vault backup: 2026-04-12 02:38:27

This commit is contained in:
2026-04-12 02:38:27 -04:00
parent 22e3f13174
commit f961095c89
24 changed files with 474 additions and 66 deletions
+5
View File
@@ -19,3 +19,8 @@ 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.
%%
If he had a chance of keeping them
he really fumbled it calling them a "Doubting Thomas".
%%
+1 -3
View File
@@ -14,11 +14,9 @@ dg-publish: true
## Elliot St. ConEst Senior Review
[[elliott-st-hotel]]
%%
Transcription of notes
taken while reviewing Elliot St. with [[joel-jansen]].
taken while reviewing [[elliott-st-hotel]] with [[joel-jansen]].
%%
Adorne USB Heating Designation was built with standard device.
+1
View File
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ aliases: []
title: 2026-01-09 10:00:03
tags:
- type/periodic/timestamped
- occupational
dg-publish: true
---
# 2026-01-09 10:00:03
+2
View File
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ aliases: []
title: 2026-01-11 11:00:??
tags:
- type/periodic/timestamped
- authorship/original
- topic/estimating
dg-publish: true
---
# 2026-01-11 11:00:??
+1 -2
View File
@@ -10,8 +10,7 @@ dg-publish: true
# 2026-01-22 09:55:42
The lighting drawings for
450-460 James Robertson Parkway Phase II
(fka James Roberston Pkwy Mixed Use Development)
[[450--460-james-robertson-parkway]]
show occupancy sensors serving electrical rooms.
I knew this was understood to be prohibited,
but could not have provided a code reference.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -94,4 +94,4 @@ incentivize problematic behavior
([[game-theory#Stag Hunt|hare-hunting]]).
Has such behavior been observed,
or has chief strategy been organization-aligned
in spite of the incentive?
in spite of the incentive to defect?
+4
View File
@@ -49,3 +49,7 @@ representing project scale buckets.
The buckets chosen should be wide enough
that scale can be confidently estimated
after minimal investigation.
This method, as an ordinal scale
is criticized as error prone and unhelpful
in [[how-to-measure-anything-in-project-management]].
+2 -3
View File
@@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
Relevant to [[2025-11-21_10-11-00]]
Today I spoke to a peer about
[[earned-value-management#Earned Value Management|earned value management]]:
Today I spoke to a peer about [[earned-value-management]]:
how it relates to our [[pdi-estimating#ConEst Processes|WBS]]
and my negative opinion of it.
and my negative opinion of EVM in general.
+2 -2
View File
@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ recent implementation of [[conest-pre-takeoff-email-template]].
### Peer @ 13:42
_A screenshot of the new Pre-Takeoff email template._
_The fields "Breaker Types" and "AIC Ratings" are highlighted._
> _A screenshot of the new Pre-Takeoff email template._
> _The fields "Breaker Types" and "AIC Ratings" are highlighted._
At what point is it no longer spoon feeding
and instead should be considered fully chewing and digesting?
+1 -1
View File
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ because the fallibility of experts is almost universally understood.
I'm not educated, but I've known many subject matter experts;
electricians that have been so
for over half as long as the profession has existed in earnest.
I have known them to be as fallible
I have known them to be as fallible,
but I know you've been in my shoes
and experienced the same in your own profession,
so we can share this secret and recognize
+7 -5
View File
@@ -3,16 +3,18 @@ id: 2026-03-09T08:51:24-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-03-09 08:51:24
tags:
- authorship/original
- authorship/other
- destiny/permanent
- exclude-from-word-count
- occupational
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-03-09T08:51:24-04:00
daily: "[[2026-03-09]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W11]]"
date-created: 2026-03-09T08:51:24-04:00
dg-publish: true
monthly: "[[2026-03]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q1]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W11]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-03-09 08:51:24
@@ -370,4 +372,4 @@ Regularly achieves performance targets and actions.
%%
We agreed that this one was not meant for us.
%%
%%
+4
View File
@@ -27,3 +27,7 @@ but will increase to 8.25% effective July 1, 2026.[^1]
[^1]: [Spectrum News - Mecklenburg County passes sales tax increase proposal](https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2025/11/05/sales-tax-increase-proposal-passes)
Project start date according to the Approved PDI Labor Plan is 2025-05-04.
***
Bid used 8.25% as they ought to have.
+7 -7
View File
@@ -22,12 +22,12 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97
| Estimate Class | Expected Accuracy (Low) | Expected Accuracy (High) |
| --------------------------------------------- | -----------------------:| ------------------------:|
| Class 5 --- Concept Screening | -20% to -50% | +30% to +100% |
| Class 4 --- Study or Feasibility | -15% to -30% | +20% to +50% |
| Class 3 --- Budget, Authorization, or Control | -10% to -20% | +10% to +30% |
| Class 2 --- Control or Bid/Tender | -5% to -15% | +5% to +20% |
| Class 1 --- Check Estimate or Bid/Tender | -3% to -10% | +3% to +15% |
| Estimate Class | Expected Accuracy (Low) | Expected Accuracy (High) |
| ------------------------------------------ | -----------------------:| ------------------------:|
| Class 5: Concept Screening | -20% to -50% | +30% to +100% |
| Class 4: Study or Feasibility | -15% to -30% | +20% to +50% |
| Class 3: Budget, Authorization, or Control | -10% to -20% | +10% to +30% |
| Class 2: Control or Bid/Tender | -5% to -15% | +5% to +20% |
| Class 1: Check Estimate or Bid/Tender | -3% to -10% | +3% to +15% |
![](https://library.aacei.org/pgd01/PGD01_Figure1.png)
+1 -24
View File
@@ -17,31 +17,8 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-06 16:47:44
## Nirvana Fallacy
The [nirvana fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)
also called the "perfect solution fallacy"
is the mistake made when a solution proposed to replace one existing
is judged against a hypothetical perfect solution
rather than the solution in current use.
> [!quote] Harold Demsetz "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint" (1969)[^1]
> The view that now pervades much public policy economics
> implicitly presents the relevant choice
> as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement.
> This _nirvana_ approach differs considerably
> from a _comparative institution_ approach
> in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.
[^1]: Harold Demsetz
"Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint"
_The Journal of Law and Economics_
Volume 12, Number 1
(April 1969)
[doi:10.1086/466657](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F466657)
The "_[[the-failure-of-risk-management#_Exsupero Ursus_|exsupero ursus]]_ fallacy"
as coined by Douglas Hubbard in [[hubbard_2020_failure]][^2]
describes the same problem.
is a restatement of the [[nirvana-fallacy]].
[^2]: Or earlier? I can't recall.
+3 -2
View File
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
# 2026-04-10 08:28:18
I tend to think I have more to contribute to [[conest]] than to Bid.
I need to know more about the executive philosophy of both
I'd need to know more about the executive philosophy of both
before I could decide to switch or stay.
> Moreover, what about estimating coordinators and "estimating solutions"?
@@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ then it should follow that ConEst effort
should be proportional to building area,
but this is not usually the case in practice.
Since larger jobs tend to have more typical work,
jobs of every size tend to take about two weeks.
jobs of every size tend to take about two weeks
(80 estimator hours plus change for review).
In order for ConEst to estimate as budgeted,
we would need standards for acceptable takeoff
at multiple levels of estimating detail.
+40
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
id: 2026-04-11T15:29:01-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-11 15:29:01
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-11T15:29:01-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-11]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W15]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-11 15:29:01
My main concern in planning my diet is **waste**.
In my pantry I keep perishable items that I use habitually
(like ingredients for granola and tuna salad).
These are never at risk of spoilage
and would not be even if their _place_ was inconspicuous and inaccessible
because their regular use is necessitated by my habit.
These should still be placed for convenience
since I am liable to misplace them when returning them all in a hurry.
I frequently buy ingredients in bulk for value.
A backup tub of mayo may be placed inconveniently
since I'll only ever need to get to it once,
but it must be conspicuous else I may forget it
and mistakenly buy more after finishing the first.
Often I will buy ingredients that I have little experience with
without a strong idea of what specifically I want to use them for,
except the promise of a more rounded or interesting diet.
These must be the most conspicuous and most accessible items in the pantry
otherwise I'm likely to forget them until they spoil.
+79
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
---
id: 2026-04-11T16:20:11-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-11 16:20:11
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-11T16:20:11-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-11]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W15]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-11 16:20:11
> At first I thought this distinction in medium was between web and print,
> but in writing I recognized that Wikipedia was not especially innovative
> the web made reference print (namely encyclopedias) obsolete,
> but nonfiction literature has probably never been a preferred source of truth.
I think I like nonfiction books
because I grew up during a time
when the internet was already established
as the definitive source of all knowledge,
but when there was still vocal opposition
to its adoption as such.
In elementary school I was taught how to use the library traditionally
and I heard every week that on Wikipedia
erroneous content is presented as fact.
At the time I took issue with the warning,
now I recognize it as implicit [[nirvana-fallacy]].
Print encyclopedias have the same problem
with the additional complication
that those errors can't be fixed after distribution.
A serious limitation favoring Wikipedia
since our library's encyclopedias were a decade old.
Many people my age and much older feel validated remembering math class
knowing that they _do_ have a calculator on them at all times.
For the same reason,
my favorite books to own are ones that are wrong:
old computer science textbooks
that speculate about the future (now past),
opinion pieces with really shit opinions,
etc.
Because I now understand that books are works of art
that occasionally contain truths
(which they have always been)
rather than sources of truth
which occasionally possess artistic merit
(which they have never been)
they're much more interesting.
Most people have an understanding
that every book comes with an implied statement from its author
that they believe it is worth your time.
I don't think that most people have this expectation for encyclopedias.
I'd feel sorry for a book never finished,
but an encyclopedia entry serves most of its purpose
just by being in the volume.
* A book is text someone wanted you to read.
* An encyclopedia is text that someone wanted to be available.
The utility of a book is in its focus:
I have a lot of issues with [[hubbard_2020_failure]],
but if a coworker wanted to learn about [[statistical-modeling]] for business
I'd hand them that book
rather than send them links to a dozen articles
that may communicate their respective ideas more effectively.
+29
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
id: 2026-04-11T17:07:47-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-11 17:07:47
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-11T17:07:47-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-11]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W15]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-11 17:07:47
My understanding is that most people
in their professions participate
in at least one business process
that resists all attempts at explanation.
I (perhaps inappropriately)
associate [cargo cults](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult)
with this sort of business process
which is so complex
that criticism of it inevitably invites a [[courtiers-reply]].
+63
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
---
id: 2026-04-11T23:50:56-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-11 23:50:56
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-11T23:50:56-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-11]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W15]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-11 23:50:56
## already two from today
![300](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81L00i9fdmL.jpg)
While antiquing with my mom [[2026-04-03]]
I found a flip open A-Z address directory.
I had never seen one before
and using it made me genuinely excited.
I was considering how I might use it
when I remembered that it
(like dozens of other clever devices, I'm sure)
had been made obsolete by the cell phone
which has been ubiquitous as long as I've been alive.
I thought about my typewriter.
I asked my mom if,
when she was my age,
she was ever intrigued the same way,
by dead tech.
She said she wasn't,
that she was always happy for the replacement.
It's not exactly fair, I guess.
I've got my pick of hundreds
killed by the PC alone.
She was just older than me now,
had used them all she cared to,
was happy to see them go.
I'm typing this on a new laptop
remembering my first.
It was mostly the same.
Just a decade after the Rolodex was killed,
but already two from today.
In another another three
my kid will say the same.
Just a decade after the Rolodex was killed,
but already five from today.
Chips get faster,
apps get slower.
Nothing changes,
but I think it used to be fun.
+30
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
---
id: 2026-04-12T02:23:28-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-12 02:23:28
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-12T02:23:28-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-12]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W15]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-12 02:23:28
Speaking to a mechanical engineer formerly employed by PDI
I asked if they had any examples of PDI-specific practice
that they had been lead to believe was industry standard.
They said that the drafting that they were expected to perform
was at an unhappy middle ground of detail
between the practice they were taught in school
would be appropriate for their skill
and that which they associated with operations.
I likened the engineer's experience to my own in estimating,
although I came from the grunt work side of detail.