I’ve always been puzzled by companies selling cars that could go 200 mph while there are not many roads in the world that are legal to drive beyond 85 mph. It felt like a secret pact made between the car industry and the government, setting a tax-collecting trap targeting and luring ordinary people. Some high-powered cars are capped at 250kph, so why don’t they simply cap it to country’s speed limit? A “Louis C.K. version” of the argument would be something like, “the only reason you’d be driving that fast is to run away from cops. That’s the only reason.”
This is probably a gap that everyone knows, but not a lot argue about.
Now, let’s talk about women and men. It’s a sensitive topic and I admit, I am not a woman, so I can’t say anything on their behalf. I do believe that the world will become a better place if we create more equal and fair working environment for any gender (or culture / ethnicity). It just feels like the right thing to do and pursue.
When I was young, I’ve fantasized about the Wall Street and its masculine bossy cultures. I’m not sure if I admired it, but it was fun to watch in the movies and I felt the catharsis of running a fast-paced organization full of workers doing homogeneous jobs, with the boss being the absolute best at it. Like those Chinese martial art movies where the teacher is the best martial artist in the country.
It became clear to me this was not always the case. In reality, the junior investment bankers stayed up late, crunched numbers, done researches and wrote reports, while their bosses went out to grab drinks and have fun. When the juniors got promoted, they too became like their bosses, reaping on high salary and bonuses while getting the new blood to serve them well. Deep inside, I’ve always felt this wasn’t really the kind of leader I respected nor wanted to become.
When I worked for a tech company back in my early 20s, our team’s manager was an eccentric guy. He joked a lot, sounded silly from time to time, didn’t seem that intense or focused on work, felt like he was laid back most of the time.
I’ve been a strong advocate of the future of VR. Let’s assume we have a device that allows us to wear for a long period of time without motion sickness or sore-eyes, with full peripheral vision and good-enough input device to express ourselves virtually. It doesn’t have to provide full tactile feedback yet.
If we can do just two things: creating/adding value (what people call ‘work’) and having fun (what people call ‘consume’) in such VR-enabled world, it could disrupt a lot of industries and solve many of today’s problems as a side-effect.
Think about some of the high-level problems we face today: energy problems (mostly used by transportation and industrial usages), pollution and climate change, lack of adequate healthcare, unemployment, education inequality, diversity issues (racism, gender, etc.). If VR is done right, we can solve most of these problems pretty efficiently.
Ericsson’s work on deliberate practice has a meaningful implication on self-development. Becoming great at something takes more than mere hours spent on the task itself. Based on the work by Dr. Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory, intrapersonal intelligence helps with structuring one’s own deliberate practice programs.
Looking back at my pro-gaming days, I used to structure my practice into training different aspects of my play in a ‘divide and conquer’ manner — different trainings for each weapon, optimizing plays for a map’s each segments, map-wide navigational movements, vertical aiming, horizontal aiming, mouse analysis (spending over $10k in mouse collection!), system and key configurations, graphic settings, item regeneration timings, and the list goes on.
The society today upholds diversity as an absolute virtue. Diversity across educational backgrounds, race, ethnic group, gender, age is something we all pursue vigorously. It seems almost trivial to choose diversity over conformity or homogeneity in any discussion.
However, to put things into perspective, nature having evolved through millions, if not billions of years, may provide a slightly different view to this pro-diversity world. The balance and the timing of convergence and divergence play important roles in reaching the global optimum in any search space. The selection pressure from the environment acting as a converging force, offset by mutation from perturbation balancing as a diverging force are what make organisms so durable and adaptable to the ever-changing world we’re living in.
This scared me. I’m open to changes, but I also think a few million years of evolution has gotten human beings to be pretty good at surviving around the nature’s balancing point we have today.
We’ve been hearing about the rise of CO2 level for some time now, but I feel like we’ve actually gotten to a point where we may end up turning our planet into an inhabitable one. Living in the bay area, it’s hard to actually experience what it’s like to live in a harsh environment, but whenever I’m on a business trip to Korea/China, I definitely feel the air quality can and is killing lives already. The pollution is wide spread over a massive area and it’s very, very real.