate.
|
||||
|
||||
Perceived uncertainty measures are easy to obtain. As shown in Table 6, self-assessments of uncertainty provided similar rankings of the relative uncertainty for the problems. The interquartile ranges provided somewhat different information than the self-assessments. Interquartile ranges of the estimates are not expensive, but they do require a pretest.
|
||||
Perceived uncertainty measures are easy to obtain.
|
||||
As shown in Table 6, self-assessments of uncertainty
|
||||
provided similar rankings of the relative uncertainty for the problems.
|
||||
The interquartile ranges provided somewhat different information than the self-assessments.
|
||||
Interquartile ranges of the estimates are not expensive, but they do require a pretest.
|
||||
|
||||
The present study addresses the issue of whether estimates by individuals can be improved when no other data are available. However, we expect that other situational characteristics or estimation-aiding strategies would also affect the usefulness of decomposition. For example, a forecaster could decompose a problem to use different sources of information or different experts. For some parts of the problem, known values may exist. Alternative decomposition methods could be used to produce an estimate, and resulting values for a quantity could be resolved in light of one another. MacGregor and Liehtenstein (1991) attempted such an approach and found that subjects tended to resolve estimates by applying an averaging model. Revised estimates generally fell between two estimates of a target quantity, where each judgmental estimate was produced by a different method.
|
||||
The present study addresses the issue of whether estimates by individuals
|
||||
can be improved when no other data are available.
|
||||
However, we expect that other situational characteristics
|
||||
or estimation-aiding strategies
|
||||
would also affect the usefulness of decomposition.
|
||||
For example, a forecaster could decompose a problem
|
||||
to use different sources of information or different experts.
|
||||
For some parts of the problem, known values may exist.
|
||||
Alternative decomposition methods could be used to produce an estimate,
|
||||
and resulting values for a quantity could be resolved in light of one another.
|
||||
MacGregor and Liehtenstein (1991) attempted such an approach
|
||||
and found that subjects tended to resolve estimates by applying an averaging model.
|
||||
Revised estimates generally fell between two estimates of a target quantity,
|
||||
where each judgmental estimate was produced by a different method.
|
||||
|
||||
Although our approach to decomposition was harmful for problems that did not involve extreme - uncertain numbers, there might be alternative approaches that are successful. For example, decomposition might restructure a problem so that it is easier for subjects to think about.
|
||||
Although our approach to decomposition was harmful for problems
|
||||
that did not involve extreme - uncertain numbers,
|
||||
there might be alternative approaches that are successful.
|
||||
For example, decomposition might restructure a problem
|
||||
so that it is easier for subjects to think about.
|
||||
|
||||
Decomposition tended to reduce estimators' confidence levels, perhaps because of the increased processing involved. This reduction in overconfidence and the improvements in accuracy produced modest gains in calibration.
|
||||
Decomposition tended to reduce estimators' confidence levels,
|
||||
perhaps because of the increased processing involved.
|
||||
This reduction in overconfidence and the improvements in accuracy
|
||||
produced modest gains in calibration.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
The theory behind decomposition is simple. What is difficult is how to translate the theory into operational terms. We examined some operational procedures for identifying conditions under which decomposition should improve accuracy.
|
||||
The theory behind decomposition is simple.
|
||||
What is difficult is how to translate the theory into operational terms.
|
||||
We examined some operational procedures
|
||||
for identifying conditions under which decomposition should improve accuracy.
|
||||
|
||||
Extreme uncertain values are difficult for subjects to estimate. We hypothesized that decomposition to remove extreme values would improve estimation accuracy. This study examined nine "extreme value-high uncertainty" problems from two prior studies. Decomposition proved useful for each of these nine problems, and the typical gain in accuracy was substantial (error ratio was reduced by 96.3 for the study with six problems, and by 12.3 for the study with three problems). In the present study, involving six problems with extreme values, the error ratio was reduced by a factor of almost 20.[^6] Decomposition failed for one extreme problem because it was not successful in producing more accurate estimates of the parts.
|
||||
Extreme uncertain values are difficult for subjects to estimate.
|
||||
We hypothesized that decomposition to remove extreme values would improve estimation accuracy.
|
||||
This study examined nine "extreme value-high uncertainty" problems from two prior studies.
|
||||
Decomposition proved useful for each of these nine problems,
|
||||
and the typical gain in accuracy was substantial
|
||||
(error ratio was reduced by 96.3 for the study with six problems,
|
||||
and by 12.3 for the study with three problems).
|
||||
In the present study, involving six problems with extreme values,
|
||||
the error ratio was reduced by a factor of almost 20.[^6]
|
||||
Decomposition failed for one extreme problem
|
||||
because it was not successful in producing more accurate estimates of the parts.
|
||||
|
||||
[^6]: The results from Hora et al. (1993) also are consistent with our hypothesis. They found that decomposition was more accurate than global estimates for three quantities whose true values had at least eight digits (e.g., What were the sales for Long's Drug Stores in Hawaii in 1986?).
|
||||
[^6]: The results from Hora et al. (1993) also are consistent with our hypothesis.
|
||||
They found that decomposition was more accurate than global estimates
|
||||
for three quantities whose true values had at least eight digits
|
||||
(e.g., What were the sales for Long's Drug Stores in Hawaii in 1986?).
|
||||
|
||||
Decomposition was risky for problems that did not involve extreme and uncertain values. For six such problems from two prior studies, decomposition had little overall effect on accuracy. However, for four such problems in the current study, decomposition yielded less accurate estimates by an average error ratio of 458%.
|
||||
Decomposition was risky for problems
|
||||
that did not involve extreme and uncertain values.
|
||||
For six such problems from two prior studies,
|
||||
decomposition had little overall effect on accuracy.
|
||||
However, for four such problems in the current study,
|
||||
decomposition yielded less accurate estimates
|
||||
by an average error ratio of 458%.
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the limited evidence to date, we suggest the following procedure for judgmental decomposition. First, assess whether the target value is subject to much uncertainty by using either a knowledge rating or an accuracy rating. If the problem is an important one, obtain interquartile ranges. For those items rated above the midpoint on uncertainty (or above 10 on the interquartile range), conduct a pretest with 20 subjects to determine whether the target quantity is likely to be extreme. If the upper quartile geometric mean has seven or more digits, decomposition should be considered. For these problems, compare the interquartile ranges for the target value against those for the components and for the recomposed value. If the ranges are less for the global approach, use the global approach. Otherwise use decomposition.
|
||||
Based on the limited evidence to date,
|
||||
we suggest the following procedure for judgmental decomposition.
|
||||
First, assess whether the target value is subject to much uncertainty
|
||||
by using either a knowledge rating or an accuracy rating.
|
||||
If the problem is an important one, obtain interquartile ranges.
|
||||
For those items rated above the midpoint on uncertainty
|
||||
(or above 10 on the interquartile range),
|
||||
conduct a pretest with 20 subjects
|
||||
to determine whether the target quantity is likely to be extreme.
|
||||
If the upper quartile geometric mean has seven or more digits,
|
||||
decomposition should be considered.
|
||||
For these problems, compare the interquartile ranges for the target value
|
||||
against those for the components and for the recomposed value.
|
||||
If the ranges are less for the global approach, use the global approach.
|
||||
Otherwise use decomposition.
|
||||
|
||||
The current study suggests that decomposition has more limited value that previously thought. It improved accuracy only when the situation involved uncertain and extreme quantities. Furthermore, decomposed elements needed to be easier to estimate than the global. For problems that did not concern extreme values with high uncertainty or where estimates of the parts were not more accurate than that of the target value, decomposition produced less accurate estimates.
|
||||
The current study suggests that decomposition has more limited value that previously thought.
|
||||
It improved accuracy only when the situation involved uncertain and extreme quantities.
|
||||
Furthermore, decomposed elements needed to be easier to estimate than the global.
|
||||
For problems that did not concern extreme values with high uncertainty
|
||||
or where estimates of the parts were not more accurate than that of the target value,
|
||||
decomposition produced less accurate estimates.
|
||||
|
||||
## Acknowledgements
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -338,14 +668,37 @@ This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Con
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
* Armstrong, J.S., W.B. Denniston and M.M. Gordon (1975), "The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments," _Organizational Behavior and Human Performance_, 14, 257-263.
|
||||
* Aschenbrenner, K.M. and W. Kasubck (1978), "Challenging the Cushing syndrome: Multiattribute evaluation of cortisone drugs," _Organizational Behavior and Human Performance_, 22, 216-234.
|
||||
* Henrion, M., G.W. Fischer and T. Mullin (1993), "Divide and conquer? Effects of decomposition on the accuracy and calibration of subjective probability distributions," _Organizational Behavior and Human Performance_, 55, 207--227.
|
||||
|
||||
* Armstrong, J.S., W.B. Denniston and M.M. Gordon (1975),
|
||||
"The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments,"
|
||||
_Organizational Behavior and Human Performance_, 14, 257-263.
|
||||
|
||||
* Aschenbrenner, K.M. and W. Kasubck (1978),
|
||||
"Challenging the Cushing syndrome: Multiattribute evaluation of cortisone drugs,"
|
||||
_Organizational Behavior and Human Performance_, 22, 216-234.
|
||||
|
||||
* Henrion, M., G.W. Fischer and T. Mullin (1993),
|
||||
"Divide and conquer? Effects of decomposition on the accuracy and calibration of subjective probability distributions,"
|
||||
_Organizational Behavior and Human Performance_, 55, 207--227.
|
||||
|
||||
* Hertzberg, H. (1970), _One Million_. Simon and Schuster, New York.
|
||||
* Hora, S.C., N.G. Dodd and J.A. Hora (1993), "The use of decomposition in probability assessments of continuous variables," _Journal of Behavioral Decision Making_, 6, 133-147.
|
||||
* MacGregor, D.G. and S. Lichtenstein (1991), "Problem structuring aids for quantitative estimation," _Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 101-116._
|
||||
* MacGregor, D.G., S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic (1988), "Structuring knowledge retrieval: An analysis of decomposed quantitative judgments," _Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes_, 42, 303-323*.*
|
||||
|
||||
* Hora, S.C., N.G. Dodd and J.A. Hora (1993),
|
||||
"The use of decomposition in probability assessments of continuous variables,"
|
||||
_Journal of Behavioral Decision Making_, 6, 133-147.
|
||||
|
||||
* MacGregor, D.G. and S. Lichtenstein (1991),
|
||||
"Problem structuring aids for quantitative estimation,"
|
||||
_Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 101-116._
|
||||
|
||||
* MacGregor, D.G., S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic (1988),
|
||||
"Structuring knowledge retrieval: An analysis of decomposed quantitative judgments,"
|
||||
_Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes_, 42, 303-323*.*
|
||||
|
||||
* Raiffa, H. (1968), _Decision Analysis._ Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
|
||||
|
||||
* Rosenthal, R. (1978), "Combining results of independent studies," _Psychological Bulletin_, 85, 185-193.
|
||||
|
||||
Sniczek, J.A., P.W. Paese and F.S. Switzer, III (1990), "The effect of choosing on confidence in choice," _Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes_, 46, 264-282.
|
||||
* Sniczek, J.A., P.W. Paese and F.S. Switzer, III (1990),
|
||||
"The effect of choosing on confidence in choice,"
|
||||
_Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes_, 46, 264-282.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ is generally not interpreted to meet the requirement,
|
||||
however I'm not separating these, at least for now.
|
||||
|
||||
The Article 100 definition exactly mirrors the IBC,
|
||||
which has this additional term:
|
||||
which has the additional term **sleeping unit**:
|
||||
|
||||
> [!cite] IBC Chapter 2: Definitions
|
||||
> ## Sleeping Unit.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -33,24 +33,18 @@ TODO
|
||||
|
||||
## WBS Contingency
|
||||
|
||||
By [[pdi-building-types|building type]].
|
||||
Clear **Field** for other than the project's [[pdi-building-types|building type]].
|
||||
|
||||
### High Density
|
||||
|
||||
%% dear lord %%
|
||||
'WBS CONTINGENCY - LABOR "HD"':
|
||||
* **Field** <- "DirLb Total"
|
||||
* **Cost/Unit** <- 8.5
|
||||
* **Duration** <- 0.01
|
||||
|
||||
> do math to find 8.5% of production labor
|
||||
>
|
||||
> 1. Enter "DirLb" tab total for the region for the QTY
|
||||
> 2. Multiply that QTY by 0.085
|
||||
> 3. Subtract that answer by the HD total (the 9% math Accubid did)
|
||||
> 4. On the HR line below, enter the negative answer you just found
|
||||
> * This accounts for that missing 0.5% since Accubid can't do 3 decimals
|
||||
|
||||
==Alternate or line item on proposal==
|
||||
%% Approved by Joel Jansen 2026-02-20 %%
|
||||
|
||||
### Garden Style, High Rise
|
||||
|
||||
In 'WBS CONTINGENCY - LABOR "{PDI Building Type}"':
|
||||
|
||||
* **Field** <- "DirLb Total"
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ For those that do, see [[TODO]].
|
||||
_Task_ (italicized) as used in this note,
|
||||
refers specifically to the Task community plugin's definition.
|
||||
|
||||
_Tasks_ should generally be created only in [[daily-notes]].
|
||||
_Tasks_ should generally be created only in [[periodic-notes]].
|
||||
If created in the note they reference they will want to be deleted after resolution,
|
||||
which I feel defeats the purpose of the plugin.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ in the wider industry.
|
||||
### #type/idea
|
||||
|
||||
> [!danger] Deprecated Tag
|
||||
> Use of this tag has been deprecated in favor of [[daily-notes]].
|
||||
> Use of this tag has been deprecated in favor of [[periodic-notes]].
|
||||
|
||||
Items of `#type/idea` are recommendation
|
||||
that I do something in the future,
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ tags:
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
weekly: "[[{{date:gggg-[W]WW}}]]"
|
||||
monthly: "[[{{date:YYYY-MM}}]]"
|
||||
quarterly: "[[{{date:YYYY-[Q]Q}}]]"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -7,5 +7,6 @@ tags:
|
||||
- destiny/fleeting
|
||||
- topic/meta
|
||||
- type/task
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
---
|
||||
#
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ tags:
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/monthly
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
quarterly: "[[{{date:YYYY-[Q]Q}}]]"
|
||||
yearly: "[[{{date:YYYY}}]]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ tags:
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/quarterly
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
yearly: "[[{{date:YYYY}}]]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
# {{date:YYYY-[Q]Q}}
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH-mm-ssZ}}
|
||||
id: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: "{{date:YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss}}"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ tags:
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
daily: "[[{{date:YYYY-MM-DD}}]]"
|
||||
weekly: "[[{{date:gggg-[W]WW}}]]"
|
||||
monthly: "[[{{date:YYYY-MM}}]]"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ tags:
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/weekly
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
monthly: "[[{{date:YYYY-MM}}]]"
|
||||
quarterly: "[[{{date:YYYY-[Q]Q}}]]"
|
||||
yearly: "[[{{date:YYYY}}]]"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,5 +8,6 @@ tags:
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/yearly
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
date-created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ}}
|
||||
---
|
||||
# {{date:YYYY}}
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ The rest is whatever else I feel is worth writing down.
|
||||
It's hard for me to reconcile the idea of daily notes
|
||||
with the purpose of [[personal-knowledge-management]] as I see it.
|
||||
Nonetheless, they are popular, and generally enjoyable to write.
|
||||
See [[daily-notes]] for appropriate use.
|
||||
See [[periodic-notes]] for appropriate use.
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-06-13T00:00:00-04:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-06-13
|
||||
title: 2025-06-13 ??:??:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-06-13
|
||||
# 2025-06-13 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-06-13 ??:??:??
|
||||
## Automating Estimating Project Creation
|
||||
|
||||
### Automating Estimating Project Creation
|
||||
|
||||
#### Extract from Bid Boards
|
||||
### Extract from Bid Boards
|
||||
|
||||
```sh
|
||||
> jobHandler --new project --from-web https://app.buildingconnected.com/opportunities/66fab32654ef4e1affd178e0/info
|
||||
@@ -26,4 +24,4 @@ dg-publish: true
|
||||
> jobHandler --select project freezpak
|
||||
jobHandler\FreezPak Cold Storage> --add-details --from-web https://app.buildingconnected.com/opportunities/66fab32654ef4e1affd178e0/info
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2025-07-18
|
||||
id: 2025-07-18T00:00:00-04:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-07-18
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
@@ -9,15 +9,12 @@ tags:
|
||||
- topic/construction
|
||||
- topic/estimating
|
||||
- type/anecdote
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-07-18
|
||||
# 2025-07-18 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-07-18 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Estimating Isn't Engineering
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating
|
||||
## Estimating Isn't Engineering
|
||||
|
||||
A peer recently expressed frustration to me
|
||||
about the declining quality of construction drawings,
|
||||
@@ -1,18 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-08-22T00:00:00-04:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-08-22
|
||||
title: 2025-08-22 ??:??:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-08-22
|
||||
# 2025-08-22 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-08-22 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Getting Historical Material Pricing
|
||||
## Getting Historical Material Pricing
|
||||
|
||||
Aggregate SupplierLink.xml files from Accubid job folders.
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-08-26T00:00:00-04:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-08-26
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-08-26
|
||||
# 2025-08-26 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-08-26 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Pathfinding
|
||||
## Pathfinding
|
||||
|
||||
```c
|
||||
struct point {
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-10-20T00:00:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-10-20
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-10-20
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-10-20 ??:??:??
|
||||
# 2025-10-20 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
"Rogue AI" is a common trope,
|
||||
but the reality of hallucination
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-10-26T18:36:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-10-26
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
@@ -7,14 +7,13 @@ tags:
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/complete
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/reading
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-10-26
|
||||
# 2025-10-26 18:36:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-10-26 18:36:?? --- Sunday evening
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/reading
|
||||
_Sunday evening_
|
||||
|
||||
I read Harlan Ellison's _I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream_ this morning.
|
||||
It took me about two hours. What may be curious about that is the story is
|
||||
@@ -1,20 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-10-31T18:26:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-10-31
|
||||
title: 2025-10-31 18:26:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/complete
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/birding
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-10-31
|
||||
# 2025-10-31 18:26:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-10-31 18:26:?? --- Friday Evening
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/birding
|
||||
_Friday Evening_
|
||||
|
||||
This morning as I was leaving for work I saw a massive congregation
|
||||
of all the walky water birds I love so much. A hundred and more, milling about
|
||||
@@ -40,9 +39,7 @@ today. They have absurdly large feet, moorso[^1] the juveniles.
|
||||
|
||||
Today was a good day---I've been at this for a while, one second...
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-10-31 19:48 --- Late Friday Evening, Halloween btw
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/birding
|
||||
**2025-10-31 19:48:?? --- Late Friday Evening, Halloween btw**
|
||||
|
||||
Today was a good day. If I could see so many gorgeous creatures every day
|
||||
as I have this one I might never shed another tear. I love birds.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-01 05:41:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-01 05:41:??
|
||||
|
||||
_Saturday Morning_
|
||||
|
||||
Somehow I've already let an hour get away from me.
|
||||
Today I need to do some cleaning: a load of laundry and leftover dishes
|
||||
at least. I'll do those after I finish this note, plus some pushups, before
|
||||
I shower and change to go visit the birds across the street. Later I'll need
|
||||
to go to the store for more sliced almonds and coconut oil so I can make granola
|
||||
for tomorrow's breakfast. I'll go to Walmart so I can get a new mattress
|
||||
protector, too. Copy paper, a 3-hole punch and a small binder would also be
|
||||
nice for my typewriter journaling.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-01 07:06:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-01 07:06:??
|
||||
|
||||
_Saturday Morning_
|
||||
|
||||
I wasted more time doomscrolling after my last note, but I did manage
|
||||
to do the laundry, dishes, and pushups. Now I need to shower and dress in time
|
||||
to see the birds.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-01 08:25:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/birding
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-01 08:25:??
|
||||
|
||||
There were fewer than yesterday, but still a ton. There was a chill, but
|
||||
I was dressed well for it. I think with exposure the birds will get used to
|
||||
mg presence. I saw a bald eagle (_Haliaeetus leucocephalus_) for the first time
|
||||
in Florida. They are ugly creatures, of both body and spirit, unlike the wood
|
||||
stork (_Mycteria americana_) which is uglier of body, but pure of heart.
|
||||
There was also some guy getting dumped on the phone and not taking it well.
|
||||
@@ -1,18 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-04T14:52:05-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-04
|
||||
title: 2025-11-04 14:52:05
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/complete
|
||||
- occupational
|
||||
- type/minutes
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-04
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-04 14:52:05
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational #type/minutes
|
||||
# 2025-11-04 14:52:05
|
||||
|
||||
### Belle Meade Director Review
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,20 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-05T00:00:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-05
|
||||
title: 2025-11-05 ??:??:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/typewritten-print
|
||||
- status/complete
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/morality
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-05
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-05 ??:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/morality
|
||||
# 2025-11-05 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
Conservatives claim to care about
|
||||
family values, but a purely merit-based system
|
||||
@@ -1,22 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-06T18:12:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-06
|
||||
title: 2025-11-06 18:12:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- original-format/digital-text
|
||||
- status/complete
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/estimating
|
||||
- topic/transparency
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-06
|
||||
# 2025-11-06 18:12:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-06 18:12:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #topic/transparency
|
||||
|
||||
### "Bad Bid Practice"
|
||||
## "Bad Bid Practice"
|
||||
|
||||
I might be reprimanded for the things I've said about deceptive bid practices
|
||||
were I to repeat them to the wrong person,
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-14T13:41:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-14
|
||||
title: 2025-11-14 13:41:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/meta
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/music/banjo
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/shorthand
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-14
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-14 13:41:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta #topic/hobbies/music/banjo #topic/hobbies/shorthand
|
||||
# 2025-11-14 13:41:??
|
||||
|
||||
I added two new long term tasks to the notebook.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-16T08:09:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-16
|
||||
title: 2025-11-16 08:09:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/shorthand
|
||||
- topic/hobbies/writing
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-16
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-16 08:09:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/shorthand #topic/hobbies/writing
|
||||
# 2025-11-16 08:09:??
|
||||
|
||||
Yesterday evening,
|
||||
while I was reading [[leslie-et-al_1968_gregg-notehand]],
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-18T16:33:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-18
|
||||
title: 2025-11-18 16:33:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
- occupational
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-18
|
||||
# 2025-11-18 16:33:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-18 16:33:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Elliot St. ConEst Senior Review
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
## Elliot St. ConEst Senior Review
|
||||
|
||||
%%
|
||||
Transcription of notes
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-20T08:46:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
title: 2025-11-20
|
||||
title: 2025-11-20 08:46:??
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-20
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-20 08:46:??
|
||||
# 2025-11-20 08:46:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Elliot St. WBS Prep
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-11-24T00:00:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-11-24
|
||||
title: 2025-11-24 ??:??:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-11-24
|
||||
# 2025-11-24 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-11-24 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
# Extracting PDF Panel Schedules
|
||||
## Extracting PDF Panel Schedules
|
||||
|
||||
Extract relevant pages
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-03T15:54:22-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-03
|
||||
title: 2025-12-03 15:54:22
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-03
|
||||
# 2025-12-03 15:54:22
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-03 15:54:22
|
||||
|
||||
### Excluding Vs. Ignoring Project Requirements
|
||||
## Excluding Vs. Ignoring Project Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating #topic/transparency
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-04T09:51:17-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-04
|
||||
title: 2025-12-04 09:51:17
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- topic/automation
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-04
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-04 09:51:17
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/automation
|
||||
# 2025-12-04 09:51:17
|
||||
|
||||
* [x] TODO: Build test case estimating helper html app ➕ 2026-12-04
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-09T10:52:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-09
|
||||
title: 2025-12-09 10:52:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-09
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-09 10:43:36
|
||||
|
||||
[[ambiguity]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-09 10:52:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-09 10:52:??
|
||||
|
||||
In residential construction area classification,
|
||||
what is the relationship between these two dichotomies?
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-10T10:45:19-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-10
|
||||
title: 2025-12-10 10:45:19
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-10
|
||||
# 2025-12-10 10:45:19
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-10 10:45:19 --- ConEst Lighting Controls Meeting Notes
|
||||
## ConEst Lighting Controls Meeting Notes
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational/takeoff #topic/ambiguity #topic/transparency
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-12T09:38:52-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-12
|
||||
title: 2025-12-12 09:38:52
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-12
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-12 09:38:52
|
||||
# 2025-12-12 09:38:52
|
||||
|
||||
A humorous exchange between a peer in estimating and myself:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-13T08:45:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-13
|
||||
title: 2025-12-13 08:45:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-13
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-13 08:45:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-13 08:45:??
|
||||
|
||||
I am interested in [[actuarial-science]] and [[risk-management]]
|
||||
for their ability to quantify what is generally viewed subjective,
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-14T09:52:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-14
|
||||
title: 2025-12-14 09:52:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-14
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-14 09:52:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-14 09:52:??
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
# hard wrap text
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-20T19:28:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-20
|
||||
title: 2025-12-20 19:28:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-20
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-20 19:28:??
|
||||
# 2025-12-20 19:28:??
|
||||
|
||||
**Typesetting** is arranging type on the page for print.
|
||||
**Imposition** is arranging pages for binding.
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2025-12-30T10:08:30-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2025-12-30
|
||||
title: 2025-12-30 10:08:30
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2025-12-30
|
||||
|
||||
## 2025-12-30 10:08:30
|
||||
# 2025-12-30 10:08:30
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
3.ApplyThisSequence([-1,0,1,2,3])
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-04T00:00:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-04
|
||||
title: 2026-01-04 ??:??:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-04
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-04 ??:??:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-04 ??:??:??
|
||||
|
||||
Horror is usually made more horrifying by the inclusion of one or more persons who do not find the situation horrifying.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-05T15:44:50-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-05
|
||||
title: 2026-01-05 15:44:50
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-05
|
||||
# 2026-01-05 15:44:50
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-05 15:44:50
|
||||
## Bluebeam Scripting
|
||||
|
||||
### Bluebeam Scripting
|
||||
|
||||
#### Built-In
|
||||
### Built-In
|
||||
|
||||
C:\Program Files\Bluebeam Software\Bluebeam Revu\21\Help\Bluebeam Script Reference.pdf
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -54,7 +52,7 @@ Close(true)
|
||||
C:\Program Files\Bluebeam Software\Bluebeam Revu\21\Revu\ScriptEngine.exe script.bci
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### Model Context Protocol
|
||||
### Model Context Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
C:\Program Files\Bluebeam Software\Bluebeam Revu\21\Revu\mcp\Bluebeam MCP Server.exe
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-10T08:42:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-10
|
||||
title: 2026-01-10 08:42:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-10
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-10 08:42:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-10 08:42:??
|
||||
|
||||
I've been writing a C# library based on the specifications of [[music-theory-as-code]],
|
||||
but the problem of parsing overwhelms me whenever I think about implementation.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-12T10:00:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-12 10:00:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-12 10:00:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### ECH3 Executed Contract Revision WBS
|
||||
|
||||
For Executed Contract Revisions, Bid GP% must be maintained.
|
||||
In this case a negative variance was added to the buyout budget
|
||||
in order to compensate for an increase in permit fee coverage.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-12T10:42:30-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-12 10:42:30
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-12 10:42:30
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### Woodbrook Executed Contract Revision Takeoff Check
|
||||
|
||||
#### Unit Dishwasher/Disposal
|
||||
|
||||
Drawings show 2 separate duplex receptacles for dishwasher and disposal
|
||||
Takeoff used `DW & DISPOSAL DUAL CIR - ...`,
|
||||
which includes only one receptacle.
|
||||
|
||||
According to Joel this takeoff is correct for the scenario.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-12T12:23:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-12 12:23:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-12 12:23:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
Travelling with Brian Smarslok and Joel Jansen on [[2026-01-15]]
|
||||
to visit [[#Woodbury Heights|an awarded project]] in New Jersey.
|
||||
Flying from TPA to PHL, departure @ 7:00AM.
|
||||
We'll be meeting with the developer, [Greystar](https://www.greystar.com/).
|
||||
|
||||
### Woodbury Heights
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
project-name: GSC Ltd. Woodbury Heights (aka Academy Pointe)
|
||||
sector: Residential
|
||||
market-type: Apartment
|
||||
bldg-type: Garden
|
||||
construction-method: Wood Frame
|
||||
construction-type: V
|
||||
unit-wiring-method: Romex
|
||||
code-data: NEC2020
|
||||
mech-system: Split Dx
|
||||
buildings: 9
|
||||
floors: 3
|
||||
units: 234
|
||||
gross-area: 266,272
|
||||
area-by-type:
|
||||
- exterior-amenity: 12,306
|
||||
- interior-amenity: 5,031
|
||||
- garage: 3,788
|
||||
- saleable: 223,172
|
||||
division: MA 1
|
||||
geographic-region: Northeast
|
||||
metro-area: New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
|
||||
municipality-or-ahj: City of Woodbury
|
||||
power-company: PSE&G
|
||||
stakeholders:
|
||||
- developer: Greystar (HQ - Charleston, SC)
|
||||
architect: LS3P Associates Ltd
|
||||
electrical-engineer: Hurst Engineering
|
||||
contract-value: 2,305,000.00
|
||||
start-date: 2025-05-01
|
||||
end-date: 2026-08-26
|
||||
duration: 11 months
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### GP Variance
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]
|
||||
> "GP%" is **margin** (see [[markup-vs-margin]]).
|
||||
|
||||
The job appears to be doing poorly, at current GP variance of -$299,356.
|
||||
|
||||
About $93,000.00 profit on a $2,391,378 job (~3% margin, down from 16.4% as bid).
|
||||
|
||||
Intend to ask Joel what was missed if he knows,
|
||||
and more generally if he has a strategy for figuring out,
|
||||
between BPM, The Hub, and however many other places we can look.
|
||||
|
||||
I doubt very seriously that mismanagement
|
||||
can be blamed for any significant portion of variance that extreme.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-12T13:02:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-12 13:02:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-12 13:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/construction
|
||||
|
||||
**Dry utilities:** utilities other than "wet" utilities (water, sewer, stormwater),
|
||||
namely power, data, and natural gas.
|
||||
|
||||
# 2026-01-12 13:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
Joel attributes the [[#GP Variance|apparent variance]] to
|
||||
1. missed Polaris lugs for feeders for one building,
|
||||
2. insufficient budget for equipment rental, and
|
||||
3. upfront costs already paid (construction is 50% complete).
|
||||
|
||||
He also said that operations accused ConEst
|
||||
of providing insufficient length for subfeeds,
|
||||
which he said was true,
|
||||
but not to the extent accused
|
||||
(only ~600ft missed total).
|
||||
|
||||
The award WBS shows $32,382 for equipment rental
|
||||
|
||||
I'm dubious of all these explanations,
|
||||
but I don't have another one.
|
||||
I can't find the ConEst folder or Accubid file.
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-13T11:28:14-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-13
|
||||
title: 2026-01-13 11:28:14
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-13
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-13 11:28:14
|
||||
# 2026-01-13 11:28:14
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-14T13:27:20-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-14
|
||||
title: 2026-01-14 13:27:20
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-14
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-14 13:27:20
|
||||
# 2026-01-14 13:27:20
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-19T11:57:39-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-19 11:57:39
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-19 11:57:39
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-up to [[2026-01-10#2026-01-10 08:42]]
|
||||
|
||||
A **natural language parser** would be a big help
|
||||
for the sort of formatting I've been doing recently.
|
||||
|
||||
[[nfpa-70_national-electric-code]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[semantic-line-breaks]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[2025-10-26#2025-10-26 18:36 --- Sunday evening]]
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-19T12:32:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-19 12:32:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-19 12:32:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/construction #topic/estimating
|
||||
|
||||
Real example of [[location-vs-scope]]:
|
||||
|
||||
450-460 James Robertson Parkway Phase II (fka James Roberston Pkwy Mixed Use Development)
|
||||
|
||||
Project is two buildings: Residential and Hotel,
|
||||
entirely separate physically and electrically.
|
||||
Generators for both are located on a lower roof of Residential.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-19T18:13:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-19 18:13:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-19 18:13:??
|
||||
|
||||
### Smart Home
|
||||
|
||||
One of the most exciting aspects of home ownership to me
|
||||
is that I'll finally be able to go full smart home.
|
||||
|
||||
A programmable thermostat is at the top of my todo list,
|
||||
for energy efficiency, but mostly habit enforcement.
|
||||
I can not sleep without blankets, and I can not sleep hot.
|
||||
Turning on the lights as an alarm is usually effective,
|
||||
but when it's cold I find it hard not cover my face and go back to sleep.
|
||||
|
||||
In general the ability to make one's house unfit for relaxation
|
||||
at certain hours of the week is very powerful.
|
||||
|
||||
Google's Nest is the stereotypical smart thermostat,
|
||||
but devices using a local, non-Wi-Fi protocol
|
||||
like [Zigbee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zigbee)
|
||||
or [Z-Wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Wave)
|
||||
ought to be preferred.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ulysses Pacts
|
||||
|
||||
The most challenging part of implementing Ulysses pacts with yourself
|
||||
is that sometimes you really _do_ need to jump in after the sirens, %% that's a stretch %%
|
||||
but if you allow yourself an out for emergencies
|
||||
you will almost certainly use it inappropriately in a moment of weakness.
|
||||
I know I will, anyway.
|
||||
Rarely can my fear of disappointing myself
|
||||
overwhelm the immediate appeal of whatever I'm keeping from myself.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-20T09:09:12-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-20 09:09:12
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-20 09:09:12
|
||||
|
||||
Stumbled upon this line while waiting on my computer to restart.
|
||||
|
||||
> [!quote] [[hubbard_2020_failure#The Measurement Inversion]]
|
||||
> Unless we estimate the value of information,
|
||||
> we may go down the deep rabbit hole of adding more and more detail to a model
|
||||
> and trying to gather data on less relevant issues.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-20T10:10:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-20 10:10:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-20 10:10:??
|
||||
|
||||
I was reminded again of [[2025-12-04#2025-12-04 09:51]].
|
||||
I added a [[small-tasks|task]] for it.
|
||||
|
||||
[html-calculators](https://github.com/ZaneMeyers/html-calculators)
|
||||
|
||||
I'm now certain that common estimating calculators
|
||||
(e.g. voltage drop)
|
||||
could be easily replaced with documents like this one.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-20T14:25:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-20 14:25:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-20 14:25:??
|
||||
|
||||
Jfarrari The Unknowing (Acoustic)
|
||||
|
||||
[[music-analysis]]
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-22T09:55:42-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-22 09:55:42
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-22 09:55:42
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
The lighting drawings for
|
||||
450-460 James Robertson Parkway Phase II
|
||||
(fka James Roberston Pkwy Mixed Use Development)
|
||||
show occupancy sensors serving electrical rooms.
|
||||
I knew this was understood to be prohibited,
|
||||
but could not have provided a code reference.
|
||||
|
||||
[[nfpa-70_110_requirements#110.26(D) Illumination.|110.26(D)]]
|
||||
is the relevant section.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-22T11:58:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-22 11:58:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-22 11:58:??
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### 463 Davison Contract Dates
|
||||
|
||||
[[463-davison-ave-ne]]
|
||||
|
||||
Effective date: [[2026-01-21]]
|
||||
|
||||
* [x] Escrow deposit due by [[2026-01-26]]
|
||||
* [x] Loan application submitted by [[2026-01-26]]
|
||||
* [x] Inspection period ends [[2026-01-28]]
|
||||
* [x] Loan approval due by [[2026-02-11]]
|
||||
* [ ] Title commitment due by [[2026-02-27]]
|
||||
|
||||
Closing: [[2026-03-04]]
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-22T14:56:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-22 14:56:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-22 14:56:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating
|
||||
|
||||
### Accurate Budget Vs. Accurate BOM
|
||||
|
||||
#### Quote
|
||||
|
||||
> [!quote] Joel Jansen [[2026-01-15#2026-01-15 13:27]] (pp.)
|
||||
> I'd rather have an accurate budget than an accurate BOM.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Context
|
||||
|
||||
#### Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
It may be counterintuitive to BOM-oriented estimators
|
||||
(typical of those with an electrical background),
|
||||
but deviating from organization standard practice
|
||||
to make an assembly "more accurate"
|
||||
(read: to make the estimate BOM
|
||||
more closely resemble the construction BOM),
|
||||
may make the budget _less_ accurate.
|
||||
|
||||
The review and adjustment process
|
||||
is based on standard practice,
|
||||
so deviations may have unpredictable effects.
|
||||
|
||||
Our assemblies do not include screws.
|
||||
It would be more accurate to the BOM to add them,
|
||||
but we budget for that cost in the summary,
|
||||
so to do so would be double dipping.
|
||||
|
||||
Though not stated as such,
|
||||
we budget for takeoff-to-install deviations the same way.
|
||||
|
||||
\
|
||||
|
||||
An organization's takeoff database
|
||||
ought to include exactly what is necessary for takeoff
|
||||
at the acceptable level of detail, and nothing else.
|
||||
It ought to be assumed by estimators that the previous is true,
|
||||
and that acceptable takeoff of any scope
|
||||
must be possible with the contents of the database.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-23T08:18:53-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-23 08:18:53
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-23 08:18:53
|
||||
|
||||
This morning I was thinking about the "slippery slope fallacy"
|
||||
and how it's a common instrument of an appeal to fallacy fallacy.
|
||||
As it turns out, the potential validity of slippery slope arguments is well studied.
|
||||
|
||||
[Sorites paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Continuum_fallacy)
|
||||
|
||||
[Many-valued logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic)
|
||||
|
||||
[Fuzzy logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic)
|
||||
|
||||
Strictly speaking, a slippery slope argument is only fallacious
|
||||
if it is not _necessarily_ true that one event must follow another.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-23T12:34:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-23 12:34:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-23 12:34:??
|
||||
|
||||
Migrated several notes from Google's Keep
|
||||
|
||||
[[2025-10-20#2025-10-20 ??:??]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[2026-01-04#2026-01-04 ??:??]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[my-resoluute-banjo]]
|
||||
|
||||
[[pats-browning-a5]]
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-25T18:46:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-25 18:46:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-25 18:46:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/finance
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Monthly Principal & Interest Payment
|
||||
|
||||
For a **fixed-rate, fully-amortizing mortgage**,
|
||||
the monthly payment is computed using the **standard amortization formula**:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Standard Amortization Formula
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
A = P \cdot \frac{i(1+i)^n}{(1+i)^n-1}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
Where:
|
||||
|
||||
* $A$ = periodic payment amount
|
||||
* $P$ = amount of principal, net of initial payments
|
||||
* $i$ = periodic interest rate
|
||||
* $n$ = total number of payments
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]
|
||||
> $A$ is constant over the term,
|
||||
> the interest portion decreases while the principal portion increases.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Example
|
||||
|
||||
For a 30-year mortgage of $268,000 at 5.75% annual interest:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
P &= 268000
|
||||
i &= \frac{0.0575}{12} = 0.004791\bar{6} \\
|
||||
n &= 30 \cdot 12 = 360
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
The monthly payment amount $A$ is given by:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
A &= 268000 \cdot \frac{0.004791\bar{6} \cdot (1+ 0.004791\bar{6})^{360}}{(1+ 0.004791\bar{6})^{360} - 1} \\
|
||||
A &\approx 1563.98
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Annual Percentage Rate (APR)
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\text{APR} = \frac{\frac{\text{Interest} + \text{Fees}}{\text{Principle}}}{\text{Term Years}}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-25T21:02:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-25 21:02:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-25 21:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[the-failure-of-risk-management]]
|
||||
|
||||
If I have a general complaint about [[hubbard_2020_failure]] it's this:
|
||||
Hubbard fails to recognize logical parallels between his different arguments,
|
||||
so to a critical reader they appear contradictory:
|
||||
|
||||
In [[hubbard_2020_failure#Break It Down, Then Do the Math]]
|
||||
Hubbard introduces **decomposition** as a method for reducing error in estimates,
|
||||
Providing Fermi's "piano tuners in Chicago" problem as an example,
|
||||
without acknowledging that _Fermi_ supplied the decomposition.
|
||||
Hubbard also references [[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition]]
|
||||
which is a similar case.
|
||||
Neither of these examples suggest that decomposition is a magic bullet,
|
||||
or even that a layman's decomposition wouldn't be worse than nothing.
|
||||
Despite this, Hubbard ends the section without qualifier:
|
||||
"Clearly, decomposition helps estimates."
|
||||
|
||||
This section comes only pages after
|
||||
[[hubbard_2020_failure#The Measurement Inversion]]
|
||||
in which Hubbard warns against seeking detail for the sake of it.
|
||||
|
||||
See also [[the-failure-of-risk-management#_Exsupero Ursus_]].
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-25T22:59:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-25 22:59:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-25 22:59:??
|
||||
|
||||
[[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition]]
|
||||
|
||||
I really hate this study.
|
||||
|
||||
I may be out of my league,
|
||||
but it seems wrong to draw conclusions about decomposition as a method
|
||||
when the work was done by the researchers,
|
||||
especially when some of their decompositions really suck.
|
||||
|
||||
> ##### Circumference of 50¢ coin
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * Diameter in inches of a 50¢ coin
|
||||
> * Number of pieces of string the length of the diameter needed to wrap around circumference
|
||||
|
||||
That's not a decomposition.
|
||||
If you don't remember $\pi$
|
||||
that's a harder problem than it was before.
|
||||
|
||||
> ##### Bushels of wheat
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * Population of the world
|
||||
> * Number of bushels of wheat consumed per person per year
|
||||
> * Proportion of wheat wasted per year
|
||||
|
||||
I might have included how much a bushel is,[^1]
|
||||
there's an order of magnitude right there.
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: $1~\text{US bushel} \equiv 9\frac{3571}{11550}~\text{US Gallons} \approx 9.3~\text{US Gallons}$
|
||||
|
||||
The study suggests decomposition has no effect on estimate _confidence_
|
||||
---which I'm tempted to believe because its funny
|
||||
and it tracks with my anecdotal experience---
|
||||
but I wonder if subjects using their own decompositions would present similarly.
|
||||
@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-26T06:48:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-26
|
||||
title: 2026-01-26 06:48:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-26
|
||||
# 2026-01-26 06:48:??
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-26 06:48:??
|
||||
|
||||
### BLAME! Coelacanth
|
||||
## BLAME! Coelacanth
|
||||
|
||||
BLAME! Master Edition, Volume 4
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
id: 2026-01-27T17:31:00-05:00
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-01-27
|
||||
title: 2026-01-27 17:31:??
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/periodic/daily
|
||||
- type/timestamped
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-27
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-01-27 17:31:??
|
||||
# 2026-01-27 17:31:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/hobbies/reading
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-28T09:51:08-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-28 09:51:08
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-28 09:51:08
|
||||
|
||||
#occupational
|
||||
|
||||
### ConEst OneNote Template
|
||||
|
||||
The ConEst OneNote template concept
|
||||
is flawed in ways that can not be addressed in OneNote,
|
||||
but it has good ideas, too;
|
||||
some I would not have thought could work so well.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Takeoff Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
At Ace my takeoff notes were entirely freeform,
|
||||
and I would have balked at the idea of using a standard checklist.
|
||||
Our projects were so varied
|
||||
that no list could be generic enough
|
||||
to approach universal applicability
|
||||
without being so shallow
|
||||
as to be useless to an experienced estimator.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Estimator Initials
|
||||
|
||||
Voluntary commitment to responsibility.
|
||||
An estimator adding their initials
|
||||
knows they are expected to be familiar with the scope.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-28T10:02:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-28 10:02:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-28 10:02:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
I'm tempted to replace \[\[daily-notes\]\] with timestamped notes
|
||||
from core plugins Unique Note Creator,
|
||||
however the utility of the calendar widget is hard to concede.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-29T10:07:37-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-29 10:07:37
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-29 10:07:37
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/estimating
|
||||
|
||||
A peer's senior, expressing frustration,
|
||||
told them that it if they disagree with an instruction,
|
||||
they must have a reason,
|
||||
implying that the estimator's previous complaints,
|
||||
which were based on conflicting direction
|
||||
received from other estimators and seniors,
|
||||
were made _without_ reason.
|
||||
|
||||
See [[realism-vs-instrumentalism]].
|
||||
|
||||
The peer's senior is looking for a _realist_ objection to his methods,
|
||||
which an estimator without field experience (which the senior has)
|
||||
would be unlikely to be able to provide.
|
||||
Their dismissal of legitimate _instrumental_ complaints
|
||||
(misplaced effort, and deviation from more widely accepted standards)
|
||||
speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of estimating.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-29T17:57:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-29 17:57:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-29 17:57:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/finance
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Utility of Above-Minimum Mortgage Payment
|
||||
|
||||
See [[2026-01-25#Calculating Monthly Principal & Interest Payment]].
|
||||
|
||||
Homeowners are often advised to make elective mortgage payments
|
||||
to reduce the total interest paid on the loan,
|
||||
but an unrelated investment with a sufficient return
|
||||
could outweigh the reduced loss.
|
||||
|
||||
Suppose you have a budget surplus of $E$ dollars
|
||||
and are deciding whether to make an elective payment on your mortgage
|
||||
or to invest in a promising opportunity.
|
||||
|
||||
The return on electing to pay $E$ to the mortgage
|
||||
is the
|
||||
(i.e., interest that will no longer accrue)
|
||||
at the end of the loan is:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
R_{\text{mortgage}} = E(1+i)^{n}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]- Explanation
|
||||
> This formula may seem suspiciously straightforward,
|
||||
> but suppose you did _not_ contribute $E$.
|
||||
> That portion of the principle would accrue interest
|
||||
> every month at rate $i$.
|
||||
> After $n$ months, the interest accrued by that portion is given by:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> $$
|
||||
> E(1+i)^{n}
|
||||
> $$
|
||||
|
||||
If the same $E$ is invested elsewhere at monthly return $j$,
|
||||
its future value after $n$ months takes the same form:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\text{FV}_{\text{investment}} = E(1+j)^{n}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, $j$ must exceed $i$
|
||||
for the alternative investment to be preferable to elective payment.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that $i$ and $j$ are adjusted rates,
|
||||
including respect for taxes and utility.
|
||||
|
||||
On second thought, in a utility context,
|
||||
time preference could make $j$ preferable
|
||||
even when slightly lower.
|
||||
|
||||
Short-term investments may be favored
|
||||
when liquidity is needed during the term,
|
||||
and tax deferred investments (IRA)
|
||||
are strongly favored over elective payment
|
||||
since interest is deductible
|
||||
(effective interest < nominal).
|
||||
|
||||
### Calculating Effect of Elective Payment on Term Length
|
||||
|
||||
The monthly payment and interest rate are fixed,
|
||||
so the term length must decrease
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\begin{align}
|
||||
A &= P \cdot \frac{i(1+i)^n}{(1+i)^n-1} \\
|
||||
P &= A \cdot \frac{(1+i)^n-1}{i(1+i)^n} \\
|
||||
n &= \frac{\ln\left(\frac{A}{A-Pi}\right)}{\ln(1+i)} \\
|
||||
\end{align}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-30T08:44:29-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-30 08:44:29
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-30 08:44:29
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-up to [[2026-01-28_10-02-00]].
|
||||
|
||||
I really would like to implement timestamped notes,
|
||||
especially while it's still somewhat practical to split my old dailies.
|
||||
|
||||
Only the lack of plugin support stops me.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-30T09:06:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-30 09:06:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-30 09:06:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/meta
|
||||
|
||||
I tried the Smart Connections community plugin.
|
||||
I can't imagine who it could be useful for.
|
||||
It seems to just identify large blocks of similar content,
|
||||
which means that every daily note is connected to every other.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-30T13:42:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-30 13:42:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-30 13:42:??
|
||||
|
||||
Often when I consider learning a new skill or improving an existing one,
|
||||
I conceive of a system that would _force_ me to improve,
|
||||
rather than forget about it (as I am won to do).
|
||||
See [[2026-01-19#Ulysses Pacts]].
|
||||
|
||||
Conventional "home assistant" tech and doctrine
|
||||
caters to a class of people I find bizarre,
|
||||
those that would spend enormous sums of cash and effort
|
||||
just for the marginal benefit
|
||||
of not having to touch light switches as often as normal people.
|
||||
Instead they get to take out their phone,
|
||||
find and open the light switch app,
|
||||
and touch a virtual light switch
|
||||
because the routines they programmed were too conservative.
|
||||
|
||||
Human or software,
|
||||
an assistant without agency
|
||||
_and the will to contradict you_
|
||||
is worthless.
|
||||
If the effort to _communicate_ your instructions
|
||||
exceeds the effort to perform them,
|
||||
you will always do the task yourself.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-30T16:29:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-30 16:29:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-30 16:29:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/math/statistics
|
||||
|
||||
### Laplace's Rule of Succession (LRS)
|
||||
|
||||
> [!info]
|
||||
> Pierre-Simon Laplace
|
||||
|
||||
If some event occurred $m$ times in $n$ observations,
|
||||
the probability the event will occur in the next observation
|
||||
is given by:
|
||||
|
||||
$$
|
||||
\frac{1+m}{2+n}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule of Five
|
||||
|
||||
The probability that any given sample is above the median is 50%.
|
||||
The probability that the minimum and maximum values of $n$ samples
|
||||
_don't_ straddle the median is $(\frac{1}{2})^{n}$,
|
||||
equivalent to getting the same result on a flipped coin
|
||||
$n$ times in a row.
|
||||
|
||||
There is a 93.75% chance that the median of a population
|
||||
is between the smallest and largest values
|
||||
in any random sample of five from that population.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2026-01-30T18:33:00-05:00
|
||||
title: 2026-01-30 18:33:??
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-01-30 18:33:??
|
||||
|
||||
#topic/personal-productivity
|
||||
|
||||
Why is it that I find it so easy, even compulsory,
|
||||
to clean my house while working from home,
|
||||
even after returning from work on-site?
|
||||
Why again does that feeling of necessity
|
||||
persist even into the evening,
|
||||
when I would normally be home anyway,
|
||||
but unable to summon the will to do anything
|
||||
about rapidly growing piles of dirty dishes and clothes?
|
||||
Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More
Reference in New Issue
Block a user