The Wasteful Efficiency of the Large

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I’ve been thinking of large, easy-to-deploy, fast-to-scale solutions can be an inefficient waste of time. Before I go into my inevitable rant-o-speculation, let me note the origin – Chinese history and Agile. Trust me, it’s worth it.

As to Chinese History, I’ve had a deep interest in the Taoists and because of that some of Chinese history and culture. The Taoists provide a body of philosophy, meditation, and sarcastic humor while focusing on simplicity, uncomplicated-ness, and a kind of mystical realism. Chinese History is replete with scholar-bureaucrats whom I deeply relate to because I’m me. This means I can read about a figure who is essentially “He was in the Department of Awesome Flowcharts and a famous Taoist scholar” and go “yeah, this dude rocks.”

Early on in philosophical Taoism there’s an emphasis on frugality, not-over reaching, and taking care of things while small. Arguably the “journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” originated in the Tao Te Ching (Chapter 64). If you focus on small things before they’re large and not overdoing it, you get a lot done without, well, doing a lot.

Now does this sound like Agile? Well now you can see where this comes in . . . and learn even more about my personality. I love Agile’s focus on small, meaningful incremental change. The tenth Agile principle even states success is what you don’t have to do. Well done Agile Projects do what is needed, no more, and thus get a lot done – and even save time by not overdoing things.

By now if you know me, you can see where this is going in the world of IT solutions, so thanks for humoring my above explanation. Now let me rant about discussions I have with my friends in IT which is . . . most of them.

Back in my day (hey, I’ve been in IT 30 years) I saw a lot of custom IT systems. I built them. Whatever you needed for your specific needs might not have an off-the-shelf solution, and if it existed it was large and expensive. So when you had to make something custom you learned the issue, solved the solution, then watched your code decay for ten years after getting a promotion. Maintenance was an issue, but at least it was small.

(Software is an expense, talent is the investment.)

In time people of course made solutions that were scalable, that were customizable, that built on layers and layers of code over the decades. We took advantage of cloud computing, of distribution systems. Any large provider of services can instantly set up your small business because of years of investment.

You can implement the same solution as the big guys, or customize a solution . . .

. . . except everything is now all so large.

You just bought, say, an infrastructure tracking tool. Sure it’s on the cloud, but only runs in this one browser. Also you have to figure which modules to activate. You have to train your team. You also have a lot of features you may not need, but everyone wants them as they’re there and easy to use (for the people who want them). You may not have to maintain the system, but you have to get everyone on board something they never participated in making and isn’t based on your specific needs.

Oh, and as soon as a certain web security company who’s name sounds like “Clown Strife” goes under your inventory system is unreachable. Well, also half your other systems are too, but I digress because I still flash back to that outage.

Now you’re using all of this stuff to ease paperwork while creating more paperwork. You are probably entering data you don’t need but it was one of the features. You now have to reconcile the new system with the old system, which is months of work and means you need a consultant. You’re trying to get everyone aligned on something that you basically dropped on them and they make workarounds.

I have met people who were still solving problems with spreadsheets because the applications didn’t work. I have been those people.

You quickly and efficiency implemented a big solution that doesn’t quite work and thus you make more work and waste more time. You have small issues to solve and maybe if you solved them first you wouldn’t be here. Plus maybe you had no gain once all the overhead is taken account of.

All that new work you added may be worse than the janky old system – and you can’t tell.

Right now in technology we can implement huge, powerful solutions easily with no concept of the small picture that makes them work. We don’t even know if they serve the small picture as the “Big Thing” becomes paramount. You can buy a solution and not solve anything and may not know.

Maybe it was worth it slowly maintaining and upgrading the system you had. Or having done it right in the first place. B Or a piecemeal migration.

This is a reminder of Agile, of the Taoists, all having a point. Solutions are often about the small things, about working on something before it’s large, of doing what’s needed – and not letting things grow into a problem. I think in the world of IT we’ve accumulated so much tech, so many solutions it’s easy to just throw a Big Thing at a problem. That may not solve the problem, it may make more of them.

There are situations that need bottom-up implementation and that’s a lot of them. Yes, you might be able to use a Big Solution, but only after you get what you need, and probably do it incrementally. You have to address the small to fix the big, not throw the Big at whatever else is Big and hope.

Also let’s face it, sometimes we get Big Solutions because we let something get out of hand and hope it’ll fix it. We forgot the lesson of starting small then repeat it.

Think small. It’s the way to do big things right as opposed to just doing a Big Thing and hoping.

Steven Savage

Slop Bowl Speculation

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

It was only in the fall of 2025 that I became acquainted with the term “Slop Bowl” – references to the “bowl meals” from Chipotle, SweetGreen, and a huge amount of fast casual dining. I’d not heard of it, I’m guessing it was a regional thing, and I also found it a bit insulting for the food. So as a break from my usual deeper speculations, I want to talk food, namely I dislike the insulting term and reference “Slop Bowl.”

Do I have opinions on food? Of course. I love to make food and cook, and I also like to be efficient and effective. So I have opinions on “Slop Bowls.”

Namely, I say, don’t go insulting them.

First, the average Slop Bowl is usually a damn sight healthier than your average fast food. I mean most Slop Bowls are basically salads, burrito bowls, or just reasonably nutritious stuff. Hell, Poki Bowls are Slop Bowls by some definition. If people are getting their “Green, a bean, a grain” for a meal? Good. It beats most of the other options.

Secondly, Slop Bowls are convenient. People don’t need to unwrap three boxes of food or a sandwich that may fall apart. You got a bowl. That’s it. One stop shop for a meal, easily portable, easy to stack, easy to clean up after.

Fourth, Slop Bowls are historical. Isn’t a stir-fry essentially a Slop Bowl? How many soups, stews, and meals through history were just “a container of stuff” that was a meal? Single-serving casserole meals are just a slightly more structurally sound slop bowl – a slop plate? Humans have always found ways to toss stuff into one meal.

Fifth, and finally, Slop Bowls are easy to make. Before I heard the term, before I ate fast casual bowls, I made them. I still make them albeit I called and call them something different. This has included:

  • Brown rice, shredded spinach, mashed tofu, mixed with Korean fermented peppers and soybeans.
  • Salads of beans or tofu, steamed broccoli or “refrigerator slaw”, some pickled vegetables, and a dressing (usually a mix of soy sauce, vinegar, and chili paste).
  • Full-service stews that are basically filled with veggies and beans (garbanzo is a favorite).
  • Nachos that are covered in stir-fried cabbage and refried beans with salsa. Yeah, aren’t Nachos just a slop bowl in a way?
  • Assorted curries – c’mon, slop bowl.

As much as I like different foods, as much as I like different forms of food, I keep returning to “bowl meals” again and again when I want to keep things simple and healthy. And why not? We humans have always wanted to earth healthy, reduce cleanup, and do it fast.

So let’s not insult the Slop Bowl. Let’s salute it as a part of human history for very good reasons.

Steven Savage

Fackham Hall: Learn From The Stupid

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

So I recently saw Fackham Hall. It’s a movie that was advertised as sort of “Naked Gun But For Stuffy British Stuff.” I am pleased to report I enjoyed it, it was also very stupid, and there’s actually something to learn from it. Enough that I want to share.

So first of all, if you wonder “will I like it,” I’d say that Fackham Hall is actually in the vein of the 2025 Deathstalker film that was an homage to old direct-to video fantasy. There is an intended audience, and if you are in that audience, you will enjoy it. If you are not, don’t bother. This is a film for people who’ve watched a lot of Stuffy British Stuff and have a sense of humor about it.

Now when it comes to a comedy the question is are the jokes any good? Fackham Hall has a lot of jokes in it, of extremely varied quality, but you won’t be lacking jokes. Not all of them are good, I’d say that the overall humor is “OK,” there’s plenty of laughs. There’s an over-reliance on crudity for the most part that I found offputting, but there are plenty of actually good jokes.

Two things stand out from the humor. The first is that there are jokes where the setup is actually part of the humor, where you realize how far the movie went for a joke or a sudden case where one thing suddenly becomes funny due to one tiny action. The second is there are a few scenes that authentically stand out, most notable an extended dialogue joke in the vein of “Who’s on first” that had me in tears. There is effort here, albeit it makes some of the low-effort jokes more obvious.

Fackham Hall does have two larger lessons, a minor one and a major one I want to explore. These are enough that they provide lessons for other comedies.

The minor lesson is that Fackham Hall actually has a plot that drives the story forward, if erratically. The Davenport family risks losing their beloved estate unless their daughter marries the cousin due to inherit it – and the disruption of a roguish young visitor and an eventual murder add chaos to the countdown. Some characters have their own concerns and sidestories. There’s enough here to power a general movie, and that gives the film plenty of energy, even if the actual plot could have been used more in the jokes.

The major lesson is the cast and the acting. For all it’s silliness the cast acts as seriously as if they were in a dramatic film. It’s not deadpan, it’s a talented lot of actors acting as if this is a film of drama and danger and intrigue and love. Watching people do the stupidest things with great sincerity and gravitas takes the film farther and makes even lame jokes actually funnier.

Thomasin McKenzie and Ben Radcliffe take on the role of inevitable lovers, and show actual chemistry and charm together. Emma Laird, who’s character’s marriage shenanigans drive the early part of the film has a scene of emotional breakdown where she is crying and screaming while also upending the common tropes of said scene. Tim McMullan plays Cyril, the family butler with absolute seriousness while also being the butt of a movie-long joke he leans into and keeps going.

The absolute standout is Damian Lewis as the Davenport family patriarch, Humphrey. Lewis invests this somewhat befuddled and inbred character with charm and sensitivity, making him actually likeable. There’s even a scene where he expresses his fatherly love to one of his daughters that is touching. Jokes be damned, Lewis was acting and nothing stopped him, not even the script.

What made Fackham Hall work was – ironically – what makes a good movie. Give it a plot and get actors who will act. It can even elevate some poor jokes or missed opportunities. I enjoyed this enough that I actually got curious to see the actors in other works, especially Mr. Lewis.

It’s not every day you can take lessons in comedy from a film that includes J.R.R. Tolkien farting, but here you go. My kudos to the cast.

Steven Savage