Digital Dilemma, Productivity

The Big Data Dangers

by  •  • 0 Comments

Everywhere, any time, data about us is being tracked. Some tracking happens without our consent. For example, our browsing and searching habits or things we are looking at to purchase. While we can opt out of some options, it can be necessary for us to participate in a digital world. Other tracking is for things that we willingly consent to. In some cases, we even volunteer or seek out opportunities to collect even more data about ourselves.

Over the years, I’ve seen a large number of devices and apps come into the market all focused on our bodies. Some of the apps aim to track our sleeping habits. Others aim to monitor our well-being, reminding us when we might need to stand up and walk around or stop and take a deep, calming breath. Fitness apps are also very popular. These apps track aspects of our movement and workouts. They will track things such as heart rate, distances traveled, and number of steps taken each day. Since I don’t actually use any of these apps, I’m sure even more things are tracked.

While I’m sure on some level it’s useful to have all these things tracked, on another it can be detrimental. I’ve recently seen many articles discussing the negative side of too much tracking. Is there such a thing as too much data? Apparently there is. It happens when recording too much data obscures the main purpose. Essentially, too many variables are present. This can make it difficult to figure out the most critical and consequential data. This can cause distractions from what the real issues are.

I’ve also heard accounts from people that they become too obsessed with the tracking. Consequently, the goals they are using the data to achieve becomes secondary to the goals of continually tracking the data. In some cases, this can cause them to miss vital information about what’s actually happening. For example, my swim goggles only record limited information about my strokes, mainly freestyle. However, they aren’t great at noticing some of the biggest trends with my swimming, such as my evening swims also score lower.

All of this data can be useful, but also distracting from what’s really going on. I suppose this would be an example of too many “red herrings” driving us further from answers instead of revealing what we need to know.

Productivity

Steady vs. Sprint

by  •  • 1 Comment

I’ve long learned the value of working away at things to achieve my goals. This has been my preferred method over sprinting, cramming, or rushing to get things done. For years on my instrument I adhered to the 10-minute a day rule. It doesn’t sound like much, but some days that was all I could fit in. I even recall racing back to my apartment some days between work and going out in the evening specifically to get in my 10 minutes at a decent time.

What I learned is that 10-minutes a day, especially when it’s focused and disciplined, adds up! Over time I could hear and feel improvements. I learned all my hard passages before the concerts. Although I also could have found time to practice for 70 minutes 1 day a week, I’m sure it would not have yielded the same results. Seventy minutes can be a lot to practice at one time, for both the brain and the mouth. It’s hard to remain mentally focused for that long. Mouth muscles are tiny and fatigue easily. Breaking up my practice sessions into a series of steady sprints allowed me to maintain momentum and quality.

I’ve found this method to be useful in other areas of my life as well. It provides me with a way to reach goals even when things get busy. For example, sometimes it’s hard to find enough consecutive time to clean the bathroom fully. If I keep postponing the task waiting until I get an hour free, it might be a long time. By breaking it up into 4 15-minute chunks, I can reach my goal. Sometimes this also means only doing 1 15-minute session a day so cleaning the whole bathroom can actually take up to 4 days. However, this can sometimes be faster. In the end, what’s important is the accomplishment of a clean bathroom.

This method also works well in my professional life. I’m always looking for ways to incrementally work away on hard, long tasks. Another tip is to get anything and everything possible out of the way as soon as possible. For example, my team and I hosted an event last week. Even though some tasks weren’t “due” until the event day, I encouraged the team to get them out of the way early to alleviate stress and free us up for other things.

Digital Dilemma, True Confessions

Thinking for Thinking’s Sake

by  •  • 1 Comment

Last weekend I had a random conversation with a legal executive from a technology company. Business was booming for the company. This was mostly because it specialized in AI, something everybody wants to have. She found it slightly ironic that we don’t want kids to learn with AI in schools. Yet, when they graduate, the expectation is that they will work with it. Almost all the engineers and developers in her organization used AI regularly, generative and agentic.

Though I could see her point, it raised some interesting questions. I feel different about using AI. I already know how to write essays and communications, create powerpoints, and draft emails. For me, AI is a short cut and a time saver. My base skills are firmly entrenched. In essence, AI provides me with another tool in the toolbox. However, people using AI as the main method don’t understand the full process before determining where AI is helpful or time saving. Instead, they rely on AI as the base skill to complete work.

I considered this over the next few days. One puzzling aspect is that sometimes people, even those raised on Google and ChatGPT, often don’t think to use it. They don’t even think to use something that literally does the thinking for them. For example, last summer when we had a trapped skunk in the window well, nobody thought about using search to save this poor animal. It was astounding to me. Instead, they all went about smelling the stink and shrugging their shoulders. I guarantee the stench of a dead, rotting animal would have been far more pungent than scared skunk stink.

I also experience this when people are tasked to figure something out. In other words, performing a self-directed task. In an earlier blog, I wrote my reliance on the library, or asking others for answers. It’s almost as if the lack of resources forced us to become more resourceful. With the abundance of resources, they’re so ubiquitous people have the lost the ability to even think of using them. For example, if I don’t understand instructions, I use Google, or even ask someone, for further clarification. I might even use something like ChatGPT or CoPilot (generative AI) to suggest an approach or for additional clarificaiton. What I wouldn’t do is sit around confused and unable to start, not with so many resources at my fingertips.

Digital Dilemma

Agent Smarts

by  •  • 1 Comment

I had to schedule a session with the mechanic to check my car due to a product update. This time, when I called to schedule a time, the entire conversation happened with a ChatBot. A previous experience in 2023 trying to schedule a routine tire swap felt disastrous and left me feeling leery of future attempts with a machine. However, unlike previous times, it actually went pretty well. The Chatbot understood what I was saying. No guessing and interpreting from the ChatBot.

Even though it wasn’t disclosed I was speaking to a chatbot I could tell. The cadence and lilt of the voice wasn’t exactly like human language, but it was pretty close. However, the chatbot did a great job capturing the necessary details accurately. For example, my last name is tricky to spell. A “t” in in my last name sometimes ends up as a “c”, “p”, or “d”. Same as a I do with a human, I say “t like tango” when I get to this letter to avoid misspellings. When the chatbot spelled my name back to me I was expecting it to have inserted the word “tango” into the spelling, but it didn’t! It had correctly interpreted that I was using “tango” only to indicate the letter “t”. Score 1 point for the chatbot.

Through the phone call I also provided my phone number, VIN, and product recall case number. All in all, the transaction felt pretty smooth. I could feel myself remaining calm and unflustered providing the routine details. The Chatbot was accurate and quick! I spent no time on idle chitchat, waiting for something, or being put on hold. The call was efficient and informative. I even scheduled a drop off time and coordinated a shuttle service. The Chatbot even answered questions about how long the service appointment would take and provided some additional information.

The only tricky part came at the end. I disconnected still a bit unclear if somebody (i.e., a human) would be reaching out to confirm the appointment. I felt like the Chatbot scheduled it. But even if it didn’t end up confirmed, I feel confident that at least my information is accurate. At this particular dealership I’ve dealt with issues because somebody (i.e., a human), input the VIN number wrong. They inadvertently transposed two digits. It caused a lot of confusion with scheduling until it was eventually corrected.

Digital Dilemma, True Confessions

The Lost Language of the Library

by  •  • 1 Comment

I grew up in the analog-age when we didn’t have quick access to information. Learning something meant a trip to the library. Or we had to ask around to find an expert. Mostly, we learned through reading books, articles, newspapers, etc. Basically anything paper-based, or sometimes the odd VHS tape or audio option, provided us with what we needed. Researching something, or learning something new, could take time and effort. Even going to the library meant thumbing through card catalogs or browsing through the shelves hoping to get lucky. In library school this practice was often referred to as “serendipity.” Though not a technical library term, it flashed through our first-year class at school as a primary argument on the benefits of shelf browsing.

By my last year in library school, in the early 2000’s, I could comfortably search for whatever I needed without leaving my home. All I needed was an internet connection and some good search queries. However, even though Google and other search engines were available, this was not a good substitute for what the library offered if I needed to do serious research. Rather Google, and other search engines, remained great options to find out about restaurants, events, movies, or for shopping. The library, however, remained a place to search a collection of carefully curated and quality assured resources.

The library offers a wealth of information, all vetted and sourced by qualified information professionals. I feel confident about resources I find in the library that they are factual, high quality, and legitimate. I don’t feel this same sense of reassurance when I search on the internet. This feeling is amplified now that most sites offer a regurgitated, bulleted list of mish-mashed AI-generated jumbles. Usually this is the “top” search result.

I feel concerned about how people receive information today. It was already difficult to navigate the murkiness of disinformation and misinformation. This intensified with the introduction of generative AI, which adds doubts about the credibility of photos and videos. We’re being lulled into a void of complacency and false narratives by believing what we see and read in those first few AI-generated points when we search. Instead, we should be reinforcing our attention and focus towards the libraries. In today’s world, the services offered by a library feel even more critical and relevant, especially if we need solid footing on information we can trust.

Digital Dilemma, True Confessions

A Touch of Nostalgia

by  •  • 2 Comments

At a popup outdoor event one weekend, one of the booths was giving away an old-fashioned game. I say “old-fashioned” because I recognized it from my childhood. Though of course this 2026 version was fancier with brighter colors and flashier images. It even included sparkles! However, I have no doubt that it worked just as well as the ones I had growing up.

The game looks simple, but it can be tricky. Basically, pushing the yellow knobs on either side moves the little rings around. The goal is to hook as many rings as possible on the blue sword-like points on either side. What I like about it is that it’s fun, engaging, just challenging enough, and not on a screen.

Looking around at today’s youth, always glued to some kind of electronic, or attached to a device, I felt a bit sad for them. Everything they interact with is designed to dominate and hijack their attention. Games feature realistic graphics, catchy sound tracks, add-ons and features. All of which guarantees hooking even the most savvy users. Even worse, it makes every other experience seem dull and somehow, not quite sensational enough to keep one’s attention.

Growing up with these analog-type games where the action is simple, engaging, yet hard enough to be fun, provides a different experience. An experience, I feel, is also important for connecting. You can use your brain differently, or even feel bored with something because it provides the same action repeatedly. Games like this are easy to share with one another. You can pass this game to a friend without fearing your whole life is going with it, as we might sharing a smartphone with somebody.

I’m not sure what this will mean for today’s youth, growing up in an environment hyper saturated with the most sensational, stimulating everything. However, I do know at least some young people, are experiencing amoneia (longing for nostalgic things one never experienced) and looking for ways to be bored. They should try going analog once in a while to stimulate their brain in new ways.