(that made more sense if you talk like Yoda. Also, mixing tenses!)
Misinterpretation!
The Actual™ quote is "R U 4 SECKS CHAT????" (it's from a Slashdot story) When I recontextualised it into my musings below, I was parodying the way the people behave in such places, claiming through this clever use of technique that bars and such were the real-life equivalents of seedy chatrooms and the like.
As Dostoevsky said,"Goddamn it, I shouldn't have to do all the work."
Well, that was what I said. What he said was a trifle more poetic ("Let the reader do some of the work.")
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Know that I miss you
In what must be truly karmic retribution to my longwindedness downstairs, I got 'Around The World' stuck in my head for a day.
Who knew it was actually good advice to not go shopping on an empty stomach? I'd attach an addendum to that, which would be more generally along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving something' and more specifically along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving icecream.'
Because you know what the inevitable end of that transaction is going to be.
Answer: Delicious.
I may have royally pissed off my boss today. That's too bad, because I got sick of skipping class for him. I did what I had to do however, so we'll see what the fallout is. My Prac. Ethics class ended on a nice enough note, but it did get a little tiring to rag on MacKinnon the entire time. State priests are so tiring, you dig?
I'm trying to keep my writing fresh and interesting, and I realise it's hard work. This is an example of me not doing so. Jesus, I haven't started a third day of this and I've moved on a meta-post. I have no qualifications whatsoever.
As an excuse, I offer the time tested one of writer's block. To paraphrase Marx (the one with eyebrows, not the one with the beard), if you don't like that one, i've got others.
(Was that actually Groucho Marx? A quick google search is inconclusive)
Really, the main thing I'm trying to do with my writing is less is more approach. I hope you appreciate how difficult that is for me to take, even if you are as I, believe brevity is a high form of wit (as Shakespeare did! This I am sure of. Well, I actually think irony is the highest form of wit, whiles good ole Shakes there thought it was brevity)
[If you wish for me to level with you, I'm feeling not so peaky; there exist pockets of depression hiding in my mind longer than I thought possible. It's not something i'm proud of, nor should it be something you should encourage. This has been your Public Service Announcement. Please take the proper precautions.]
Who knew it was actually good advice to not go shopping on an empty stomach? I'd attach an addendum to that, which would be more generally along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving something' and more specifically along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving icecream.'
Because you know what the inevitable end of that transaction is going to be.
Answer: Delicious.
I may have royally pissed off my boss today. That's too bad, because I got sick of skipping class for him. I did what I had to do however, so we'll see what the fallout is. My Prac. Ethics class ended on a nice enough note, but it did get a little tiring to rag on MacKinnon the entire time. State priests are so tiring, you dig?
I'm trying to keep my writing fresh and interesting, and I realise it's hard work. This is an example of me not doing so. Jesus, I haven't started a third day of this and I've moved on a meta-post. I have no qualifications whatsoever.
As an excuse, I offer the time tested one of writer's block. To paraphrase Marx (the one with eyebrows, not the one with the beard), if you don't like that one, i've got others.
(Was that actually Groucho Marx? A quick google search is inconclusive)
Really, the main thing I'm trying to do with my writing is less is more approach. I hope you appreciate how difficult that is for me to take, even if you are as I, believe brevity is a high form of wit (as Shakespeare did! This I am sure of. Well, I actually think irony is the highest form of wit, whiles good ole Shakes there thought it was brevity)
[If you wish for me to level with you, I'm feeling not so peaky; there exist pockets of depression hiding in my mind longer than I thought possible. It's not something i'm proud of, nor should it be something you should encourage. This has been your Public Service Announcement. Please take the proper precautions.]
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Ravioli: Buoyant
All systems go!
Unfortunately, it boiled over :(
I'm talking a lot. It seems to stem from my mind. This is how I deal. The cards.
Some justification: I've (presumably) remarked numerous times (possibly to no one in particular) of my general distaste and dislike for what might be named dance music (really, as the link states, more correctly, electronic dance music, music played at clubs, discotheques, raves and the like) My reasons for this range from the aesthetic to the philosophical, and i'll try to go through as many as I can to prove my point.
To me, however lax I may be about it, music is an artform. It is a platform from which to express, from which to edify, educate and entertain (I mean entertaining solely through the music itself) Really, I can find no better aesthetic position on which to explain it from as well as: Do you dig it? I mean, man, do you really dig it? When someone says something like, 'It's all about the music', that's what I mean.
What 'dance' music seems to do is subordinate that talent, that ability, merely to the point of sounding non-offensive (might as well say boring), providing a beat to move to. Technically, it seems dull. 4/4? C'mon, that shit went out with Beethoven. Music should be listened to, not measured in bpm. If you want to dance (physical sense of the term) to a beat, get a metronome.
The social reasons: most clubs, discos, raves, hell even most bars play this sort of 'dance' music. I dislike most of these places, not only due to the type of music being played, but due to the fact that they play music too damn loud, making it near impossible and seriously infuriating if you try to have a half-decent conversation. The innate seediness of many of these places doesn't help either; it's like a real-life version of people asking "R U FOR SECKS????", with louder music, and overpriced drinks.
Now, the disclaimatory personal reasons: I've remarked (again to someone) how much I hate my brother (goddamn douchebag). He listens almost exclusively to dance music (although recently he seems to be broadening; i've caught him listening to both my (that's right, my) MIA (that was most likely because of hearing her at Parklife, again an event I do not like) and Gotye))) In addition, he frequents many of those places i've mentioned above. In particular, he goes out specifically to 'dance clubs'. If my impression that my brother is the average sort of solicitor of such places is correct, well that really explains my dislike of those places.
Lastly, the philosophical/psychological: I've wondered whether my opposition to dance music (and its [is this the right apostrophication, or lack thereof? Apparently, grammar nazis read this, so I be wary. I've never really been solid with rules of possesive apostrophes; I feel there should be a ' after the 's' of the 'its' I just did] wider association with clubs, bars, et al) comes from that wider association. I've never really been comfortable with those places; I do not enjoy flirting/hitting on people, I'm much more of a direct lecher for that. Primarily, I talk a lot; this is most how I make friends, socialise and develop (secret) crushes on people. I do not 'groove', nor 'move', nor do I 'tear up the dance floor'. Those places seem like places where looks and style (how I loathe that word) seem to dominate, filled with younguns full of hormones aiming to have fun and casual sex, with a minimum of talking or engagement. This distinctly doesn't suit me, as a) I lack looks b) I lack style and
c) my greatest strength is most likely my intelligence, which I express through talking. Put me in an environment where you cripple that, and it's natural I get defensive. I'm still wondering whether all this talk is just a post facto rationalisation for my dislike of dance music.
Obligatory caveats: Generalisations apply heavily in above. I acknowledge that there exist artists who make great music, utilising 'dance' techniques, or even artists who make great dance music (Kraftwerk comes to mind). However, I should have made it clear by now that i've talking about a different subset of music (read: fuck you Purple Sneakers), of which again i'm generalising. Please filter where appropriate.
Unfortunately, it boiled over :(
I'm talking a lot. It seems to stem from my mind. This is how I deal. The cards.
Some justification: I've (presumably) remarked numerous times (possibly to no one in particular) of my general distaste and dislike for what might be named dance music (really, as the link states, more correctly, electronic dance music, music played at clubs, discotheques, raves and the like) My reasons for this range from the aesthetic to the philosophical, and i'll try to go through as many as I can to prove my point.
To me, however lax I may be about it, music is an artform. It is a platform from which to express, from which to edify, educate and entertain (I mean entertaining solely through the music itself) Really, I can find no better aesthetic position on which to explain it from as well as: Do you dig it? I mean, man, do you really dig it? When someone says something like, 'It's all about the music', that's what I mean.
What 'dance' music seems to do is subordinate that talent, that ability, merely to the point of sounding non-offensive (might as well say boring), providing a beat to move to. Technically, it seems dull. 4/4? C'mon, that shit went out with Beethoven. Music should be listened to, not measured in bpm. If you want to dance (physical sense of the term) to a beat, get a metronome.
The social reasons: most clubs, discos, raves, hell even most bars play this sort of 'dance' music. I dislike most of these places, not only due to the type of music being played, but due to the fact that they play music too damn loud, making it near impossible and seriously infuriating if you try to have a half-decent conversation. The innate seediness of many of these places doesn't help either; it's like a real-life version of people asking "R U FOR SECKS????", with louder music, and overpriced drinks.
Now, the disclaimatory personal reasons: I've remarked (again to someone) how much I hate my brother (goddamn douchebag). He listens almost exclusively to dance music (although recently he seems to be broadening; i've caught him listening to both my (that's right, my) MIA (that was most likely because of hearing her at Parklife, again an event I do not like) and Gotye))) In addition, he frequents many of those places i've mentioned above. In particular, he goes out specifically to 'dance clubs'. If my impression that my brother is the average sort of solicitor of such places is correct, well that really explains my dislike of those places.
Lastly, the philosophical/psychological: I've wondered whether my opposition to dance music (and its [is this the right apostrophication, or lack thereof? Apparently, grammar nazis read this, so I be wary. I've never really been solid with rules of possesive apostrophes; I feel there should be a ' after the 's' of the 'its' I just did] wider association with clubs, bars, et al) comes from that wider association. I've never really been comfortable with those places; I do not enjoy flirting/hitting on people, I'm much more of a direct lecher for that. Primarily, I talk a lot; this is most how I make friends, socialise and develop (secret) crushes on people. I do not 'groove', nor 'move', nor do I 'tear up the dance floor'. Those places seem like places where looks and style (how I loathe that word) seem to dominate, filled with younguns full of hormones aiming to have fun and casual sex, with a minimum of talking or engagement. This distinctly doesn't suit me, as a) I lack looks b) I lack style and
c) my greatest strength is most likely my intelligence, which I express through talking. Put me in an environment where you cripple that, and it's natural I get defensive. I'm still wondering whether all this talk is just a post facto rationalisation for my dislike of dance music.
Obligatory caveats: Generalisations apply heavily in above. I acknowledge that there exist artists who make great music, utilising 'dance' techniques, or even artists who make great dance music (Kraftwerk comes to mind). However, I should have made it clear by now that i've talking about a different subset of music (read: fuck you Purple Sneakers), of which again i'm generalising. Please filter where appropriate.
A reply
The (surprising) amount of things said about what I said has freaked me out. But also, a reply:
Risk-averseness: I agree, partially. Knowing you're risk-averse can (and should) lead you to compensate for it. See winner's curse, prospect theory et al. And I'm not entirely sure about risk-averseness outside agency problems. If the axioms of invariance and substitution hold (as they should within standard micro theory), risk-averseness should be compensated for.
Better a point that is sub-optimal than null-optimal.
The economic problem is precisely that, in one sense: To pick the option that gives you the most utility at the lowest opportunity cost.
Higher qualities? I call strawman. Higher qualities (in a consumer-sovereign, market-oriented sense) are those qualities I (and you, and everyone else) determine to have value to me/them. You can't blame people for buying what they want, regardless of how misinformed they may be (or want to be even. You can lead a consumer to information, but it doesn't mean they'll learn. In addition, I'm making concessions to market-distortive situations such as monopoly, externalities, cartels, etc. This is where stepping in is justified.)
Greater alienation of self that degrades the lives we lead? Shopping around is not a "greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead." That's a mighty presumptious statement about my life right there. Call me what you want, but do not call me a bad consumer. Price signals are a valid (and valuable) form of information transmission. Are you saying I shouldn't act on information available? Not only that, I act on other signals available to me as well; if this were some other game available to me at the same price, I would not buy it. I do not base my decisions solely on price.
Effectively, what I was describing in The Spectrum of Wants was a simple heuristical method of demand sorting, given finite time, finite information and infinite wants. YMMV. In short: cognitive biases do not an argument make.
Jesus, you've made me sound like Miltie Friedman. I feel dirty.
As to Sam's whiteness:
I told you!
The problem is that people are naturally risk averse, and thus we always arrive at a point of utility that is sub-optimal. Not only that, we are not wise enough, nor rational enough to live anywhere near the lives that we have within grasp.
Risk-averseness: I agree, partially. Knowing you're risk-averse can (and should) lead you to compensate for it. See winner's curse, prospect theory et al. And I'm not entirely sure about risk-averseness outside agency problems. If the axioms of invariance and substitution hold (as they should within standard micro theory), risk-averseness should be compensated for.
we always arrive at a point of utility that is sub-optimal.
Better a point that is sub-optimal than null-optimal.
Now in analysing tasks from a simple marginal benefit/cost analysis, you risk falling into a pattern in which the tendency to be risk-averse moves you closer and closer to adapting demand to supply, rather than supply to demand. To some extent, this has to happenOn adapting demand to supply: Even you said this has to happen, in a sense. Remember, unlimited wants. There's no real way you could possibly satisfy all those wants, so you adapt those demands to the ones that can (ir)rationally be satisfied.
The economic problem is precisely that, in one sense: To pick the option that gives you the most utility at the lowest opportunity cost.
I call slippery slope. This was a subjective account of my own demand/utility functions, and there obviously exist some people who place greater utility on maximising than satisficing. I never said everyone does this.
but in satisficing, rather than maximising, this can have the effect of higher qualities being run out of business and thus resulting in a continual narrowing of boundaries for all.
Higher qualities? I call strawman. Higher qualities (in a consumer-sovereign, market-oriented sense) are those qualities I (and you, and everyone else) determine to have value to me/them. You can't blame people for buying what they want, regardless of how misinformed they may be (or want to be even. You can lead a consumer to information, but it doesn't mean they'll learn. In addition, I'm making concessions to market-distortive situations such as monopoly, externalities, cartels, etc. This is where stepping in is justified.)
That's why I object to the logic of obeying price signals. To some extent it's unavoidable, but the extent to which you conform creates a greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead.
Greater alienation of self that degrades the lives we lead? Shopping around is not a "greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead." That's a mighty presumptious statement about my life right there. Call me what you want, but do not call me a bad consumer. Price signals are a valid (and valuable) form of information transmission. Are you saying I shouldn't act on information available? Not only that, I act on other signals available to me as well; if this were some other game available to me at the same price, I would not buy it. I do not base my decisions solely on price.
Effectively, what I was describing in The Spectrum of Wants was a simple heuristical method of demand sorting, given finite time, finite information and infinite wants. YMMV. In short: cognitive biases do not an argument make.
Jesus, you've made me sound like Miltie Friedman. I feel dirty.
As to Sam's whiteness:
I told you!
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The next time you weather an existential storm
pause and wonder if it's all in your head. And bring clean underwear. It's important.
So i've had a few things whirling in my head recently, and I really wish it would stop. It's making me dizzy. I'll try to set one of these things down as a short (hopefully) essay I will entitle for now:
So i've had a few things whirling in my head recently, and I really wish it would stop. It's making me dizzy. I'll try to set one of these things down as a short (hopefully) essay I will entitle for now:
"On the Spectrum of Wants"
After my recent and fairly annoying incident of wallet losing, I've begun the process of replacing my cards. One of the cards I replaced was my 'Access' card, the commie one that lets you do commie things. It's great, I recommend you get one. Now, with this little card came a bag of goodies, mostly in the form of vouchers. The big voucher book (like the one we got last year with the krispy kreme vouchers, which are back this year; hurrah for diabetes!) had a voucher for Liberty City Stories [the PS2 version: as a change of style, brackets] for 10 dollars in it. Which brings me to my point.
I went and purchased this game from the Broadway store that had this promotion, with Ed who came along as he seemingly had nothing better to do. As he generally does, he asked a simple enough question: did I actually wanted the game or not? Good question. Demand, generally speaking, isn't supposed to be a function of price, as it is a function of utility. Now, obviously, you have to look at tradeoffs between utility and the money exercised to obtain this utility, but did I buy the game because it was cheap or because I actually wanted it? My response was/is this: I did buy the game because I did really want the game. It had existed in my spectrum of wants, albeit at the fringes. It was pushed further towards the middle by a combination of a lower of price[effort], and the new information provided to me in voucher form.
Atleast for me, the spectrum of wants is extremely wide. I generally satisfy the spectrum of wants through a value system: how much effort do I have put into this to satisfy a particular want? Which is why consistently, my wants tend to be things that are possible already to me: reading, gaming, music, learning and so on. However, it should be noted that I internally individuate those wants quite specifically; that is, there is a different want when I want Baldurs Gate as opposed to Majesty, there is a different want when I read Steinbeck rather than Slashdot, and so on. Those wants are not monolithic blocks of things.
Occasionally, such events (mostly concerts) have enough utility attached to them such that even though more effort would be required of them than simpler wants, I am willing to expend the effort required to satisfy them. To be accurate, it's not neccessarily more utility that i'm gaining, as it is a different type of utility not available to me from other wants.
I went and purchased this game from the Broadway store that had this promotion, with Ed who came along as he seemingly had nothing better to do. As he generally does, he asked a simple enough question: did I actually wanted the game or not? Good question. Demand, generally speaking, isn't supposed to be a function of price, as it is a function of utility. Now, obviously, you have to look at tradeoffs between utility and the money exercised to obtain this utility, but did I buy the game because it was cheap or because I actually wanted it? My response was/is this: I did buy the game because I did really want the game. It had existed in my spectrum of wants, albeit at the fringes. It was pushed further towards the middle by a combination of a lower of price[effort], and the new information provided to me in voucher form.
Atleast for me, the spectrum of wants is extremely wide. I generally satisfy the spectrum of wants through a value system: how much effort do I have put into this to satisfy a particular want? Which is why consistently, my wants tend to be things that are possible already to me: reading, gaming, music, learning and so on. However, it should be noted that I internally individuate those wants quite specifically; that is, there is a different want when I want Baldurs Gate as opposed to Majesty, there is a different want when I read Steinbeck rather than Slashdot, and so on. Those wants are not monolithic blocks of things.
Occasionally, such events (mostly concerts) have enough utility attached to them such that even though more effort would be required of them than simpler wants, I am willing to expend the effort required to satisfy them. To be accurate, it's not neccessarily more utility that i'm gaining, as it is a different type of utility not available to me from other wants.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A anarchist's motto
If men were angels, there would be no need for government.
If men were angels, they could be trusted to government.
If men were angels, they could be trusted to government.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
When will people learn
Democracy doesn't work.
Imagine a courtroom. You have lawyers for two sides, who (presumably) has gone through several years of cheating and ly^h^h^h^schooling to obtain their positions. You have a judge, who has gone through schooling and (presumably) even more experience to obtain his/her position. Now, let take 12 members of the general public drawn by general ballot to decide the verdict. Also known as:
"Why are the smart people outnumbered?"
Medical marijuana reform, and this comment:
Imagine a courtroom. You have lawyers for two sides, who (presumably) has gone through several years of cheating and ly^h^h^h^schooling to obtain their positions. You have a judge, who has gone through schooling and (presumably) even more experience to obtain his/her position. Now, let take 12 members of the general public drawn by general ballot to decide the verdict. Also known as:
"Why are the smart people outnumbered?"
Medical marijuana reform, and this comment:
Why is this put to a public vote?
If the medical establishment say that something has a clinical benefit, what business is it of the public?
Should we have a referendum for every new drug?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Why