home
on exploration, introspection and creation

Archive for October, 2009

Single-level undo

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

I mean, really? Really?! People will only need to undo a single operation? This seems like a major, major failure to understand customer use cases.

I’m talking about a nontrivial class of applications, particularly on Windows systems, that till this day offer only one level of undo: you can only press Ctrl+Z once; if you press it again, you end up redoing the change. Most tragically, the two applications I use very often on Windows machines, Outlook and Notepad, have this limitation.

I would understand if it was mid-1990s. Applications had limited memory and implementing something like a multi-level undo was costly both to the memory involved to store the changes, and the code needed to implemet the feature (although the latter is often given much more weight it deserves; writing code is easy if you are good!). But it’s 2009. We went through four iterations of the operating system. Why can’t I undo more than one change?

The Scent of Winter

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

Last night I walked out of my house to fetch mail. It was about 7pm. I took a deep breath, and as crisp, mildly humid, and–above all–sharply cold air invaded my nostrils, I realized it’s now officially winter.

There are two seasons–the winter and the spring–whose advent I associate mostly with a very characteristic smell of air. I’ve always found it interesting that while the seasons change rather smoothly, that smell in the air is sudden, and binary. Now it’s autumn, now it’s winter.

Granted, last two nights could be outliers. After all, just three days ago the temperature was fairly decent–64 degrees or something. Two nights ago we were all shocked by a frightening 36 degrees. The foliage hasn’t turned yet, so autumn isn’t really gone, but I think my mind has pretty much skipped a season. That’s too bad, because I love autumn.

Overachieving

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

Is it possible that top colleges take the smartest people and make them dumber?

I went to a very good college. But when I think really, really hard about what exactly I learned there, I can’t help but to hesitate. For a long time I knew that it wasn’t the material contained in the syllabi of the classes I took (I see this more as a kind of ephemeral “micro-knowledge”; something I learned, knew very well right before the final, and forgot promptly afterwards), but I don’t think this should come as a surprise to anyone. I did, however, think that college taught me how to think (a kind of meta-knowledge). That was true until I realized that now, several years out of college, I’m discovering all that I have never realized. I’m more introspective (something I’ve never done in college) and reflective; I see more connections; I simply understand more. And it’s surprising to me that I’m discovering it just now; wasn’t college supposed to have done this? What exactly happened in the past few years that helped me open my eyes?

Of course I may be wrong; perhaps I’m not discovering anything. I may be simply having an impression of discovery. Or perhaps, I wouldn’t have been able to come to what I came to if I hadn’t gone to college (but it seems somewhat slippery to say that the most important contribution of college education is a second-order one). I don’t know; I do wonder though.

The reason I suspect college may have made me dumber is that it seems to have placed me in an artificial ecosystem of overachieving. It’s like a very long video game with really strange rules: there are inflated grades, weekly meetings with the teaching assistant who assesses the quality of your participation in a conversation, and a final event where everyone has three hours to prove to the professor that he or she retained an impressive quantity of the information. Taking on more than is expected is expected (oh the irony). And that applies not just to the number of classes you take–also what positions you hold on boards of various societies. There also seems to be a Zagat-like rating of societies; being on the board of a Juggling Society seems like a different achievement than serving as a board member of the largest minority society on campus.

A lot of my friends (and I) seemed to be caught in overachieving. Now that I think about it, it’s funny because very few of these things actually matter in life. Things that actually do seem to matter–the maturity and sophistication of thought, actual and not manifested passion, creativity, openness, the ability to communicate, just to make a few–have never been emphasized. It’s as if life was a convention that everyone subscribes to and at the end, somebody judges you based on how well you followed the conventions.

On the other hand, following the conventions may be a useful skill. Just like college may have taught me meta-knowledge, it may have taught me the skill of fitting in to conventions. And if one (somewhat cynically but who is to judge) makes an argument that the world is nothing but layers of conventions, perhaps it was essential after all.

Life Hack #25: Music for running

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

I’ve spent some time thinking about how to trick myself into perceiving running (especially running on a treadmill) as not such a boring activity. I used to listen to audiobooks and podcasts, but found listening to music to yield the most success. A few days ago I went through my music and picked out songs for running. What was different this time, though, was that this time I looked at the tempo of each song to match it up to how fast I wanted to run.

Everyone has a different pace (and a different frequency with which they move their feet when they run at different speeds) so there is no good formula, but I recommend playing various songs while running on a treadmill and finding the speed at which the song seems to be in sync with your run. You can use any of the (sub-)harmonics of the frequency (so a very slow song may still be appropriate, if you happen to move your feet twice as fast as the song’s tempo). You can then arrange your playlist according to how fast you want to run at the various stages of your run.

I also had great success picking the songs I really liked, or was motivated by, to appear at the beginning and the end of the playlist, for additional motivation. I also found that around two-thirds into the run, I’d be particularly demotivated (likely to stop), so I put some good songs around there, too.

Experience versus Flexibility

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

I already hinted at this, but experience and flexibility are two qualities that seem to be complementary in most people. When we’re new to something, we explore it, we experiment. We don’t mind being inefficient — after all, learning requires some inefficiency (for example, education relies on a principle of redundancy, which is by definition inefficient) because of the uncertainty of the outcome: we don’t know what precisely will allow us to learn how to multiply two things together, so we do it a lot, and we approach it from many different angles. We’re inexperienced but flexible.

As we gather our experience, though, we stop experimenting. We realize that we’re more comfortable with some aspects of whatever domain we’re interested in and not others, and choose not to be flexible. This choice, granted, is usually implicit (nobody just wakes up one day and decides to listen only to 80s music from now on) and gradual, but I think it’s still a choice we make.

I think there are two misconceptions about experience and flexibility. First, the transition from flexibility to inflexibility is seen as inevitable, just like the transition from lack of experience to experience. At work I’d complain many times that experienced hires find it difficult to learn new things, or new approaches, and are often dogmatic. I think this transition, while consistent with human nature, is not a forgone conclusion. It’s still a choice we make, hence yesterday’s post encouraging everyone to explicitly choose not to become inflexible. Secondly, experience (and thus lack of flexibility) is equated with age. I don’t think it’s necessarily true–some people acquire experience faster than others (I guess we call such people “mature”). There are many factors that come into play here–the ability to retain information, the ability to make connections, the ability to reflect.

Why do people choose to become inflexible? I think it stems from the desire for humans to seek comfort. Most people are rational enough to understand the benefits of investment (trading off utility today for much more utility tomorrow: the loss of utility today manifests itself as pain and lack of comfort) but there are limits to how much they want to invest. At some point we naturally gravitate towards reaping the benefits (perhaps as we perceive the passage of time, i.e. get impatient).

I remember fearing that at some point in my life I will stop being flexible. I worried that just like my grandparents find it difficult to operate a remote control, and my parents find it difficult to use a computer, I will at some point “lose it”. Then I would explain to myself that such a terrible thing won’t happen to me because my generation is special in some way — I was born in an age of technology boom, used to progress (whereas my grandparents grew up with the invention of a telephone, television, etc., I grew up with a concept of invention in the abstract so my skills are more transferable across inventions). In retrospect, I think this was a naive understanding. Sure, maybe technology is something I won’t “lose” (particularly because so much of my life revolves around it), but there will certainly be something else that I will not be able to master, or learn, or even understand.

In fact, even us staying on top of technology is not quite so certain. Here’s a great example of how we all ultimately choose comfort (as a result of experience), at a sacrifice of flexibility. My generation (I guess these days saying “generation” isn’t enough–one has to be more granular than that–so, say, people born around 1982-4) prides itself on being very familiar with technology, particularly computers, the Internet and many of its artifacts (such as the phenomenon of social networking). We all poke each other on Facebook, gchat each other at work, subscribe to others’ RSS feeds (ehm ehm). So are we special, at least with respect to technology? Very few (it any) of my friends use Twitter. They see it as “a waste of time”, something “immature”, something that “high school kids do”. Why use Twitter if you can update your status on Facebook? Who cares where you’re having breakfast? Twitter, at least to my micro-generation, is not a basic building block of social interactions. Yet Twitter is incredibly popular. So is it, perhaps, that we’re simply slightly out of the loop with technology already? Oh sure, we’ll say, we can always start using it. But it’s not worth it. We’ve just chose comfort over flexibility, just like our grandparents did when they refused to learn to operate a remote control.

Back when I used to worry about things, this was a big bummer. Now that I learned to embrace changes, I’m fascinated by this process and want to learn as much from it as possible. What’s the next big thing going to be? We’re bombarded by information; just to stay afloat I’m finding myself going through two hundred posts a day from the thirty or so blogs I subscribe to. It’s time-consuming (and most of my friends have already given up; the smarter ones simply ask me to synthesize the information for them, but that’s a superficial way to try to capture this information–it’s like reading about how Twitter works in the New York Times) and… well, painful. But to others–to the little ones–it’s natural. My friend was telling me how his five-year-old picked up his iPhone and navigated it without the slightest trouble. It’s a great thing, a visible sign of progress. Let’s not get angry, or depressed about it. After all, we were making fun of our parents, too.

Life Hack #24: Train Yourself in Behavioral Change

Monday, October 12th, 2009

As we get older, we tend to trade off flexibility for comfort. We begin settling on the food we like, the music genres that we find pleasing, the technologies we are comfortable with. There is something deeply satisfying, though, about the ability to fundamentally change something about our lives. I suggest you go through an exercise to try to change your behavior in some aspect of your life.

A good example–one that some people attempt–is to lead a more active life. I tried that as part of my goals over the past year. Behavioral change is not easy–we fall back to the old model very easily and quickly, and any deviation from a carefully worked out new routine can ruin the whole plan. This “infant mortality” period is usually pretty long–it lasts somewhere around a year, sometimes more–but once it’s over, the feeling you get is deeply satisfying. Often the change of behavior you want to effect is a very positive thing (leading an active life makes you healthier, for example) that you can only achieve through an investment like this.

How do you know when you’re done? That’s very simple–when the new behavior feels right and effortless. To put it bluntly, at first it will be a pain in the ass to do the new thing; you’re done when it’s a pain in the ass to do the old thing.

What kind of boring blog would this be if it didn’t talk about cars!

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Back when I was little I would hear the members of my family (mostly men–but I’ll get to that) discuss cars all the time (in between conversations about politics and sports). When I went to school, I would hear kids my age talk about cars. There were even those playing cards you could buy that allowed you to play games with other people by comparing various characteristics of cars.

I never understood that fascination that everyone around seemed to have about cars. Granted, I didn’t really know much about cars, and my parents didn’t get a car until I was a teenager, so I didn’t have much exposure. Still, talking about it seemed like a giant waste of time.

As I learned more about the world around me, I found a spectrum of opinions that people had about cars and car ownership, and discovered that meta-opinions — opinions about views people hold about car ownership — were fairly frequent (I guess this post is one of them, huh). Cars were said to be a reflection of their owners’ insecurity or vanity (I particularly love vanity plates as icing on the cake, but I’ll get to that later); cars as a reflection of their owners’ need to dominate; cars as a reflection of the society’s reach for ever increasing standards of living. Cars as a symbol of independence and means of living. Cars that liberate, impress, inspire, disgust, bore. Cars as symbols of indescribable wealth. Cars from vending machines as a statement of the society’s desperate reach for the extremes of consumption. The opinions are countless and diverse, but one thing is certain: cars seem to be talked about or otherwise involved more than many equivalent objects. The reason for this? The car to me seems to have a large capacity for rhetoric — it’s used as a carrier of illiteral information — because it’s an inseparable part of the human culture; because it’s indispensable; because it’s an extension of our humanity (this is also why we like cars that look like humans).

When I got a real job, I had to drive to work every day. This necessity brought about car ownership and, subsequently, many thoughts and feelings about cars. I suddenly saw how the humanity of the car applies to my small world. The car connected me with others (how else would I be able to get to NYC to hang out with my friends?), allowed me to get to work, helped me in emergencies, sheltered me when I found myself in the City at 5am about to pass out, having to wake up at 8am, offered me its warmth or cool breeze. It was an extension of my body (while many people like to think of cars as giving their owners undeserved or supernatural powers, I thought of mine as extending my reach (I could go faster) and sight (I could see all around me)).

But most importantly, my car gave me a way to express my passion in a simple, effortless way. Driving my car was like sitting in front of a canvas; each trip was a small work of art. Over the few years I had it, I discovered a lot about what I liked in my car and what I didn’t care about. Initially excited about the many bells and whistles–push button ignition, headlights that turned where I turned, eventually even power side view mirrors–I slowly deconstructed my passion towards my car to just one thing: the act of motion, the dance I perform whenever I drive.

This is a highly personal opinion. I know a lot of people who prefer a comfortable ride, or things that make driving easier, such as an automatic parallel parking system. Everyone needs to get to a point when they know what they like in a car (and very usually this is a very fundamental thing). I strongly encourage everyone to lease their first car (or intend to sell it after a couple of years); I look back and realize that I knew nothing about myself or cars when I decided on my first car.

Once you are faced with moving on to your next car, I think you should pursue your passion. Purchasing a should not be a result of calculated, detached reasoning. For example, the rational part of my brain would come up with all those reasons not to get the car that I now own. If I had listened to it, I would never have bought the car. But instead, I followed my passion. This made my car ownership something special; and all those problems that my logical brain came up with turned out not to be problems after all–I came up with good solutions without much of a sacrifice.

A great thing about passion is that it is what keeps you going; an even greater thing about logic is that it is robust enough to recover even after you ignore it from time to time. The art of living is to know when to switch between passion (to live a fuller life) and logic (to live a better life).

A Beautiful Thing

A Beautiful Thing

Why do men seem to like cars much more than women? I don’t know; at the risk of being called a summerist, I believe that men’s and women’s utility functions are different, and this is reflected in what the two genders care about, and, subsequently, what they purchase: men seem to me to purchase fewer items than women do, but the items they purchase cost more money. I have a feeling this can have something to do with how men value consistency and women value compatibility (this may also explain why women have larger wardrobes–the top and the bottom must match; this means that women will tend to need n2 articles of clothing while men need 2n).

What about vanity plates? Many plates are trite (they include some variation of the owner’s name–it’s unsurprising given that they are vanity plates but feel a little too much); many employ irony or try to otherwise be funny. Some are clever; some are just aesthetically pleasing. I love spotting them, and trying to figure out what they say about people.

Turn signals: how yours never blink with the same frequency as the guy’s in front of you

Friday, October 9th, 2009

If you’re a driver, you no doubt spend a nontrivial amount of time waiting at an intersection, another car in front of you, you both wanting to turn left. You probably noticed that the turn signal of the car in front of you doesn’t blink with quite the same frequency as one in your car.

In fact, I have a strong suspicion that no two cars have the same frequency–at least that’s what it seems to me since I can never find turn signals to be in phase.

And so here I am, waiting for the light to turn green, with two blinkers flashing with different frequencies. I don’t like to do nothing, so I often figure out what this difference in frequencies is. It’s not as hard as it may seem–and it involves no measuring devices! It’s a pretty cool trick that takes advantage of the fact that while it’s hard to measure or compare quantities (such as speed, frequency), it’s relatively easy to detect synchronicity. First, figure out which blinker is faster. Then wait for both blinkers to be momentarily synchronized (i.e. for both to flash at the same time). Count how many times the faster blinker flashed before both are synchronized again (make sure you don’t “skip” a cycle). If the faster one blinked n times, and you captured the cycle correctly, the slower one blinked n-1 times so the faster one is n/(n-1) times faster. I like to go a step further and memorize what fractions of the form n/(n-1) come out to be as percentages to impress people with some percentage estimates while sitting in the car, with no calculator. For example, if the slow one blinks 9 times and the fast one blinks 10 times, the fast one is 11% faster.

This trick works for car blinkers in part because most cars’ blinkers flash with similar but not the same frequency (if the ratio of frequencies is fairly large, you will find it hard to not skip steps–that is, the blinkers will not synchronize fast enough). I also like to go to the gym, get on the treadmill and figure out how fast the person next to me is running by observing the synchronicity of the markings on the treadmill (treadmills have their brand names displayed on the belts)–the trick works because most people run at similar speeds (between 6.5 and 8.5 mph) and, moreover, because people tend to run at quantized speeds, I am often able to figure out the speed precisely.

Commercials that look like news broadcasts and how this points to the most fundamental badness in our society

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

I saw a commercial on ESPN the other day that showed a footage of Obama discussing some issues related to the economic situation of the nation at some news conference. There was also a phone number to a service that apparently allowed anyone to “get out of debt.” The first time around it took me a while to realize that it was a commercial.

Conversely, a lot of the actual news broadcasts are beginning to look like commercials. News bits are dramatized (remember how Fox used to make its news teasers look like fragments of the show 24? And-come on-news teasers?!). A kind of inflation is in place whereby all sorts of news are given the “breaking” epithet, and apparently are worth a 45-minute block of coverage.

On reflection, this covergence makes sense. People stop paying attention to commercials, so they are made to look deceptively like news casts. People stop paying attention to news, so they are made to look deceptively like fiction.

I guess the cause to look at here is that people get bored quickly of whatever is placed in front of their eyes. Corporations (bound by the need to maintain popular interest in order to stay profitable) scramble to keep you from turning the TV off or switching the channel, losing in the meantime sight of the goal. Given that corporations are profit-seeking, this is the right strategy. So why do people get bored? Why do we need “more” and more each time to maintain a constant level of interest?

I believe that getting “bored” is a fact of life, an artifact of being human. We have memory so we compare (time-adjusted) outcomes yesterday to outcomes today. This is what I would call the desire for progress and I don’t think this is bad per se.

Where our tendency to get bored becomes a problem, though, is when we realize I think that our society today (which, unlike human nature, is not constant) has the tendency to value instant gratification. Now don’t get me wrong-I see a lot of people make this mistake-there is nothing inherently bad, or evil about instant gratification. This need, in my opinion, can be fundamentally linked to the uncertainty about one’s future and life purpose (either because one supposes that one needs to live an extremely rich life to find purpose, or takes a resigned view and decides to grasp the moment). The problem with instant gratification, though, is that it it a very costly life philosophy. You trade higher utility today for higher utility tomorrow-each decision you make is local: your one life decision doesn’t affect any other. You don’t invest. Because there is no room for investment in life, the only way to get valuable output is to put a lot in. Since we get bored, this process gets less efficient as time goes on: next time we put in the same amount, we receive slightly less output. This means either we’re destined to be ultimately depressed, or go crazy trying to put more and more in.

Using money to make oneself happy is a good example: you need to continue spending more and more because you remember what you bought before and how that made you happy. That was some time ago so, time-adjusted, you now need to spend more to maintain the same utility. You end up spending ridiculous amounts of money just to be as happy as you were when you bought your first Matchbox toy car as a young child.

Is there an alternative? Yes, it is either to address the problem with instant gratification, or change your philosophy. The former is very hard- I think instant gratification works if you an inexperienced and have the potential to put a lot more in than you expect to receive. This is why children like-and should be offered- instant gratification. Later in life, as you get more sophisticated, you really need to change your philosophy. I recommend learning to be patient, investing.

One celebrity at a time?

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

I noticed something interesting after Michael Jackson died, and the world mourned, then Patrick Swayze died, and the world mourned:

The world seems to have enough memory to remember just one passed-away celebrity at a time. It sounds insensitive (my apologies!), but this often seems to be the case. Except when one celebrity’s death is followed by a much less well-known celebrity’s death. In such a case, the former seems to have a kind of impedance (permittivity?), and displaces the latter rather quickly.

Can we measure a celebrity’s popularity by how long his or her post-humous news coverage lasts?