home
on exploration, introspection and creation

You don’t know you need it until you have it

March 11th, 2010

(I promised my friend I would write this post some day–here you are, buddy.)

A great way to achieve goals is by enumerating problems first and then solving them. However, this method has a blind spot — value can also be added not by solving pain but by making what is good better.

A good manifestation of this is the “you don’t know you need it until you have it” phenomenon. My friend and I would spend hours discussing why I thought he should get a touch phone. “I don’t perceive any problems with my life that a touch phone could solve,” he would say. Well, I used to think that too at the end of my Freshman year in college, as all my friends tried to convince me to buy a cell phone.

So–for the benefit of my friend–here are the things that having a touch phone (iPhone specifically but the argument can easily be used for any touch phones) enabled me to do that I never even thought of being able to do

  • I can figure out how to get from Grand Central to Columbia University by subway. Previously I either had to take a map with me, look for a map at the station, or get on a train that was hopefully the right one and look through the map there. I can even tell how long the trip’s going to take.
  • I can figure out where that restaurant at which I was supposed to meet my friend was–I only remember the name. Previously I would have to call someone or ask and hope they would know.
  • I can mark where I parked my car so I don’t have to worry that I’ll forget the day after when I have to pick it up.
  • I know when the train leaves Grand Central so I can spend more time hanging out with my friends rather than stranded at the train station.
  • I can very quickly resolve these bets that I often make with others, related to some particular factoid that we disagreed on at dinner.
  • I will never, ever forget anything because I can write a note to myself at any point.
  • I will never, ever be bored because I can
    • Listen to radio
    • Play games
    • Listen to audiobooks
    • Read books
    • Listen to music
    • Write a post in my blog
  • I can pretend to be a good cook because I can pull up a recipe anytime
  • I can recommend a restaurant to a group of people based on their recommendations

I’m just going to stop here because, quite frankly, it’s like listing the benefits of the Internet (the “touch” part is incredibly useful because it makes user experience bearable — doing most of the above on a WAP-enabled phone or even a real browser but with a keypad-activated cursor is a pain in the neck).

Of course, one drawback of making good things better is that your expectations are raised. I remember thinking a month after I got my iPhone, “This is the most user-friendly, useful device I have ever used. My life is so much easier and richer right now.”. Now, two years in, I am very frustrated with it. It’s unresponsive, the lack of Flash annoys the hell out of me, I have to spend so long looking up directions. In fact, I’m just a much more discerning customer.

The Encyclopedia-then-Internet generation

March 8th, 2010

I remember the time, when I was little, when there was no Internet. All my generalist knowledge about the world came from two sources: my parents, and an encyclopedia we had at the house. In a way, the encyclopedia was like the Internet (combined with Yellow Pages). If I needed to draw a picture of a bird, I browsed the encyclopedia for images of birds. If I was bored, I’d open the encyclopedia on a random page.

I think that spending all of elementary school and a part of middle school like that made me appreciate information. I think it is the case that my generation pays closer attention to the quality of information, intuitively comparing what they see to what they would see in an encyclopedia. And I think we are better at finding the more obscure information (since search was linear–no index–I had to be clever about what I looked for). But, on the other hand, we’re probably struggling more with the amount of information (unless we’ve stayed on top of it by following the trend for all these years–still, if I really want to be up to speed I feel the need to read about 200 blog posts every day while back in the day it was a few pages in a newspaper).

On Motivation (part II)

March 8th, 2010

I continue to be amazed by what motivates me. One day I’d just wake up and want to get stuff done. On another, seemingly identical, occasion, I would feel a deep lack of desire to do anything.

Over the past month I’ve had several discoveries. While I know that they are likely different for different people, I encourage everyone to think about what motivates them. Often the factors seem completely arbitrary and are unlike what many self-help publications purport to convince us of.

  • Sometimes I need to be lazy so that in the medium term I can get stuff done. This, I think, is the most important thing that people overlook. I think that this is partly due to the need for my brain to relax (or stop concentrating on one area such as the area responsible for planning and achievement), and partly due to the fact that the desire to get things done is a function of our overall state of mind: spending some time being lazy makes me more motivated to get stuff done later (the “broccoli and ice cream” effect)
  • The most surprising of all was the discovery that if I get home from work before 7pm, I am significantly more motivated to get “life” work done. I haven’t figured out why that is; but this rule seems to work very well for me
  • Several small successes in a row incentivize me to get more done
  • What reduces my anxiety the most is not (in general) getting things done but having a good grasp of what needs to be done and the priority of these things. One thing I therefore tried to do was not organizing my todo list but instead just knocking things off the list so I don’t become complacent having a well-formed todo list

The caveats of logical thinking (part II)

March 8th, 2010

The problem with relying on logical thinking alone is that it can let your guard down.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, mathematicians realized that logic doesn’t actually get you that far. As described previously, logic is as strong as a set of axioms behind it. This is fine in a highly contrived world, like one of Peano or Euclid but in the real world, there are simply too many axiom sets.

Roughly, the axioms correspond to two things:

  • One’s philosophy and values, fundamental things one can’t break down any further
  • Information that one has to treat as fundamental simply because breaking it down is too hard

To the sixteenth-century Europeans, for example, the properties of magnets were axiomatic because, even to the respected scientists of that time, the knowledge necessary to understand magnetism as a consequence of some simpler laws was missing and could not easily be derived from first principles (i.e. it’s not that the scientists at the time were illogical).

If you are talking to somebody who is a good logical thinker and also has good argumentative skills, it’s possible that he or she may convince you pretty much of everything by selecting the axioms he or she cares about and using them in the argument. You would be able to follow the entire conversation without ever exposing a logical flaw in the argument but what you may fail to see is that at the end of the day, there is a degree of arbitrariness in the argument that comes from what axioms were picked. In other words, smart people can rationalize anything.

What should you do when this happens? It’s not easy.

  • Understand that there are other axioms out there. Perhaps there are other reasons against something. Since they are axioms, it will be very hard to trade them off against each other. Point out the fact that neither you nor the person you are talking to are sufficiently equipped to perform the trade-off analysis and thus either of you may be making a wrong decision.
  • Use other sources of reasoning other than logic. Intuition and experience is a good one — it shouldn’t be relied upon too heavily but you can extract value in the fact that you saw something fail several dozen times: perhaps it’s more prone to failure, regardless of whether you can derive the reason using only logic. Sometimes decisions hinge on human nature — your understanding of human emotion can help you make a better decision.

In other words, prefer logical thinking, but don’t use it as a silver bullet.

A visit from an Apple Rep

February 27th, 2010

You should check out the music visualizer that comes with iTunes 7. It’s actually quite good; miles above the built-in visualizers that used to come with Windows Media Player and older versions of iTunes. Apple bought it from one guy, a passionate and creative programmer. Here’s a hypothetical for how this played out and how it involved Steve Jobs’ greatest strengths — his ability to know the customer, and his ability to make money out of it (in a way, Steve Jobs is a brilliant business analyst and a brilliant product manager).

Just like he knows the customers who buy his products, he also got to know that dude that created the visualizer. Say that this is the kind of dude who prefers to have put hundreds of hours of programming time to sell a thousand copies of his visualizer, even though if he had worked at a tech company he would have been worth more (the fact that our dude sold the visualizer, as opposed to having offered it for free, makes it more realistic to make sure comparisons). This fact means that to this single programmer, it’s more important to produce something by himself, either out of passion for technology or out of desire to be famous. In either case, it’s to the dude’s advantage if his visualizer appears in the newest version of iTunes.

This means that Apple will be able to negotiate a great deal, and will probably have to pay much less than the software is worth. Plus, there’s an ace up Apple’s sleeve. Consider what a visit from an Apple rep would look like for this guy.

  • Apple Rep: Hey, do you want to sell the visualizer to us? It will appear in the newest version of iTunes.
  • Dude: Will everyone know I wrote it?
  • Apple Rep: No. We’ll use this and that legal technicality so you appear to be an Apple employee and all Apple employees produce their software anonymously for us.
  • Dude: How much will you pay me?
  • Apple Rep: The fair market value of your software is X. We’ll pay you 80% of that.
  • Dude: So, let me get this straight. You’ll pay me less than my software is worth and nobody will know I wrote it?
  • Apple Rep: That’s right.
  • Dude: Even if for some reason I was OK with this, I am going to say no on principle.
  • Apple Rep: OK, we’ll go to another dude who wrote a similar visualizer. And then another. Ultimately one of them will say yes.
  • Dude: Damn you, you know that I know that it’s very unlikely that every freelance programmer out there will refuse on the basis of principles. I hesitantly agree.
  • Apple Rep: (Casually announces as he’s half way through exiting the room) You know what? For being such a sport we’ll give you an iPod thus make you euphoric over the fact that you managed to make the first friend on your new mercenary path of life.

The Collider

February 23rd, 2010

On February 20th, the Large Hadron Collider ramped up its output to three-and-a-half trillion electron-volts. That February 20th–despite what the skeptics had presumed–was not the day the world ended. No, the end of the world has not dawned upon us yet. But now we know that it will–and we know that it will come soon.

Skeptics and religious zealots aside, scientifically, February 20th was actually supposed to be rather uneventful. At three-and-a-half, the Collider operated at half its target energy, and the Higgs boson was unlikely to rear its coveted head. At seven–it was theorized–it should, but the Collider wasn’t ready for seven; that wouldn’t be happening until 2012. Unsurprisingly then, on February 21st, in the absence of any sensation to report, the headlines of some European newspapers (and Page 2 blurbs of others) focused on the questionable value of this very expensive scientific experiment–the most expensive experiment in human history, in fact–calling it “the World’s Greatest Waste of Money”.

The Collider’s computers pumped experimental data at a staggering rate of twenty gigabytes per day. CERN was kind enough to make the data available to the scientific community (or rather, to the tiny fraction of the community capable of consuming data that quickly) but there was a widespread understanding that results–if any–would take weeks to hunt down in the jungle of zeroes and ones.

Consequently, the revelation that came on February 25th startled absolutely everyone. All six detectors embedded in the accelerator’s hull reported several major anomalies. It seemed, based on CERN’s back-of-the-envelope analysis, that the space throughout the accelerator manifested pockets of non-relativistic properties. Particles twice as heavy as electrons have been detected. The electroweak and strong forces seemed to switch places. The events were short-lived and highly localized yet nobody knew what to make out of it.

The prevailing mood at CERN was one of bewilderment although there were obviously some who were elated–hoping for “easy” Nobel prizes or dreaming of proving the likes of Steven Weinberg wrong–and many more who were highly critical. Following a policy that could only come out of an institute desperate for wonders, the management board at CERN allowed an occasional anomaly so long as they were within the prevailing safety guardrails; the experiment was allowed to continue.

But the event that–in retrospect–was far greater in magnitude, occurred that day not in Europe, but at the Fermilab particle accelerator in Illinois. One of the particle colliders–similar in design to the Large Hadron Collider but capable of producing only much less spectacular collisions–reported spontaneous particle activity. Somehow particle collisions were being observed despite the fact that the accelerator had not been launched. Similar events at various accelerators throughout the globe were reported shortly afterwards, roughly in decreasing order of the accelerator’s sizes.

What was going on? One theory put forth somewhat hastily was that due to some unknown “particle tunelling” phenomenon all the major accelerators developed a kind of coupling, wherefore an event in one accelerator triggered a respective reaction in all the others. The theory likened this effect to that of quantum tunelling (a phenomenon known to the wide quasi-scientific New Scientist-and-the-like community as being the one making teleportation plausible) but on a large scale. The theory gathered widespread adoption despite being entirely unsubstantiated; it did not help explain how such a mechanism was possible, how–if at all–the Large Hadron Collider triggered it, and–most importantly–what the implications of the emergence of such a tunnel were.

The events of February 26th helped answer, at least partially, the latter questions. Concerned about possibly having caused an event that they didn’t fully understand, the scientists at CERN decided to turn off the Collider. A “controlled shutdown” was ordered: the energy would be slowly reduced to zero to allow teams all around the world to observe how the decrease in the Collider’s energy affected the coupled accelerators. The hope was that, if the Collider was the origin of the phenomenon, a shutdown would reduce the intensity of the individual tunnels. Most events in physics, after all, are reversible.

As the Collider’s power approached 95%, the Fermilab team (and then all the others) observed miniature black holes emerge at the sites of the anomalies. As an increasing number of short-lived, microscopic black holes popped up and as their size and life began to increase, it became clear to all that further power reductions would not be prudent. Evidently, following another theory put forth a few days later, the particle tunelling effect was not reversible; the only way to eliminate the tunnel is to let Nature create a black hole large enough to collapse the endpoints of a tunnel into one point. As there were by now dozens of tunnels between most major particle accelerators throughout the world, to stop the tunnel would have a disastrous consequence of witnessing the creation of a black hole large enough to consume all of Earth.

Here we are, barely seven days after the Large Hadron Collider started smashing electrons with never-before seen energies, equipped with the damned knowledge that the Collider is a ticking time-bomb and that the days of our planet are numbered. How much we have, nobody knows for sure. It all depends on how much longer we can keep the Collider running.

The world is watching the Collider–the tool of our demise–with suspended breath. If it breaks down or suddenly drops its power output, we are all going to vanish spectacularly, consumed by a black hole we will have accidentally created in the name of the elusive, impalpable knowledge. As anything man-made, it’s bound to break down. It’s just a matter of time.

February 20th was the day mankind doomed itself.

Webcomic, xkcd-style

February 18th, 2010
My own take at the xkcd style

My own take at the xkcd style

The mysteries of evolution

February 18th, 2010

As I mentioned before, evolution is probably the most fascinating of all epiphenomena that we deal with every day (I’m not going to focus on alternate representations of evolution). Even though it’s simple in its premise, it continues to baffle us (with scientists coming up with new theories about it all the time). I have lots of questions about this epiphenomenon.

Evolution as a greedy process: evolution is a statistical process coupled with individuals’ mutation that, when viewed at a very high level, creates the impression of progress of species over time. Species evolve from one state to another that gives them immediately higher survival value. It is impossible to evolve to a state through an intermediate state that may be of lower value.
Hence, evolution is a greedy process, always aiming to incrementally provide value. This means that many “features” of species which could be extremely beneficial may never appear through evolution because they would necessitate going through an intermediate stage: in other words, evolution is susceptible to local maxima.

Arguably, this is why species never evolved to have wheels, which we now know to be the most efficient mode of transit. No incremental process can create a wheel (I should imagine that additional arguments may point to the fact that such a wheel would be difficult to maintain).

Invariants of evolution: evolution has no “plan”, that is, the progress is rather random and depends on a number of conditions in nature. Still, are there any invariants of evolution? That is, are there features that evolution always produces (or produces provided that some criteria are met)? Is photosynthesis a necessary process for species to adopt (in other words, does evolution always produce green organisms?) Similarly (and this is of course a million dollar question) is intelligence an invariant?

I believe the answer to both questions is yes, not because there is some higher purpose to evolution but because, simply put, photosynthesis and intelligence are the most efficient mechanisms at particular modes of operation (vegetative state, and being a hunter-gatherer, respectively). Unlike wheels, they can appear through an incremental process. The only conditions are sufficient sophistication and competition. For photosynthesis–directly using a virtually unlimited energy–is a great solution to the problem of limited resources for immobile organisms; similarly, intelligence is an answer to species reaching physical limits of body construction (further mutations won’t make the species faster, or stronger). However, intelligence is an expensive feature to develop which is why I think it could only have been possible after increased competition between species made cooperation within a species beneficial, which allowed to specialization and thus easier mutations towards intelligence.

I am not an evolutionary biologist and so the above paragraph is simply my theory. It will be difficult to come with proof of it (or a proof to the contrary) because, as with all epiphenomena, the system that would need to be analyzed to gain the threshold level of understanding is too large for us to currently tackle.

Terminals

February 18th, 2010

It’s interesting that despite having a very similar function, an air terminal looks and feels drastically different from a train station. The former is impersonal (I’d even say dehumanizing), artificial, large but empty. The latter, on the other hand, feels vibrant, crowded, human.

Consider the visual imagery associated with an airport, and that of a train station. When I think of a train station, I see an old platform, rusty steel beams. The platform is crowded, people interact with each other. There is steam. It’s dark and the golden, point lights suffice barely to illuminate the absolutely necessary parts of the platform. The train–the machine–is a prominent part of the scene, it is right there, close to all the passengers. An airport, on the other hand, is made up of long well-lit corridors with conveyor belts that push people along. It’s sunny and bright out, yet the artificial light indoors makes the passengers feel lethargic, purposeless. Nobody interacts with anyone else. The airplanes, although much bigger than the train, aren’t as majestic because they are all far away and by the time of their tour-de-force (the take off) they are only small points on the horizon to the observer at the terminal.

There are many reasons for this difference, the most important ones being structure (physical attributes and constraints), location, and what I’d call cultural and technological maturity. An airport is usually large because it has to accommodate the physical requirements of the gates; this necessitates conveyor belts, and creates the void. The train station can be much smaller because all it requires is enough platform space for all the simultaneously arriving and departing trains. The airport is most often on the outskirts of the city, and its sole purpose is to be a terminal for airplanes. This single purpose makes it impersonal and monotonous. A train station, usually in the center of the city, is usually a hub for other public transportation–people with diverse purposes mingle in one place (which makes it more crowded and increases interaction, as well as allows for more diverse retail areas).

Finally–and this is probably the reason why these two places have such different visual connotations–the trains have been with us (and thus have been part of our culture) for much longer and represent an element of nostalgia (mature, more “human”, reliable and powerful steam technology, as opposed to prone-to-failure and difficult to grasp technology of air transportation).

A Thousand Ways to Ask a Question

February 11th, 2010

I love how there is a spectrum of ways in which I could ask a questions, depending on what answer I would like to hear back. For example, suppose that you want to invite a friend to a party you’re organizing, but depending on how good friend it is, you want to convey more than just the query. For example, consider the following spectrum of asking the same question:

  • “COME TO THE PARTY. TONIGHT.”
  • “You coming to the party, right?”
  • “I’d love to see you at the party.”
  • “Would you like to come to the party?”
  • “In case you’re free, there’s a party I’m having tonight.”
  • “I’m having a party. You’re invited…”
  • “FYI: I’m having a party tonight.”