Is twitter for sycophants?

 Okay, so I have been on Twitter for approximately three weeks and have managed 200+posts so far; but what is it really all about? When this technical phenomenon(!) was first introduced to me six months ago, I dismissed it as merely Facebook status updates for people who detested Facebook. This I can understand as Facebook consumes your time with meaningless drivel about what people are up to and awful invites to pointless quizzes.
People who know me will now be thinking - "if there is one person who updates his status with more meaningless drivel than anyone else I know; it's Luke"

So what about Twitter? Well, I believe that it is blogging for the lazy - something that two weeks ago, I considered myself to be. Use Twitter to comment on the world without the need to spend endless hours writing blog entries - what could be sweeter? Unfortunately, I think that I am one of the few that believe this, and from what I can gather, it has become a place for people to follow celebrities or aim marketing information at. Since I have been on, I have been followed by numerous marketing firms in the hope that I will return the follow so they can advertise to me.
And the celebrity gazing? It seems that our entire culture is obsessed with celebrity, and Twitter has just become another victim of this. What makes this worse, is it seems that some of the "famous people" using Twitter require this form of attention. I know that this is a generalisation, and won't apply to all, but there does seem to be a base need that is fulfilled by having fan(atic)s showering their enthusiasm for the celebrity via this new medium. Now I get the feeling as I type this that it sounds like I am portraying the fans as neurotic idolatry stalkers, but even the most basic of compliments seems to be sycophantic.
I say; "Let's keep Twitter free from marketing, enjoy the ability to lay down one's thoughts at a moments notice, and ignore the current trend for hero worship, (or just plain nosiness)"

Trevorrow's 1st Law

There is an unwritten law that states "the length of time to prepare for a task is exponentially more than the time taken to complete the task"

What do I mean by this?

In basic terms it is that the thought and actions of doing a job takes significantly less time that the amount of effort required to prove, prepare and generally procrastinate about the job. In choosing an example that most people can relate too, the act of home improvement will suffice.

"We need a new bathroom", says one partner,

"Why, what is wrong with the old one", says the other

"It is old and decrepit, the taps leak and the toilet no longer flushes",

"I have no problem with this," they say, "I can get along fine with these minor inconsistencies in bathroom functionality"

"You are talking nonsense", says the first and thinks to themselves that they will now endeavor to persist the notion that new bathroom furniture is needed until the opposing side agrees.

Agreement is reached and then the process commences of choosing the required suite/tiles/flooring, acquiring the necessary funds, and ensuring that suitable workmanship can be attained through the big yellow phone directory: The last stage can take an obscene amount of time and, depending on the economic climate, could mean waiting even longer for said work to commence.

It is fair to say that the act of doing the job will only take a small time in comparison to the upfront process mentioned above, and it is this on which my theory is based.

Lets take a more suitable scenario, and one that brought about my thinking of the law above. If we take the example of computer systems implementation it is possible to see that the task in hand is relatively simple. The company bosses say: "I would like to replace my system X and put in this new and shiny system Y".

Why should that simple act of replacing system X with system Y turn out to be the most complicated process devised by mankind? Partly this is due to the fact that as human beings we have a desire to improve our lot, and if swanky sales guy states that system Y will indeed improve the lot of all concerned, who are we to argue, (although I have another theory about this which I will come to in another blog post).

It is also fair to say that details of removing system X is subject to the greatest piece of "slight of hand" ever seen: Quick! Look at the shiny system Y and ignore all the pain over here in the land of system X.

"But what about the fact that computer systems are complicated and greatly misunderstood", I hear you say. A good point badly made however, as the act of understanding computer systems goes to show that in all cases these are simple methods of communication, data flows and business processing. Let us not forget that these machines are made by men, and by their very nature are shrouded in mystery only to be revealed to be a simple mechanism that we basic creatures can understand.

So what is it that turns the simple act of turning off X and turning on Y into the equivalent of walking on water? Three things: the opportunistic nature of organization; the (modern) political need of the individual; and, lastly, the industries desire to re-invent technological innovation(!)

Taking each in turn: The opportunistic nature of the organization is the ability to turn the newly acquired system Y into system Z, with a number of additional requirements that have been waiting in the wings for such time when people are distracted by the new shiny thing that has been bought and won't notice all the extra crap that nobody asked for, or even desired.

The (modern) political need of the individual is a more sinister and of greater danger than the first, as it is the desire to ensure that no matter what the goal of the task is, that this will only occur if some personal gain is made by those concerned. This is, by its very nature, the act of feathering ones nest, ensuring "oneupmanship", and general making a nuisance until personal gain is attained. This is not to say that all individuals concerned are operating in this way, but it only takes a few to have a major impact.

The industries desire to re-invent technological innovation is the final device that can turn the relatively simple task into a feat of technological engineering. System X uses a simple communications mechanism that, when it was implemented, provided a robust process for handling the companies data flows. Now this is deemed by the industry to have become obsolete and a newer, more significant, advancement in technology supersedes this old hat. It now becomes irrelevant whether the technology originally employed will do the job, as all concerned have a desire to implement this new wave. Look at how great my sales figures/CV/respect will look now that I have taken steps to modernize system X? The problem, however, is that the cost of support, maintenance, training, staffing of this innovation is never considered, (probably due to political need of the individual), and what is left is a complex implementation that offers very little over the original technology, but gives people a feeling of achieving great things!