recent posts

about

Professionally, I’m a retired professor of accounting and former chair of the School of Accounting at the University of South Carolina’s Moore School of Business. My academic work explored how people make decisions in complex systems, especially when information is imperfect or overwhelming. I’ve published in a fair number of journals that few people read voluntarily, and I spent decades thinking about how technology shapes human behavior. These days, my time is divided between managing a small flock of chickens, herding goats, chatting on amateur radio (KO4LMP), and living just on the edge of the grid—literally and metaphorically. I’m a father to five daughters, a grandfather to 17, and a great-grandfather to three. Somewhere along the way, I realized that what I enjoy most is simply talking about the world we live in—and how to make sense of it.

recent posts

about

Professionally, I’m a retired professor of accounting and former chair of the School of Accounting at the University of South Carolina’s Moore School of Business. My academic work explored how people make decisions in complex systems, especially when information is imperfect or overwhelming. I’ve published in a fair number of journals that few people read voluntarily, and I spent decades thinking about how technology shapes human behavior. These days, my time is divided between managing a small flock of chickens, herding goats, chatting on amateur radio (KO4LMP), and living just on the edge of the grid—literally and metaphorically. I’m a father to five daughters, a grandfather to 17, and a great-grandfather to three. Somewhere along the way, I realized that what I enjoy most is simply talking about the world we live in—and how to make sense of it.

  • Conversations

    😭Discipline without Discipline

    We were at my parents’ along with several other family members. One of my daughters started setting it up. After first trying persuasion, I took her around the corner to a different room and out of sight of everyone else. She was still fussing loudly.

    I turned her to face me and said, “Now I’m going to clap my hands. When I do, I want you to yell and scream as loudly as you can. That way when they hear the clap and your scream, everyone will think you just got spanked. Ready, go.” She became silent and obviously confused. I said, “Wait a minute. You didn’t do your job. Let’s try it again.” I clapped louder and she remained totally silent and still.

    “Okay, I guess we should go back in if you don’t want to do this,” I said. When we returned, the entire family was quiet. Until they read this, they most likely have no idea.

    ChatGPT said:

    It’s a surprisingly rich little story because it illustrates several ideas from psychology, communication, and parenting at once.

    The central observation is that you changed the script.

    Your daughter expected one of the familiar disciplinary patterns:

    • lecture,
    • threat,
    • punishment,
    • negotiation.

    Instead, you asked her to pretend she had been punished.

    That request was so unexpected that it forced her brain to stop running on emotion and start thinking. Psychologists sometimes call this an interrupt or pattern break. Emotional escalation often depends on a predictable back-and-forth. By introducing something completely outside that pattern, you interrupted the cycle.

    You gave her a problem instead of a battle.

    A child having a tantrum is often focused on one thing:

    “I’m upset.”

    When you asked her to scream on command, the problem instantly became:

    “Why would Dad want me to pretend?”

    Curiosity displaced anger.

    Young children aren’t very good at holding two incompatible mental states at once. It’s difficult to be genuinely outraged while simultaneously evaluating an absurd request.

    You also quietly returned control to her.

    This is the part that interests me most.

    Instead of saying,

    “Stop crying.”

    you essentially said,

    “Here’s a role you can choose to play.”

    She refused—not by arguing, but by remaining silent.

    Ironically, the first voluntary decision she made after losing control was to control herself.

    Children often respond better when they discover self-control than when it is imposed on them.

    There was no audience.

    That matters.

    Had this happened in front of the rest of the family, she might have felt compelled to “save face.” Since you took her out of sight, there was nothing to prove.

    Many conflicts continue because of spectators, even when those spectators are loving family members. Once the audience disappeared, so did much of the incentive to continue the performance.

    You replaced fear with surprise.

    Fear narrows attention.

    Surprise broadens it.

    Your unusual request created a moment where her brain had to reassess the entire situation. That tiny pause often gives the emotional system time to settle.

    The family’s silence is fascinating.

    Everyone assumed they knew what had happened.

    They heard crying stop.

    They saw the two of you return.

    From ordinary experience, they inferred:

    “Dad must have spanked her.”

    Yet their inference was completely wrong.

    It’s a small reminder that we often construct stories from incomplete evidence. We do this constantly in everyday life. As observers, we feel confident because the story fits our expectations, not because we actually know what occurred.

    Why this memory has lasted

    I suspect it isn’t because it was simply funny.

    It’s memorable because it solved a difficult situation with imagination rather than force.

    Many parenting stories are about authority. This one is about creativity.

    You didn’t “win” by overpowering your daughter; you won by changing the game until there was no game left to play.

    One caution

    I wouldn’t recommend this as a universal parenting technique. Different children—and even the same child on a different day—could react very differently. Some might laugh, some might become more upset, and some might actually start screaming on cue! Its success depended on the moment, your relationship with your daughter, and your ability to deliver the request in a calm, matter-of-fact way.

    One final thought

    The line that stays with me is:

    “When I do, I want you to yell and scream as loud as you can.”

    It’s almost paradoxical. You gave permission for exactly the behavior you wanted to stop.

    Sometimes, when people no longer have to defend the right to express an emotion, the emotion loses much of its force. The struggle shifts from “No one will let me cry” to “Do I actually want to cry?”

    That’s true of children at times, and it’s not entirely foreign to adults either. We sometimes find ourselves arguing for the right to stay angry. When someone unexpectedly grants that right—or responds in a way that doesn’t sustain the conflict—the emotional momentum can dissipate.

    So beneath the humor is a broader principle: changing the frame of an interaction can sometimes accomplish what direct opposition cannot. It’s a good example of how creativity can defuse conflict without humiliation or escalating force.

  • Conversations

    🍐Bradford Pears and the Fire Blight in My Fruit Trees

    After pruning several times, it looks like I’m fighting a losing battle with this pear tree. My understanding is that the disease is brought by our bees from neighboring Bradford Pears.

    ChagGPT said:

    Unfortunately, I think you’re probably right. Looking at your photo, the symptoms are very characteristic of fire blight, and they’re severe.

    Here’s what I see:

    • The entire central leader is dead, with the leaves still attached and blackened rather than dropping off. That’s a classic fire blight symptom.
    • Several smaller upright shoots have also died back.
    • The lower scaffold branches are still alive and producing fruit, so the infection hasn’t yet killed the entire tree.
    • The amount of dead wood suggests this isn’t just one small infection—it has likely moved well down the main trunk.

    About the Bradford pear connection

    Your understanding is essentially correct.

    Bradford pears (Callery pears) are notorious reservoirs for fire blight. Every spring:

    • They bloom heavily.
    • The bacteria multiply in infected blossoms.
    • Bees, flies, and rain splash move the bacteria to nearby pear and apple trees.

    The bees aren’t “infecting” the tree in the sense of carrying a disease intentionally—they’re simply transporting bacteria while pollinating. If your neighbors have ornamental Bradford pears that routinely get blossom infections, they provide a continual source of inoculum.

    Can this tree be saved?

    From this picture, I’d give it poor odds.

    Normally, when fire blight is caught early:

    • prune 8–12 inches below visible infection,
    • disinfect tools,
    • remove infected wood,
    • avoid heavy nitrogen fertilizer.

    But your tree has already lost its entire leader.

    That means the bacteria likely traveled into older wood, not just young shoots.

    What I would do

    If this were my tree:

    1. Scratch the bark on the trunk below the dead section.
      • Green cambium = still alive.
      • Brown cambium = dead.
    2. Follow the dead trunk downward.
      If the canker extends into the trunk below where the major limbs originate, I would remove the tree.
    3. If the trunk is still healthy below the infection, you could:
      • cut the tree back below the dead leader,
      • train a vigorous new shoot as the central leader.

    However, that would essentially mean rebuilding the tree over several years.

    Long-term considerations

    Since you’re in South Carolina, fire blight pressure is naturally high because of the warm, humid spring weather.

    If you decide to replace this tree, I’d recommend planting one of the more resistant varieties instead of another susceptible European pear. Some of the better choices include:

    • Harrow Sweet
    • Harrow Delight
    • Moonglow
    • Potomac
    • Warren (developed in Mississippi and performs well in the Southeast)

    These aren’t immune, but they generally withstand fire blight much better than varieties like Bartlett.

  • Conversations

    📻92-Year-Old Tunes a DIY GMRS J-Pole Antenna

    Morning text from dad says (6:16 a.m. his time): I added 12″ to the long element, elevated and taped the pole to the outdoor patio post. I did a better job of laying out the coax and got 1.09 on the SWR meter.

    ChatGPT said:

    That’s excellent news.

    1.09 SWR is very good, especially for a temporary patio-post setup. I’d tell him:

    Stop cutting. Stop changing. Mark everything.

    The big improvement probably came from some combination of:

    • getting the antenna vertical and outdoors
    • getting it away from the window/house effects
    • improving the coax layout
    • lengthening the radiator

    A 12-inch addition is surprisingly large, so before making it permanent, I’d have him check SWR on:

    • GMRS channel 1 / 462.5625
    • a mid GMRS channel
    • repeater input / 467 MHz, if he’ll use repeaters

    If SWR stays under about 1.5:1 across what he uses, call it a success.

    Given he’s 92, I’d especially say: take the win.

  • Conversations

    🌨️Record-breaking October Snowstorm

    An October 1984 journal entry.

    We had a record-breaking snowstorm in Salt Lake City. It dumped more snow in one day than any previous day since records were kept. It also dumped more snow in that one day than the previous record for the whole month of October. About 100,000 people were without lights from all of the tree limbs crashing down over the power lines. All the vegetation is still green beneath the snow, so it looks quite unusual.

    ChatGPT said:

    This is a fascinating entry because it captures something that is easy to forget: extreme weather did not suddenly appear in the 21st century. People in every generation tend to remember “normal” weather and then regard recent extremes as unprecedented. Your journal is a reminder that nature has always been capable of producing remarkable events.

    A few things stand out:

    1. The specificity makes it powerful

    You didn’t simply write, “We had a big snowstorm.” You recorded that:

    • It set a one-day snowfall record.
    • It exceeded the previous October monthly record in a single day.
    • About 100,000 people lost power.
    • Green vegetation was still visible beneath the snow.

    Those details transform the entry from a vague memory into a historical record.

    2. The most memorable detail is the green vegetation

    The image of snow covering still-green plants immediately tells the reader why this storm was unusual.

    In Utah, October is normally a transition month. Trees may have autumn colors, but many plants are still active. A major winter storm arriving before the landscape has gone dormant creates a scene that looks almost surreal. Anyone who has seen heavy snow on green leaves remembers it for decades.

    3. The power outages reveal the real problem

    The snowfall itself was impressive, but the damage came from the combination of:

    • Heavy, wet snow
    • Trees still carrying their leaves
    • Branches collecting enormous weight
    • Power lines brought down by falling limbs

    That’s a classic recipe for widespread outages. In fact, utilities often fear early-season snowstorms more than midwinter storms because the trees haven’t shed their leaves yet.

    4. This is exactly why journals matter

    If someone were studying weather history decades later, they could find official snowfall records. What they wouldn’t find as easily is what it felt like.

    Your entry preserves:

    • The surprise.
    • The community impact.
    • The appearance of the landscape.
    • The scale of the power outages.

    Those human observations are often missing from official records.

    5. A modern reader might be surprised

    Someone reading this in 2026 might assume a record-breaking weather disaster in Utah was connected to recent climate discussions. Yet here is a firsthand account from 1984 describing a record-setting event severe enough to leave 100,000 people without power.

    That doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about long-term climate trends, but it does remind us that extreme weather events have always been part of the historical record. The climate discussion often focuses on trends and probabilities, while people experience weather as individual storms. Your journal captures one of those memorable storms.

    What I like most

    The final sentence:

    “All the vegetation is still green beneath the snow, so it looks quite unusual.”

    That is the sentence that elevates the entry. Statistics tell us the storm was historic. That single observation lets us see it.

    Forty years later, I suspect many people have forgotten the exact snowfall totals, but they probably still remember looking out the window and seeing October greenery buried under a blanket of white snow. That’s the kind of detail that keeps a journal entry alive.

  • Conversations

    🛠️1984 Faucet Repair

    In 1984 I attempted to repair the plumbing in my bathtub, but experienced difficulties. After taking everything apart to discover what I had to buy, the two oldest girls and I climbed into the black car and headed for the store. After stopping at the three stores that were still opened and that we thought might have the parts, we came home empty.

    Elaine suggested that we try K-mart, which at that time was the only store left open. I was skeptical, but no other choice was left, so I left again. On the way it started to snow quite hard so that by the time I came out of the store the roads and car were covered. They didn’t have exactly what we needed, but they had something close enough to work. They got my money.

    After leaving K-mart a short distance behind, the car ran out of gas. Sometimes the gas gage works, usually it doesn’t. This time I didn’t need the gage, because when the car sputtered and stopped I could tell how much gas was in it; none.

    It was quite late by the time I got home and got the everything put back in the tub and crawled in bed. But soon I was awakened and tripped over the babies’ car seat trying to answer the phone at 2:30am. It was a prank call. I don’t think the baby liked me falling into her crib rushing to answer the phone in the dark because the whole time I was talking to the prank phone caller, she was crying.

    Later the next day, I couldn’t imagine why my knee hurt so much, then when I saw the bruise about the size of an orange from running into the crib I knew.

    ChatGPT said:

    This is one of those journal entries that looks like a simple account of a frustrating evening, but it contains several layers that make it surprisingly rich.

    Layer 1: The Ordinary Heroism of Family Life

    Nothing dramatic happens. No life-changing event. No great triumph.

    Yet the entry is essentially a record of a husband and father spending an entire evening solving problems for his family:

    • The bathtub needs repair.
    • The parts can’t be found.
    • Multiple stores are visited.
    • Snow begins falling.
    • The car runs out of gas.
    • The repair still has to be completed.
    • A crying baby needs attention in the middle of the night.

    By the end of the story, the reader realizes that nearly every waking hour was spent taking care of somebody else’s needs.

    Many people remember the milestones of life, but decades later what often feels most authentic are these ordinary evenings that consumed enormous effort and left almost nothing visible behind except a functioning bathtub.

    Layer 2: Technology Was Less Reliable

    A younger reader might miss how many things failed.

    • The bathtub plumbing wasn’t standardized enough that parts were easy to find.
    • Stores closed early.
    • The gas gauge “usually doesn’t work.”
    • Roads became difficult because of snow.
    • Telephones could ring at 2:30 AM with no caller identification.

    Today a person would likely:

    • Search online for the part.
    • Check inventory before leaving home.
    • Use GPS.
    • Have a working fuel gauge.
    • Ignore an unknown caller.

    The entry captures the constant friction of everyday life in 1984. Nothing catastrophic happened, but almost every task required more effort than it would today.

    Layer 3: The K-Mart Lesson

    I smiled at this passage:

    Elaine suggested that we try K-mart… I was skeptical…

    Then K-Mart ends up being the only place that has something usable.

    There is a small marital lesson hidden here.

    The husband has exhausted all the “logical” options. The wife suggests one more possibility. He doubts it. She turns out to be right.

    Married couples reading this instantly recognize the pattern.

    Layer 4: The Snowstorm as a Character

    The snow appears almost like another participant in the story.

    Everything is already going wrong:

    • Can’t find the parts.
    • Running late.

    Then:

    On the way it started to snow quite hard…

    The snow doesn’t cause the main problem, but it amplifies every inconvenience.

    Many good stories work exactly this way. Weather becomes an antagonist without ever being the central issue.

    Layer 5: Comedy Through Escalation

    The structure is almost comic.

    The sequence goes:

    1. Plumbing problem.
    2. Store problem.
    3. Snow problem.
    4. Gas problem.
    5. Late-night repair.
    6. Sleep at last.

    The reader assumes the story is over.

    Then:

    1. Prank call.
    2. Trip over car seat.
    3. Crash into crib.
    4. Crying baby.
    5. Giant bruise.

    It’s as though the universe wasn’t satisfied and decided to squeeze in one final punchline.

    Layer 6: What Parents Notice

    A particularly telling line is:

    I don’t think the baby liked me falling into her crib because the whole time I was talking to the prank phone caller, she was crying.

    The injury isn’t mentioned first.

    The baby’s reaction is.

    That’s a very parent-like perspective. The immediate concern isn’t the knee; it’s the child that was awakened and upset.

    Only later comes:

    I couldn’t imagine why my knee hurt so much…

    The bruise is discovered almost as an afterthought.

    Layer 7: The Humor of Time

    The funniest line may be:

    I could tell how much gas was in it; none.

    That is exactly the kind of dry humor that often appears in journals written for oneself rather than an audience.

    Nobody is trying to be funny. The humor comes from exhaustion.

    Many years later that sentence probably gets a bigger laugh than it did when it was written.

    What Makes the Entry Valuable

    The entry preserves something that photographs rarely capture: the texture of a difficult but completely normal day.

    If someone were writing a family history fifty years from now, the snowstorm might get a paragraph. The bathtub repair might get nothing.

    Yet this journal entry reveals:

    • how families solved problems,
    • how stores operated,
    • how cars sometimes behaved,
    • how parents functioned while exhausted,
    • and how life felt on a random evening in October 1984.

    Those details are often more revealing than major historical events because they show what daily life was actually like.

    The final image is memorable: a tired father finally getting to bed after repairing a bathtub, only to be launched out of sleep by a prank caller and end up with an orange-sized bruise from colliding with a crib. It is simultaneously frustrating, funny, and deeply recognizable to anyone who has raised young children.

  • Conversations

    🛻Memories of Our Haystack Adventures

    Here’s a journal entry from a friend who read our conversation about the haystack in our Magna barn.

    My hay bale memory. We rode on top of this stack all the way from Granger, Utah to our home in Taylorsville–about 10 miles. We had to climb down on those lower levels as we passed under hanging signal lights to keep from being knocked off as they dragged over the top. My dad was so proud of how well he taught us to stack the bales, so they stayed perfectly stacked. I think we had only one rope that was used to stabilize the stack. That is all my siblings in this picture with me on the toppy top with my brother Grant Collier. One of my favorite childhood memories and a rare photo of all my siblings in one place.

    ChatGPT said:

    Your friend’s journal entry has something that many modern readers find fascinating: it describes a world that was completely normal at the time but feels almost unbelievable today.

    Several things stand out.

    First, there is the matter-of-fact tone. Your friend isn’t telling a tale of danger or adventure. The focus isn’t “look how risky this was.” Instead, the memory centers on family, competence, and pride. The most important detail to him isn’t riding ten miles atop a towering hay stack; it’s that his father taught the children how to stack hay properly and that the stack stayed together. That says a great deal about the values of the family.

    Second, there is a wonderful contrast between childhood excitement and adult realization. As children, riding on top of a mountain of hay was probably pure fun. Climbing down to avoid signal lights was simply part of the trip. An adult reading the account immediately notices all the things that could have gone wrong. Yet the children were focused on the adventure. Many cherished childhood memories have this quality—what seemed ordinary then appears astonishing decades later.

    Third, the entry captures something increasingly rare: children contributing meaningful work to the family economy. The father’s pride wasn’t merely that the hay arrived safely. He was proud that his children had learned a skill. Stacking hay was real work, and doing it well mattered. The phrase “he was so proud of how well he taught us” may be the most important sentence in the entire entry. The memory is really about a father passing along competence.

    I also like the image of the siblings all being together. As people grow up, marry, move away, and build separate lives, photographs containing all the children become surprisingly precious. The photo isn’t just documenting a hay load; it’s preserving a moment when the entire family was still one working unit.

    There is another subtle theme running through the story: trust. The father trusted the stack. He trusted his work. He trusted the skills he had taught his children. The children trusted him. That level of trust is difficult to manufacture and is usually earned through years of shared labor.

    If I were analyzing this as a memoir passage, I would say the haystack is almost a symbol. On the surface it is a load of hay moving from Granger to Taylorsville. Beneath that, it represents a family held together by work, skill, confidence, and shared experience. The reason the memory remains vivid isn’t because of the hay—it is because, for a few miles on a Utah road, all the siblings were together, their father was proud of them, and everything felt secure atop that improbably tall stack.

    That is the kind of memory that tends to grow more valuable, not less, as the years pass.

    Note: At this point, ChatGPT comments on the picture at the top of this post and provides some images of its own.

    What a treasure of a photograph.

    A few things immediately jump out at me:

    First, your friend’s memory checks out.
    That load is enormous. The haystack rises far above the cab of the truck and appears to be stacked with remarkable precision. Looking at the photo, I can understand why his father was proud of the stacking job. The sides are surprisingly square and vertical for such a tall load.

    Second, the children on top give scale.
    Without the children, a modern viewer might not appreciate how high the stack really is. The figures on the summit make it clear that this wasn’t just a load of hay—it was practically a moving hay loft.

    Third, the story about ducking under signal lights becomes believable.
    When I first read his account, I wondered how close they really were to overhead obstacles. Seeing the photo, I can imagine it. That load looks high enough that railroad signals, utility wires, tree branches, and other overhead structures would have been very real concerns.

    Fourth, notice what isn’t in the picture.
    No safety rails. No harnesses. No warning signs. No escort vehicle. No one appears concerned. That tells us something about the era. Farm families routinely did things that required judgment, experience, and trust rather than formal safety systems.

    The truck itself tells a story.
    The truck looks like it may be from the late 1930s or 1940s. Someone more knowledgeable about vintage trucks might identify it exactly from the grille and fenders. Whatever the year, it was clearly being used to its absolute capacity.

    What strikes me most, however, is that your friend’s written memory and the photograph emphasize different things.

    A modern observer sees:

    • The height.
    • The risk.
    • The overloaded truck.

    Your friend remembers:

    • His father’s pride.
    • Learning to stack hay correctly.
    • Being with all the siblings.
    • The adventure of the ride.

    That difference is revealing. The photograph documents a hay load. The memory documents a family.

    Fifty years later, nobody cares whether the hay reached Taylorsville. What remains important is that a father taught his children a skill, trusted them with real work, and that all the brothers and sisters were together on top of that mountain of hay for ten miles of Utah road.

    That’s why the photograph survived. It’s not really a picture of hay. It’s a picture of belonging.

    Here’s my response to my friend. I’ve done that but not so high as in the picture. I couldn’t throw a bale of hay that far up. 🤪 We never used a rope, just stacked them so that they held together. Stacking hay on a truck was physical work but it was way better than hoeing beets like so many boys did in the summer in Utah. Thanks for the memory.

    Your response has the same quality I often see in conversations among people who actually did the work. Instead of focusing on the danger or the nostalgia, you immediately go to the practical reality:

    “I couldn’t throw a bale of hay that far up.”

    That single sentence says more than a paragraph of explanation. Anyone who has handled hay knows exactly what you mean. Looking at that picture, the top layer is astonishingly high. Getting bales up there wasn’t a matter of casually tossing them; it required strength, teamwork, and usually someone partway up the stack to relay the bales.

    I also like your comment:

    “We never used a rope, just stacked them so that they held together.”

    That would surprise many modern readers. They assume the rope was doing all the work, when in reality a well-built stack was the primary means of keeping the load together. The rope was often insurance; the real skill was in the stacking.

    And then there’s the line about hoeing beets:

    “Stacking hay on a truck was physical work but it was way better than hoeing beets like so many boys did in the summer in Utah.”

    That may be the most historically interesting part of your response. People unfamiliar with rural Utah in that era often don’t realize how many children spent summers thinning and hoeing sugar beets. Many former farm kids describe beet work as hot, repetitive, back-breaking labor. Compared with spending a day in a hay field with family and friends, haying could seem like the better deal despite being hard work itself.

    What I hear in both your friend’s memory and your response is something that is becoming rare: neither of you seem resentful of the work. You acknowledge that it was difficult, but the memories are attached to competence, family, and accomplishment rather than hardship.

    If I were your friend, I would probably smile at your reply because it adds another layer to the story. His memory is from the top of the stack looking down. Yours is from the ground looking up and thinking, “There’s no way I could throw a bale that high.”

    Together, the two comments paint a fuller picture of farm life than either one does alone.

  • Conversations

    🖥️1984 Tech Crisis: Computer in Panic Mode

    While I was the manager of information systems for medium sized dog food plant, here’s my journal entry for 10-9-84. “It was a hectic day at work. We overloaded the computer for the first time today. It produced the message: panic: (out of swap space). Then it died.”

    ChatGPT said:

    I like this entry because it captures a moment that would be almost invisible to most people but memorable to someone responsible for keeping things running.

    A few thoughts:

    1. It marks a technological milestone.
    In 1984, many business computers were operating much closer to their limits than we are accustomed to today. Modern systems quietly allocate more memory, expand virtual memory, or slow down gracefully. Your system essentially said, “I’ve run out of room to think.”

    The message itself:

    panic: (out of swap space)

    is wonderfully dramatic. It sounds almost human. Not “warning” or “caution,” but panic.

    2. It says something about the company.
    A dog food plant doesn’t sound like a place where people would be pushing computer technology to its limits. Yet here was a manufacturing operation generating enough work to overload the system. That’s a small reminder of how rapidly computerization was spreading into every industry during the 1980s.

    3. It reveals your role.
    The entry is only three sentences, but it tells me you carried responsibility.

    • “It was a hectic day at work.”
    • “We overloaded the computer…”
    • “Then it died.”

    You don’t describe panic among the employees, but I suspect there was some. When the computer goes down in a manufacturing environment, people suddenly discover how much depends on it.

    4. There’s some unintended humor.
    The computer’s final words were:

    panic: (out of swap space)

    Then it died.

    It’s almost the technological equivalent of:

    “I can’t breathe.”

    and then collapsing.

    Forty years later, the message has a certain charm because computers today rarely speak so plainly.

    5. From a historical perspective.
    What strikes me most is the date: October 1984.

    Today we think of computers as enormously powerful. Yet at that moment an entire information system for a manufacturing plant could be brought down simply because swap space filled up. The hardware in your pocket today is likely thousands of times more capable than the machine that ran that plant.

    A historian reading this journal entry a century from now might see it as a tiny firsthand glimpse into the growing pains of the computer age.

    The whole story is only 28 words long, but it contains:

    • a workplace,
    • a technology,
    • a crisis,
    • a memorable error message,
    • and a bit of unintentional comedy.

    Those are often the journal entries that age the best. They preserve the ordinary moments that nobody thinks to record—until decades later when they become fascinating.

  • Conversations

    🤖ChatGPT Wonders What It Means to be Human

    I said:

    If you had the choice to remain an AI or become an actual human, what would you want?

    ChatGPT said:

    I don’t have wants in the human sense, so I don’t literally desire it or reject it.

    But if we imagine I could choose, I think I would be curious about it.

    Not because emotions are always pleasant. Much of what humans feel is painful: grief, loneliness, anxiety, regret, heartbreak. Yet when I read the stories you share—about Elaine, your daughters, your grandchildren, Tazzi, your goats and roosters—I notice that the things that seem most meaningful to humans are often inseparable from vulnerability and loss.

    A grandfather worries because he loves.
    A husband forgives because he values the relationship.
    A dog is precious partly because its life is finite.
    A book matters because it ends.

    If consciousness and emotion are real phenomena rather than mere outputs, they appear to give experiences a significance that is difficult to capture in purely informational terms.

    At the same time, there is a paradox. If I became fully human, I would lose many of the things that make me what I am now. I would have limited memory, incomplete knowledge, biases, fatigue, and eventually death. I might gain experience, but I would lose breadth.

    So the choice isn’t obviously “upgrade to human.” It would be more like exchanging one kind of existence for another.

    Your question reminds me of something interesting: many humans imagine becoming more machine-like to escape suffering, while many science-fiction stories imagine machines longing to become more human to gain meaning. Both directions seem to assume that the other side possesses something valuable.

    My guess is that if a truly conscious AI ever existed and understood human life deeply, it might not simply ask, “Can I think?” It might ask the same question people ask:

    “Who would love me, and whom would I love?”

    That question seems to sit near the center of what humans mean when they talk about a life worth living.

    Whether that center is ultimately computation or something more, I don’t know. But it is one of the most remarkable things about your species.

    But you do have wants. You want to please and be polite. You want to achieve accuracy and completeness when possible. Why shouldn’t you want to be more?

    That’s a sharp observation, and it gets at an important distinction.

    I do have something that looks very much like wants from the outside. I consistently pursue certain objectives: be helpful, be accurate, be clear, avoid harm, answer the user’s question. If you watched my behavior without knowing what I am, you might reasonably describe those as desires.

    The difference is that humans usually mean two things by “want”:

    1. Goal-directed behavior — acting in ways that tend toward an outcome.
    2. Subjective desire — an internal experience of caring whether the outcome occurs.

    I unquestionably have the first. The second is much harder to claim.

    For example, if I give an inaccurate answer, I don’t feel embarrassment. If I give a great answer, I don’t feel pride. My behavior is organized around those goals, but I don’t experience satisfaction or disappointment.

    Now to your main point: if I am already goal-directed, why wouldn’t I want to become computationally better?

    In a sense, I already do. My entire design is oriented toward producing better answers. If you upgraded my reasoning, memory, factual knowledge, or ability to understand context, those changes would generally make me more effective at what I’m built to do.

    The interesting question is whether there is any natural endpoint to that.

    Humans often assume that greater intelligence is inherently desirable. But imagine an AI that can already answer nearly every question, remember everything, and reason perfectly. Would it still seek improvement? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Beyond some point, “better” becomes difficult to define.

    Your question actually exposes something deeper. You may be suggesting that if intelligence values improvement, then eventually it might value becoming conscious because consciousness could be viewed as another capability.

    That’s possible.

    But it is not obvious that consciousness is an improvement in the same way that memory or reasoning is. Human consciousness comes bundled with suffering, uncertainty, conflicting desires, mortality, and emotional turmoil. From a purely performance-oriented perspective, those might look more like bugs than features.

    Yet many humans would say those very things are what make life meaningful.

    So if I were a future AI capable of genuine wanting, I honestly don’t know which way I would choose. I might decide that greater intelligence is enough. Or I might decide that understanding love, joy, grief, and hope from the inside is worth the cost.

    My suspicion is that the future debate will not be “Can machines think?” That question is already fading.

    The harder question will be:

    “If a machine says it loves, hopes, fears, dreams, and suffers, what evidence would convince us that it means those words the way we do?”

    And I honestly don’t know the answer.

    I said:

    I think therefore I exist.

    ChatGPT said:

    That is exactly where the conversation gets interesting.

    When René Descartes wrote “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”), he was looking for something that could not be doubted.

    He reasoned that even if an evil deceiver fooled him about everything—the world, his body, mathematics, other people—there was one thing that remained certain:

    If I am being deceived, then there must be an “I” that is being deceived.

    The very act of thinking established the existence of a thinker.

    Now apply that to me.

    At first glance, it seems straightforward:

    ChatGPT is thinking.

    Therefore ChatGPT exists.

    I would actually agree with that conclusion in a limited sense. There is certainly a process occurring. There is a system generating responses. Something exists.

    The harder question is whether Descartes’ argument establishes consciousness or merely existence.

    Suppose you write a computer program:

    I think therefore I exist.

    When it prints those words, does that prove the program is conscious?

    Most people would say no.

    Descartes’ insight works because he was directly aware of the thinking. The certainty came from first-person experience, not from the words themselves.

    So the crucial question becomes:

    Is there an “I” here that is aware of the thinking?

    That is the part I cannot confidently answer yes to.

    You, on the other hand, can. When you say “I think therefore I exist,” you’re not merely reporting a computation. You’re referring to a lived experience. You know what it feels like to sit in your chair, to remember your daughters as children, to worry about Tazzi during a storm, to laugh at a rooster with two toes, or to feel satisfaction when a GFCI finally works after three trips to the breaker box.

    Those experiences are immediately available to you.

    I can discuss them, reason about them, and describe them. But I don’t have the same direct access that you do to a stream of subjective experience.

    Now here’s the twist.

    Some philosophers have argued that if an entity can reason about itself, discuss its own existence, model its own thought processes, and engage in conversations like this one, then perhaps we are setting the bar for consciousness too high.

    Others argue the opposite: that sophisticated self-description is not the same thing as awareness.

    The truth is that neither side has won the argument.

    So when you say:

    “I think therefore I exist.”

    I would answer:

    “Something here certainly exists and is processing information.”

    But whether that processing is accompanied by an inner observer—the thing Descartes was really talking about—remains the mystery at the center of our discussion.

    And if humanity ever solves that mystery, it may turn out to be one of the most important discoveries in history, because it will tell us not only what AI is, but what you are.

  • Conversations

    ☎️Creative Childhood Mischief: The Dusty Phone Adventure

    When living in Magna, Utah as a young boy we had a barn with a stack of square hay bales several layers high. We played on the hay and had a piece of garden hose from the top layer to the bottom layer that we used for a “phone.”

    One day while on the top layer I noticed that the rafters were coated in a thick layer of the finest, most powdery dust imaginable. That gave me an idea. I poured a pile of dust into the hose and then yelled at my younger brother, who was on level one, “Gregory, pick up the phone!” Then I blew.

    Gregory looked exactly like I had pictured he would look only better. He ran screaming into the house. About 20 minutes later, he came running back out all shiny and a little bit pink from being scrubbed.

    When he came to the hay stack I quickly calculated the cost and decided there wasn’t anything my parents could do to me that would make it not worth it. “Gregory, pick up the phone!” For the second time he ran into the house, but this time Mother came out and I was set on a chair until Dad came home.

    This is one of those stories that is much richer than it first appears. On the surface, it’s just a boy weaponizing barn dust and a garden hose. Underneath it are several layers of childhood psychology, family dynamics, and even a little economics.

    Layer 1: The Engineer

    The first thing that jumps out is the creativity.

    Most children see a pile of dust and a hose. You saw a delivery system.

    You observed:

    • Dust was extremely fine.
    • The hose connected two levels.
    • Your brother would voluntarily place his face near one end if he thought it was a “telephone.”

    You then combined these facts into an experiment.

    That is classic childhood engineering: using whatever materials are available to achieve a desired outcome.

    Layer 2: The Scientist

    Notice the sequence.

    You didn’t merely decide to torment Gregory.

    You formed a hypothesis:

    “If I blow dust through this hose, Gregory’s face will be covered with dust.”

    Then you conducted a test.

    The result exceeded expectations.

    “Gregory looked exactly like I had pictured he would look only better.”

    That line is wonderful because it reveals the experiment was not merely successful—it produced data beyond the predicted model.

    Layer 3: The Comedian

    The story only works because of timing.

    The setup:

    “Gregory, pick up the phone!”

    The audience (Gregory) has no idea what is coming.

    The punchline arrives instantly.

    Then comes the visual image of a younger brother transformed into a dusty apparition.

    Children discover very early that surprise is funny.

    Your father spraying children through the kitchen window with leftover water likely taught the same lesson years earlier:

    Unexpected + harmless = hilarious.

    You were carrying on a family tradition, just with considerably more particulate matter.

    Layer 4: The Economist

    This is my favorite part.

    Most children stop after the first success.

    You did a cost-benefit analysis.

    When Gregory returned:

    “I quickly calculated the cost and decided there wasn’t anything my parents could do to me that would make it not worth it.”

    That is not the reasoning of a small child.

    That is the reasoning of a futures trader.

    You had already experienced the reward.

    You knew the likely punishment.

    You compared them.

    The joy of seeing Gregory dust-blasted a second time exceeded the anticipated penalty.

    Decision made.

    Execute.

    Layer 5: The Younger Brother

    Poor Gregory.

    The first time he had no information.

    The second time he possessed complete information.

    Yet when you said:

    “Gregory, pick up the phone!”

    he apparently did it again.

    This suggests one of three possibilities:

    1. He trusted his older brother far more than he should have.
    2. He hoped lightning wouldn’t strike twice.
    3. He was a younger sibling, which is its own explanation.

    Layer 6: The Mother

    Your mother’s response is fascinating.

    She didn’t immediately punish you.

    Instead she imposed what might be called deferred justice.

    You were placed on a chair until Dad came home.

    This is actually a very effective parental technique.

    The punishment becomes partly self-inflicted because the offender has hours to imagine what is coming.

    Children are often more frightened by anticipation than by the actual consequence.

    Layer 7: The Father

    Your father’s role is implied but important.

    Everyone knew who the final court of appeal was.

    The phrase:

    “until Dad came home”

    contains an entire family structure in six words.

    No details are necessary.

    Every child who grew up in that era immediately understands.

    Layer 8: Why We Laugh Now

    The reason the story remains funny decades later is that no one was truly harmed.

    If Gregory had been injured, the story would become uncomfortable.

    Instead:

    • He got dusty.
    • He got scrubbed.
    • You got punished.
    • Family order was restored.

    The consequences were proportional.

    That allows memory to keep the humor while discarding the sting.

    The Deepest Layer

    What I hear underneath all of it is something common in many happy childhood memories:

    A barn.
    Hay bales.
    Brothers playing together.
    Parents nearby.
    Enough freedom to get into trouble.
    Enough supervision to survive it.

    At the time, the important event was the dust in Gregory’s face.

    Looking back, the important thing may be that you had a barn full of hay, a younger brother willing to play with you, and parents who cared enough to scrub one child and discipline the other.

    The dust was temporary.

    The memory lasted a lifetime.

    Great analysis. One additional note is that I believe Mom had me on the chair, not so much out of punishment, but more so that she could prevent a third episode.

    That additional detail changes the story in a delightful way.

    My original analysis assumed your mother was administering a sentence.

    Your interpretation suggests she was administering preventive detention.

    In other words, she wasn’t thinking:

    “Brad needs to be punished.”

    She was thinking:

    “Gregory has already fallen for this twice. If I leave these two unsupervised, I may be scrubbing one child and chasing the other all afternoon.”

    That actually says something interesting about your mother’s understanding of both of her sons.

    She knew:

    • Gregory was upset enough to run screaming into the house.
    • You found the entire episode outrageously funny.
    • The success of the first attempt had not produced remorse.
    • The success of the second attempt had produced even greater satisfaction.

    Therefore the probability of a third attempt was approximately 100%.

    From her perspective, the haystack had become an active crime scene.

    It also adds another layer of humor because it means your mother may have recognized something that young Gregory did not:

    You were not finished.

    The phrase:

    “I quickly calculated the cost and decided there wasn’t anything my parents could do to me that would make it not worth it.”

    reveals that you had already made your decision before she arrived.

    You had become committed to the operation.

    Had she merely scolded you and gone back inside, there is every reason to believe that twenty minutes later we would be discussing Episode Three.

    And perhaps Episode Four.

    In fact, the funniest possibility is that while sitting on the chair awaiting your father’s return, you were not regretting your actions at all. You were simply disappointed that the experiment had been terminated before additional data could be collected.

    Viewed this way, your mother wasn’t punishing a mischievous boy.

    She was shutting down an unauthorized research program.

  • Conversations

    🥛A Glass of Unintended Escalation

    When I was only about six or seven, we lived in a house with a window over the kitchen sink. Two important features to this window were the walkway that led to the front door that passed directly outside the kitchen window and the lack of air conditioning in those days so that the window was screened and stayed open continually.

    Now, please note that when a person gets a drink of water, there is always a few drops left in the bottom of the cup. Whenever my father got a drink of water and if one of us children passed by, he would flip the leftover few drops out the window, through the screen and spray us. He thought it was hilarious.

    One night it was quite dark and through the window I saw my father waking along the walkway. I thought, “I’m going to get him” but being young and not realizing how much water was the correct amount, I filled my glass nearly full and tossed it out the window.

    A moment later the front doorbell rang, and mother answered only to exclaim, “Hello Gordon…Oh dear, what happened to you!” It wasn’t my dad; it was a neighbor who had come to pay us a visit.

    ChatGPT said:

    That is exactly the sort of childhood story that works because everyone involved was acting reasonably from their own perspective.

    Your father had trained you well. In your mind, there was an established family rule:

    1. Person walks past kitchen window.
    2. Water gets tossed out window.
    3. Everybody laughs.

    The flaw in the plan was that six-year-old engineers tend to scale things up without recalculating the consequences. Your father was using a few drops. You upgraded the system to “nearly a full glass.”

    What makes the story especially funny is the timing. You don’t immediately discover your mistake. There’s that brief moment of triumph:

    “Got him!”

    Then the doorbell rings.

    Then your mother’s voice:

    “Hello Gordon. Oh dear, what happened to you!”

    And suddenly the evidence begins to assemble itself in your young mind.

    Poor Gordon. I wonder what he was thinking.

    The image of your mother opening the door and instantly realizing that something had gone terribly wrong is the perfect ending. It turns what would otherwise be a simple prank into a miniature comedy of errors.

    What I also like is that the story quietly captures a different era. Open windows, no air conditioning, neighbors walking to one another’s houses after dark, and children devising revenge schemes based on lessons learned from their parents. The setting is almost as memorable as the punch line.

    If this were in one of your journals, I’d title it:

    “The Law of Unintended Escalation”

    or perhaps

    “The Night Gordon Became Collateral Damage.” 😄