Walker Reynolds 0:01
The importance and value of authenticity, and why is it I speak the way I do take zero All right, so in this video, I'm actually going to do two things. I'm going to go over, I'm going to this topic has come up a couple of times now, in the last couple of months, it comes up occasionally, but it's come up a couple of times, actually, twice in the last 24 hours that has made me want to shoot a video about it, because I think it's really important. And then so I'm going to talk about authenticity and why it is I speak the way I do, and why is it a lot of executives struggle to get down to the crux of the problems in their organizations, and it has to do with limiting people who use language that you don't like them using or you don't think is appropriate. And then I'm gonna and then I'm gonna follow that up at the end of the video, in the second half of the video, I'm gonna go through Paul Boris's post on LinkedIn about agentic AI and unified namespace, and I'm gonna respond to that in detail, because we he and I have been going back and forth on LinkedIn. All right, so first and foremost, let's talk about what's happened in the lat in the last 24 hours, I've had a conversation via, you know, a former colleague of mine who reached out via text message. He's like, Hey, listen, I talked to this company, you know, this really large company that you recommended I take a look at one of their products. I took a look at their products. We were talking, you know, I was having a conversation with about you, and they brought up, you know, all the good that you've done in the industry. But they have a couple of complaints. And there's two complaints that they had. Complaint number one is they are uncomfortable with some of the colorful language I use when I am either giving a keynote address, I'm on stage or I'm on YouTube, you know, talking about shit here. Okay? And then number two, they are uncomfortable with the fact that I call out organizations who, in my opinion, professional opinion, drop the ball, or are under delivering for the market, or, in the case of prove it, I called out companies that were unprepared. I looked at all 36 of the presentations, and I really, I was like, hey, you know, 20 or so of these companies really just fucking nailed it, you know. And there's and then there's another group in there, 12 to 15 or so that did a good job. They delivered. And then there's three that just absolutely dropped the ball. They were uncomfortable with the fact that I just, I pointed out the three that dropped the ball okay. And I think that probably goes to my, you know, their criticism of some of the language I use. And then last night, we shot a podcast yesterday, somebody commented in the in the YouTube comments about the language I use, and so I'm going to go over the YouTube comment, and then I'm going to kind of explain authenticity in detail. And I'm actually in this is going to be in service of a lesson to a lot of people in this industry. Okay, it's going to be a valuable lesson. All right, so I am not here defending myself in any way, shape or form. I'm not changing the way I talk, period. What I'm actually going to do is I'm going to point out the flaw in some people's thinking from my perspective. All right, so if we take a look here. So this was the the video uns and community updates last night. And if you look it was this Peter Huma. He was, he was all respectful and everything with what he said. But he he basically said, I wonder if it would be possible to express one's thoughts without an F word in every other sentence. It's kind of unnecessary and disturbing. Okay? Well, whether it's necessary or unnecessary is open for debate, okay, it is definitely not disturbing, okay? And if it is disturbing to you, I'm going to try and point out, make a compelling argument for why that should really concern you, that it does disturb you, okay? So my response to him was, you know, language is a tool to express thoughts, ideas, concepts, details and emotions, okay? Authenticity is one of my core values. I am who I am always. You know, I would argue two things, if you use language in private that you don't use in public, then you lack authenticity. Let me say it again. If you use language in private that you don't use in public, you lack authenticity. Okay, you it means you are not being your authentic self when you're in public, when you're in polite company. Now, I would love for someone to make a logical argument to me for how that is optimal, that being your authentic self is. Not a good idea, okay? Because it requires a lot of energy, a lot of brain power, to be someone you are not, okay. Secondly, I make the point, if you don't use language that communicates authentic emotion, then you aren't communicating completely. And this is probably the biggest mistake that I see in leadership, okay, the biggest mistake I see in leadership, especially in manufacturing, especially especially in middle management, okay, when you get to the boardroom, it's not polite company, like high performers, type a perform. They talk like me, okay, the people at the very, very top talk like me, and the people on the front line, they talk like me. You know, who doesn't talk like me? The people in the middle who, if I'm being honest with you, really aren't that valuable. Okay, we're having this whole conversation about one of the things that's really valuable to the organization. They're not, they're valuable and to humanity and the world, but they're not valued. They're not really, you know, when they if they were to measure how much they cost an organization and how much they generate, they are going to generate a lot less than the people on the front line who cost a lot less and generate a lot more. The most valuable people in an organization are the frontline workers. They generate way. You know, in business, you should generate, directly or indirectly, about three times what you cost. You should look and see you should go ahead and look at an asset and look at a frontline worker, how much they generate in direct revenue relative to how much they cost. It's mind boggling. Okay, it is news flash. It is way higher than 3x and that is the actual measurement of value. Okay, they are the most valuable people in any organization, even indirectly, they're the most valuable member of the organization. That is what they contain in their brains. That is the tribal knowledge they contain in their brains, and their actual direct output everyone else is getting paid based on what those people do, I would argue they talk the way I talk. They talk like me. And people in the boardroom talk like me. Okay? Because you want to know what you should ask the question, Why? Why is it that the highest performers don't don't allow language to limit them? That doesn't mean be rude for the sake of being rude. It's but use. It's using. It's using the full breadth of language to express and communicate. If I come on here and I talk the way this guy wants me to talk, which is, I'm gonna talk like a marketing person, okay, think about that. You know where I'm I'm speaking. I'm trying to speak to this broadest audience I possibly can. There is a whole group of people who will never even listen to me, and they're the most important people, and that's the people who do the actual work. I am not speaking to the person who's going to be offended by the delivery of the message. I'm speaking to the person who's going to hear the message. Okay, the frontline worker can talk to the completely authentic rough around the edges upstate New York, F bomb dropping person, and they can talk to the executive, but the middle manager, who uses language as a filter for who they listen to and not listen to they can only talk to half the people out there. So who's more valuable? Okay. So Peter said, Mr. Walker, I appreciate your honest answer. However, I appreciate more when people can avoid swear words. Why? Well, he tells me why. Here in a second, he says, even when under stress, which I admit, I sometimes fail to So, he says, when not under stress, I find Useless, useless swearing. What you mean is useless. In your your opinion, it is actually useful to use colorful language, because it's a way of highlighting when you are communicating very important points, it's kind of like putting a statement in bold letters. Okay? Now you will notice I never go, you're a fucking asshole. There's language that's offensive, okay? There is offensive language, and it's when that language is attacking someone for immutable characteristics. That is actually offensive. I am on the offensive against a person. It's non debate, it's non logical. I am on on the offensive against a person, and I am trying to diminish them for immutable characteristics. Mm. Those are things that they can do nothing about.
But if I'm going to point out a flaw in someone's thinking or lunacy in the way that the market is going, these are things that can be controlled. These are things that people can make. They can go down one path or go down another. It's not immutable. They are mutable characteristics. Now what I am doing is using language as a tool to communicate to a very broad audience, while also highlighting the most important parts of my message. Okay, he says, when not under stress, I find useless swearing an indication of bad upbringing and or insufficient self control, perhaps also a lack of ability to express oneself using more descriptive and civilized phrases. That's the important line in there. Of all the people I highly respect, I can't recall anyone who would need to use swear words to make a point or to feel authentic what I would say to you as respectfully as humanly possible. Peter humid, okay, what I would say to you as respectfully as possible is most of the people that you respect don't respect you. Okay, let me say it again, most of the people you respect don't respect you here. Here's how you know you're in the know. Okay, here's how you know when someone who respects you with someone you respect respects you, it's when they talk to you in a way that they believe you can handle the truth. Okay, when someone is framing their language in a way to accommodate. Then they are looking down at you. I hate to break the news to you, the higher, the more you get into the boardroom and you're with your peers. You talk to your peers in a way that's different than you talk to people who you don't believe are on your level. Okay? I mean, it's a simple fact. I do not allow anyone to control my language. Period, full stop, no matter what. You know that vendor who objected to me calling out the three manufacture, the three vendors who were unprepared for proven or they don't like the fact that I drop F bombs on stage, okay? Or whatever. First off, I warn everyone, this is the way I speak. If you don't, if you're not, if you're a person who can't handle authentic language, then I'm not the person you should be listening to. Okay, there's plenty of people out there who talk the way you want them to talk, but yet you're here listening to me. Why? Because the message is valuable, because I have the results. You know, he talks about indication of bad upbringing. Well, how, how I'm going to point out a flaw in your logic? Okay? I would grew up in a trailer park. My mom was murdered when I was seven, and I grew up in a trailer park. Okay? I have a member of I am one of five kids that across three families that were all adopted. Okay, we all have the same adopted parents, okay, all four of my siblings. So four of the five are socially mobile, multiple rungs up the socio economic ladder, okay? Advanced degrees, super successful because we are unrelated. We know that it's not genetics that got us there. It is environment. Okay, it was our upbring, okay? Today, I am worth $33 million as of today, okay? I have, I have never had a startup fail. I have built some of the best teams in the world. I have worked on, I have architected some of the best digital infrastructures on the planet, including the gold standards, the ones that everyone looks up to. I've been, I've won multiple awards for my engineering and my architecting capabilities and I, and I developed the unified namespace. I have a My kids are all phenomenal children. My oldest son Josh, who is 26 years old, is an executive and runs one of my companies. My middle son Jared, who is 21 years old, is an engineer, is he's an elite level engineer at a tele integration and he is the trustee of a trust that oversees half the shares of that company. And my youngest son, Hayden, who is 17 years old, turning 18 in July, is graduating in a couple of weeks with his degree, with a college degree and a height and a high school diploma. And he's a national merit scholar. He's also a working model. And whenever anyone meets my kids, including my daughter, they all say, My daughter has a as a degree in healthcare administration. Is an incredible mother and an incredible professional. Whenever anyone meets my kids, the first thing they say is, how did you do that? Okay, I. When, when there are engineers all over the world who want to understand like how I did what I did in my career, and what you're and you're trying to make an argument that the fact that I use colorful language to communicate is an indicator of poor upbringing, well, there's clearly a flaw in your logic. There's clearly no connection between the language I use and how I was raised, because, guess what? We weren't allowed to swear in my family. In fact, my parents put a huge priority on us not swearing we I grew up in that age where you get your mouth washed out with a bar of soap. But what happened? I observed over time that that was just my parents worried of what people would think of us if we used the language that everyone uses. There was no there was no logical connection there. Okay, when it comes to lack of self control, there are three pillars. I live my life on, discipline, respect and hard work. Are you suggesting that the fact that I eat, I lack self control? When I've built 50 companies, I've never had a startup fail, I've, I've, I've, I've amassed a 30 something million dollar fortune, by the way, as it was as high as 70 million. I've amassed a $30 million fortune from growing up in a trailer park. Okay? I've, I've raised wonderful children. I've built amazing teams. I'm, uh, I hold four Texas State bench press records. Um, I work 100 hours a week. Are you suggesting I lack self control? Could I do those things if I had no self control? Of course not. There's clearly a problem with your logic. Okay, so I said to Peter, I said, this is not my experience. The indicator for the most authentic discussions in my experience is when language gets real. When someone's talking to you in real language, they are communicating to you that they respect you and you know you're getting the authentic truth. Okay? They're you're not getting the filter. Okay, outside a polite company, I do appreciate your feedback, Peter, I really do. Okay, but the fact is, I'm not going to change my language for anyone. I am not. You want to know why? Because I'm not talking to the people who care about language. You know, I'm using every tool in the toolbox to serve the mission. I'm not speaking to the people who prioritize how the message is delivered over what the message is. And here's why you executives, the most important, the most valuable people in any organization, are the frontline worker. There's no question about it, absolutely, in terms of experiential knowledge, in terms of execution, in terms of multiplier on effort. So from how much I pay for a front light worker relative to how much they generate for the business, they are the most valuable people in any organization. Okay, they are more valuable than chief executive officer. And it's very easy to measure. Okay, it's very easy to measure with a CEO, because the CEO is not generating three times, directly or indirectly, they are not generating three times return on what they cost. Go ahead and take a look at a bunch of organizations and see now, there are CEOs out there who do but it's rare. Okay, I have observed over the course of my career many, many times how organizations the decision makers in an organization don't understand what the actual problems in the business are, and one of the reasons why is because the leadership in an organization aren't hearing the people who know what the problems are, and oftentimes it's because of The way they talk. I mean, I remember at every stop, at every stop along the way, when I worked in mining, when I worked in printing, when I worked in steel and tier one automotive, they're the most effective leaders. Were the ones who spoke to the entire audience and heard the entire audience. Okay, so I finished up with, well, perhaps the or he comes back and he says, well, perhaps this is a matter of different cultural backgrounds in my culture, Central Europe and Slovakia. Slovakia, using swear words, though it occurs commonly, is not considered authentic, just rude. You. You should probably ask yourself, why
you should look at the correlation. I'm a sociologist. You should look at the correlation between societies that try to control language and and the philosophies of those like of those societies. You should look at that. Okay, that's probably why I perceive it as a disruptive element. It is intended to be disruptive. It's intended to highlight a point. Okay, listening to your otherwise knowledgeable and very interesting interviews, by the way, thanks for it. I didn't mean to try to change you. I just want to let you know, and I do appreciate, I appreciate the feedback 1,000% and this, this message is in no way meant to say, Peter, I think, you know, there's something wrong with you bringing this up, but I think I have to address this, because it's come up a couple of times. I'm not going to change the way I speak, okay? Because the way I speak works. It does okay. You know, I had a conversation. I love the guys that says, me, I'm gonna just be honest here. Okay, I'm gonna have a conversation with, you know, I had a conversation with Jonathan wise that says, me, I love him to death. Have nothing but the utmost respect for Jonathan. He's an outstanding technologist. But I would argue that there's an entire group of people that that are very valuable to Jonathan Wise's mission that he doesn't engage with because they don't speak the way he does. And the reason I know that is because Jonathan told me, he said, Hey, you know, Walker, you know we love what you're doing, and what you're doing is really important, and you're being brought to this much broader audience, but we're, we're uncomfortable with the way you talk sometimes. And he's talking about F words. It's not like I'm not doing offensive, you know, I'm not, you know, I never attack somebody with language like I've never I'm defending myself with language, and I use language to accent. But you'll notice I never go, Hey, you're a F and piece of shit. I don't do that. What I'm saying is, is if you believe this certain thing or or if you are in this industry, you're in a lot of fucking trouble. It's a, it's that is a much when I was talking about the Department of Defense yesterday, it is a, it is a, it's a much more effective accent for me to say you're in a lot of fucking trouble. If you're in the DoD that I'm putting a stamp. I'm putting a spotlight on that sentence than it is for me to say, if you're a defense contractor working with the DOD, you're in trouble. Okay, that that it's that's a fly by. But if I go and you're in a lot of fucking trouble, that's not a fly by, that's you getting your your eye, your ears perk up and you remember that sentence when I say, hey, software engineers, software developers and engineers, you're not that fucking important. You are not as important as the operator. Okay, get it, get it through your fucking head when I say that, it is a much more effective way of communicating, getting people to remember that statement than it is for me to go, Hey, software engineers, software developers and engineers, you know your your hubris and your confidence in your value and organization is misplaced sometimes, because there are people in the organization are more valuable. See, I can communicate both ways. One is much more effective than the other. People remember that sentence yesterday. People remember that the deal that if you work in the DOD, yeah, and you're a contractor in the DOD, things are changing. They remember. But in a two and a half hour podcast, I or on a in a in a one hour speech, I got to highlight specific things in that conversation. Okay, Peter, I appreciate the feedback. I do, but the question you have to ask yourself is, is your belief that the way someone talks is an indicating of bad upbringing or insufficient self control is is that a logical conclusion? And the answer is clearly no, there's a flaw there. All right, and then let's go to Peter Boris. I want to, I want to respond to Peter Boris, in in depth, because we've been having this conversation back and forth online. So I he said, So I read this yesterday, but I'll go ahead and do it again. Aaron semle, who is the Chief CTO at high bite, he's been shooting a lot of content on agentic AI. And he said, you know, uns does not connect with AI agents and MCP. I said that's, that's, I had a whole thing in the podcast yesterday where I addressed this, and I don't just, I'm pointing out that there is a with some of the stuff that Aaron is doing, there's a there's a gap in some of the stuff he's he's showing people, because he's focused. On the art of the possible, and so he's not, he's not covering all the bases in the conversations right now. Okay, it's not that he doesn't know what all the bases are. It's that he's just, he's focusing on the art of the possible to get, to get the industry to focus on what the potential for agentic AI is, okay, but he had this post where he says, uns does not connect, connect with AI agents using model context, protocol correct. Now you can, you can integrate MCP with the UNs, and I'm going to show that in a later video that I was going to shoot today, but it'll be, it'll be a video we do Monday, because I'm doing this video today. So he said, MCP is a request response server, uns, at least the classical definition is report by exception. You can't stream data into chat, GPT, you actually can through it like a data cache, but, but except the point that you can't stream data into chat, G, P, T, because you actually have to collate it as context and then publish it to the end point, it doesn't stream in real time, so, but in practice it can, it can feel like streaming if you architect it correctly. Chat, GPT decides when to request data from a source given a prompt or instructions. This is nuanced, but important, he's correct. Any demo you see of uns with AI agents is doing one of the following. It's either feeding snapshots of the UNs into a chat context, yes, primarily from a data cache. Basically, generally, there's a data cache running in the background, and that data cache is basically a flat file that contains each topic, comma, value of of the UNs in the in the last update, okay? Or it's putting an API, API around the UNs to make it queryable. This isn't an attack on a uns. Everything we do to contextualize factory data in the UNs is valuable. I just don't want people to think that the two can be instantly connected, right? What he's trying to point out is, hey, there's a place for real time data, which is uns, that is current state, and then you use current state to determine what historical or transaction data we need to go get, retrieve, to get the rest of the context. Okay, that's what he's talking about, and that's what where model, context protocol comes in, which basically informs an AI agent on which method to call to go get the historical stuff. Okay, so going one step further, I'd argue that although current state of the factory is useful and a good starting point, you need all the other data, history, mes, quality systems to get to really get value out of agentic AI, 100% agree. And I would actually argue that that's going to be the most valuable part. You're going to use the current state in real time to inform agentic AI on which history to go look at to get the context to make the decision. This is the whole idea of you need current state? Do you need to historize current state, so that you can train models on history. Okay? You train models on history, learn from find patterns in the data we can't see with the naked eye. So that we can then inference against current state, so that we can try and predict the future. This is the piece of okay. How Do I Use current state to decide which of the history to go look at, to get the context with the agent to make, to make my decision about the future. Okay, so he says, should the definition of uns expand and will AI drive this? The answer is, the definition is not going to change for unified namespace. It's the structure of the business and all the events. Its current state semantically organized. It's built on tech that's edge driven, report by exception, lightweight, open architecture, but, but there is needs to be a definition about how uns is used with the genetic AI and model context protocol so people understand how to effectively query it all right, or integrate it. So Paul Boris, who I don't actually know Paul? I know you know. I don't I don't actually know him, I but I later found out yesterday that I think he, he worked with Rick bellata and light hammer and stuff. So he goes, Aaron, here's where I get stuck. All of this is intended to reconstitute context that has been stripped from the data during its collection. I am here to learn, so educate me. First off, that is not true. He says all of this is intended to reconstitute context that has been stripped from the data during its collection. That is simply not true. Okay, here's why Paul, data is an event. It's something that happened and when it's a value and a timestamp, and then there's some descriptor of data. Data is not actionable, okay, context is applied to data to create information that we can take action on. Okay, when we're building a unified namespace, there is no context that is being stripped away, okay, there you you you know, you have heterogeneous and homogeneous data models, okay, and a data model is is all of the data context, okay? And then there's nothing being stripped away. Reconstitution means is you're putting it back together, okay? No, what you're doing is you are creating the full picture, the full context, as data moves up the stack. Do?
Yeah, okay. So first and fore he I mean the the basic premise of the post, all of this is intended to reconstitute context that has been stripped away from the data during its collection. It's not true here. When organizations want current state, where? Where current state is? Where are we, essentially according to plan. We have a plan. Where are we according to plan? That's current state in any business, okay, all the decisions made, every decision we make, is going to be a it's going to hinge on, you know, 99% of the decisions made in an organization are hinged on that first premise, where, what is our plan and where are we according to it in this exact moment. Okay, in order to do that, we have to measure progress. We have to we have to take the plan. We have to slice the plan up over time, over, say, a shift. We have to go if our plan for eight hours is x, then our plan at one hour is 1/8 x. Except it's not, because in the first hour there's a 15 minute break, okay, and in the fourth hour there's a half hour lunch. So now what I have to do is I have to amortize the one hour of total break time across the eight hours. Okay, this is, this is what we refer to as at adding context to data. We're not reconstituting it. When the plan was generated. We didn't strip that away. Same thing on the edge when it comes to like a sensor measurement or a counter on a piece of machinery. We didn't strip away the from a counter. We didn't strip away the context of converting the number of outputs coming out of a machine. So if I've got three, three outputs, so for each stroke on a press, I'm generating three links. Okay, I the data is the Stroke, stroke one, timestamp, stroke two, timestamp, stroke three, timestamp. We're not stripping away each anything from the stroke itself. What we are doing is enriching the the event with the context, which is we have three this setup for this machine is three out right now. So in order for us to generate in feed, which is also data on each stroke, we have to multiply the stroke times the three outputs to get you the three or the output to get three links generated. That's not reconstituting you didn't strip that away. You enriched, you created it. You contextualized reality. Okay, so he says nearly every move of data away from its source strips it of some sort of context. By definition, that's not true. Give me prove that, because in my experience, that just isn't the case. That isn't the case. Nearly every move of data away from its source strips it of some sort of context. By definition. That's not true if you capture every event. See what he's revealing here is determinism. Is that a philosophy of deterministic development that I determine what's important, which events matter? No. What I say is no, all events matter. You know, today, organizations are realizing that there's all sorts of data points within their organization. Data points are events, things that happen, and when there's all sorts of shit they should have been collecting for the last decade. See, I use shit there the language so that you remember that I said there's all there's stuff that you should have been using for the last decade that that a decade ago, didn't think, they didn't determine was important, but it's important today. And if there's anything we've learned is that all data matters. So what do we do? We collect every event, we measure that event through a unified namespace, capture every event, we put it in context. Where does that event live? Organ, semantically organized. Okay, so he goes. So the that premise, the second premise of nearly every move this piece here is again wrong. He says, nearly every move of data away from its source strips it of some sort of context by definition or it is replication, and for the vast majority of shops, full replication is impossible or unjust, or unjust or unjustifiable? Okay, if, by if, with this statement, he is trying to argue that collecting every event is impossible or unjustifiable, then that shows me the kind of projects he works on, because I have hundreds of examples over the last 10 years where we've captured every event I. Every every digital transition, every one, every single one, no exception. So he goes. Think of a summary of a machine repair. It has all sorts of compression loss, unless it is full motion video of the activity and a narration by the actors that is driven by a QA to expose the reasoning behind looking at pneumatics versus hydraulics first or something like that. First off, this isn't an event. This isn't data. Okay, that's the narration. That is information. How do we know that? Because information is something we take action on. This is action, okay? He says the effort to contextualize factory data exists because while we strip context from the root data via compression or missing Association, now it wasn't the association wasn't missing. If it was missing to begin with, then it was collected wrong. Like, for example, if I'm collecting the transition of of a sensor data, okay, so I'm measuring a temperature sensor, okay? And, and I'm measuring and say that temperature sensor, the value changes 60 times per second, but I decided that we're going to collect it once per minute, for architectural reasons. Okay, I have a couple of choices. I can take the 60th measure, 60th transition every second. I can say, capture it at the top of every second, I could say, average the 60 cycles. So the 60 measurements we saw every second give me the mean on the second. There's many ways for me to collect that. As long as I know the method of how it's being collected, I have my context. So he goes, this value is a temperature that came from a sensor that wasn't important enough to label in the underlying system, and therefore needs to be renamed up the stack, because the concept the context, was stripped by the OEM. Right here. Notice how he says it wasn't important enough. He's talking, he's talking a legacy component. He's he's asking these questions about uns, and we're saying, no, no, all these things that you're talking about uns is designed to mitigate, okay? And then we have this discussion about, here he goes as an alternate, if we could access the root reliability and deterministically, then we can inherit context or focus on reconstituting the context that really matters to the process when focusing on improvement, that is digital threat, that is literally a core premise and philosophy of digital threat right here. All right, so let's go to my exchange with them. I said, Paul, there's too many points to address here. Would you be interested in a call? And obviously he just said, No. He goes, just pick one. I go, okay. Deterministic modeling is the core of digital thread, which has failed. It's failed because it relies on a philosophy enforcing theoretical optimum over collecting reality no matter what it is. A core premise of uns is that we capture the reality as it is, like uns mitigates the end of line tester. Example that I used, uns mitigates, you know, this example I saw in printing where, you know, we had two stitches. Each of them had 60 cells. We were stitching the other books. And there it's electric over pneumatic control. A setup can take an entire shift. It could take two shifts to set up a stitching line to stitch one book halfway through the shift cell 40 goes down. So now 40 to 60 we can't use on line one. So, so what do you do? Do you tear down line one and do a complete new reset up on line two? Or, as I've always seen them do it, they take cell 40 to 60 on line one, and they set it up on line two. So you're gonna run, you're gonna stitch half the book, one through 39 on line one, and then you're gonna set up a conveyor, and you're gonna pass a temporary conveyor, and you're gonna have people standing there, and they're gonna pass the book down, and then they're going to continue to stitch it. It on on cells 40 through 60 on line two. Uns mitigates that we can have a work order running. I we can, we can with uns. If work order is a parameter in a name space, then all I have to do is say, uh. Cells 40 through 60 on line two are running this work order number and cell one through 39 are running this work order number on line one in their namespaces. It
mitigates that issue. Okay, I said context isn't lost as data moves up to stack. It's enriched through additive context as data moves up stack and becomes information. He says, Where did I touch on digital thread or modeling. You're arguing semantics. No, I'm not. I'm explaining in detail right now what my point is. Of course, context is lost as it moves up the stack. You can work to retain it. You can reconstitute it, but tell me the context of the scrap count on an ERP production order without doing either. Well, first off, when I collect scrap on a machine, I didn't. Lose its context to the production order. It never existed on it, on the edge the the the production order is not a component of the event that was captured on the machine. Okay, we're not reconstituting it. It was never stripped away. The production order was never an element. If I put production order and scrap count together in a PLC, okay, that's an information model. It's not a data model, okay, I could take action on that. I can take action knowing how much Scout scrap is on this production order. That's enough. Infra. Data is not data models are not actionable. You can't take action on data. This is basic stuff. This is not my opinion, by the way. Go look information models are actionable. Data models are not and I'm not arguing semantics. I said, Paul, you describe digital threat as an alternate if we could access the route reliably and deterministically, then we can inherit context. This is literally a threat object. That is literally a description of a digital threat object. The triangle that we try to pass up through the infrastructure. I create a triangle on the edge. I consume a triangle in the MES system. I consume a triangle in the visualization in the cloud layer. I said, this is a core premise of digital thread, and extends from object oriented programming, which works great and software is ineffective for digitizing physical devices and assets into deterministic objects. We should have a chat in today's podcast. I responded, he goes Walker. Your interpretation of the comment is up to you, but I'm not even close to discussing a digital thread, nor do I share the same interpretation of digital transformation. Well, it doesn't matter if you did. It's not whether you share the interpretation of I Am, if he's saying DT digital thread, it this. That's not my opinion on digital thread. That's what digital thread is. Digital thread came from software developers, primarily pushed by Microsoft. Okay. It was software developers saying that if we want to digitally transform organizations, we need to treat organizations like software stacks. Okay, software stacks back end with an object model, okay, API that calls the object visualization layer that visualizes, visualizes the object. Here's the problem, the back end. This has always been the issue with digital thread. The back end contains structured and unstructured data. It contains ethereal data. It contains events that happen one time in a decade. We have the UNs was designed to say, hey, that's the flaw. That's a software developer. That's an engineer who's never actually worked in manufacturing and doesn't understand that the way that what's written in the standard operating procedure is the best practice. It's what we want to do most of the time. It's not what we do all the time that the plan in the plan in the production order, the plan in the bill of materials, is what we want to do most of the time. It's not what we do all the time. We do whatever it takes to produce. And you would it would blow your fucking mind to see the things that operators, mechanics and electricians come up with. He goes, I heard the response. Your co host posted it below. It gave me a chuckle. Thanks. This is what we refer to as Paul hubris. I don't know Paul, but that's a condescending remark to me. I'm dedicating a lot of time. That is Paul's hubris getting the best of him. So Paul, I would like to I'm sure you're a brilliant guy. Okay, I'd love for you to come on the podcast and let's just have this conversation like when I originally said, eke Paul, too many points here to discuss. Would you be interested in a call? You're the one who wanted to continue to have this conversation. Now, I've dedicated a lot of time to point out that when I read this right here, when I notice he clearly doesn't understand how to overcome the diet he he was using the Diet Coke test as a as a, as an argument for some flaw in uns. Okay, and then I explained how we mitigate this. And he noticed he didn't address that. He's, you know, he's this, I would say this, this guy right here. Sure, he's a brilliant dude, okay, um, he, I would say. Based on the way that he rest he responded through that thread, he's part of the problem. He doesn't really want to learn. That's what I would say. Paul Boris, and that made me chuckle when I read went back to the very beginning and you said you really, sincerely want to learn here. No, you don't. You think you have all the answers clearly. I mean, you literally describe digital thread and didn't know it. You literally, you literally use the basic premise of digital thread and didn't know it, which tells me you didn't actually know what digital thread was. So now, Paul, obviously, because I called you out directly, and I'm sure you're a gifted guy, I'm sure you're brilliant and you're super achieved. You know, you have all these achievements, I'm sure you do. But I would look at this and I would be I look at that original that post. I read this post here, the questions with Aaron, and I,
yeah, he goes without the root context. AI will never defeat the Diet Coke test. I literally explained to you that. I mean, this is one of the importances of tools like maintain X that natively integrate into a uns. The context on this diet coke test comes from the human being who we treat as a digital object, the smart, you know, unified namespace is about connecting the smart things in your business, okay?
The smart things in your business publish updates to the UNs as they happen to pre defined locations within the namespace that is configured when the smart thing is plugged into the infrastructure and human beings are considered smart things. We are collecting the Diet Coke solution from the CMMS when the work order is closed, and then the large language model when it, when it either you can use the Diet Coke input as a trigger for something, or the next time we see the the rising edge of the same failure that the Diet Coke test solved using model context protocol, we are going to go query the CMMS for the that the literally, the comment about diet coke would be there, and the large language model would return and go. The last four times we had this event, here is what the solution was, and the third, the fourth and fifth time, or the third and fourth time, they put Diet Coke on the gear. You know, but Paul, let me say this, don't, don't do this. Don't, don't do the it gave me a chuckle. Thanks. Don't do that. Okay? Because that right there. It gave me a chuckle. Doesn't mean I'm here to learn. So educate me, because you are responding negatively to being educated. Alright with that. Didn't intend that to be long form, but it was, hopefully. It's valuable. You know, in summary, gang, listen, be very skeptical. Of anyone who wants to control your language. Be very skeptical. All right. All right. With that, like, subscribe, comment down below, and we'll see you in the next one. You.
