Meanwhile, Dot.con have been an interesting read. It’s an old book, no doubt. I believe reading about the Internet Bubble now seem rather weird given that it has happened a while back and don’t appear to have any immediate relation with what I’ve been working on. Still, I think that events like this have lessons to offer that are often missed out and I was looking to read something a little further back given that I’ve been updating myself with The Economist all the time. John Cassidy didn’t fail me, starting his story from the time when the technology was developing for the rise of modern Internet, describing the roles that the US military and government played in its conception, research funding and even implementation. He combines the events leading up to year 2000 with interesting comparisons of speculative manias of the past and talks about retrospective telltale signs of irrationality.
He introduced me to Charles Mackay and his writing, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I subsequently realised I had the sections of Charles Mackay’s book in my 4-inch tome, The Real Price of Everything by Michael Lewis. Those pieces have just been added into my reading queue.
Cory Johnson reveals that John Cassidy was a rare skeptical voice with regards to the Internet Boom, but failed to live up to the promise of the title of the book:
Indeed, he is unable to dismiss the most fundamental notion (a mantra among the true believers) that the Internet changes everything. Despite the stock market meltdown, almost any reading of the evolving business practice wrought by the Internet suggests that more dramatic changes are yet to come.
In a sense, the Internet is not quite exactly an illusion so to speak. But I don’t think that was what John Cassidy was driving at. His idea is that business fundamentals have been abandoned during the period and it shouldn’t have been. The numbers he cites about businesses losing money even as stock prices climb is startling. He might have been against the arguments of the New Economy though, and he could have supported his argument with the fact that falling prices (with economic expansion) isn’t entirely an internal affair of US but a result of the external forces as well.
I’ve enjoyed the little stories told by Dot.con surrounding the whole boom and crash of the Internet, especially those about individuals trapped in those industries contributing and taking part of the boom. Besides that, Dot.con serves as a good look at human behaviours during a speculative mania.
Who would think that Colin Goh, a Singaporean columnist, writer and film-maker based in New York, would write something about politics in The Sunday Times? Best (or worst, depending on what you think about politics) of all, his column usually features in the generally light-hearted Lifestyle segment. I normally skip his columns because he keeps writing about his baby and his otherwise banal life in New York, but I was intrigued by his column title for today’s article: “Mad Hatters and US politics”. I read on, to much curiosity and realisation.
He describes how US politics is now quite farcical thanks to the tea party movement that is taking root across much of America. This tea party movement is against big government, and wishes to claim back ground it thinks the government is infriging upon. And of course, this tea party movement is aligned with the Repbulican party and most (if not all) of its values: free markets and no government intervention “whether in the economy, healthcare or the environment”. I felt quite vindicated by his views, as someone who’d profess to be a Democrat if living in America. But let’s not argue about the views of the Democrat. The whole farce about politics in America today is that Republican opposition to policies and initiatives that the Democrats are proposing, can range from sensibly valid to stubbornly nonsensical.
Colin says that “The US government is ‘broken’ because of the political impasse between the two dominant parties, and the revival of the conservative movement.” And he uses Newton’s Third Law of Motion, that “every action is met by an equal and opposite reaction”, to describe the resistance of the Republicans to Democratic measures. He then writes that the conservatives seem unable to see the light about the whole crisis: that “lack of regulation just caused the biggest economic meltdown in years”, and that “the loudest opponents of regulation just happen to be… those evil bankers and corporations”. And I totally agree with him when he finds it “baffling… that conservatives are blaming the sorry state of the nation on the Democrats, who merely inherited the mess” from George W Bush.
And the Republicans are becoming a party of No just as Obama is saying that they should not be doing, for the sake of the nation. While I find it quite wrong for Obama to continue pushing through, by force, legislation on health care reform, the fact that no Republican agrees at all on anything despite already having some of their suggestions integrated into the policy does not make sense. I shall not go into details about health care reform, but suffice to say that as a Singaporean and someone who’s more liberal, I believe that health care reform is necessary and many people sadly are just unwilling to feel the pain in the short term for potential benefits in the long term (as much as this piece of legislation is flawed… which piece of legislation isnt?).
Donna Brazile, in The Mercury, also alludes to the tea party movement (the Republicans and the tea party movement are almost one and the same now) and their vehement resistance to President Obama’s health-care reforms. It gives more detailed examples of how Republican senators who campaigned for certain ideas in the bill to be included in the legislation but yet did an about-turn and dropped support for it in this final stretch of the race towards implementing the bill. It is not like President Obama did not offer them an open hand to reconcile differences, but the chasm between the two sides is probably too huge to surmount.
So has the Mad Hatter (what a coincidence, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is coming to screens near you now!) taken over the Tea Party in America, and made all these Tea Party-goers bonkers?
The source might be slightly biased given that Donna Brazile was a former campaign manager for Al Gore, former vice-president of America and a Democrat. Nevertheless, the problem remains: two polarised parties unable to agree on anything, unwilling to compromise, and hence unable to govern. For the good of all America, please come together to do something. It might be true that President Obama’s views might not reflect the views of the WHOLE population, but to sit there and just say “No” without concrete action (they provided the suggestions to change, but they tend dropped the support for those changes… those are concrete suggestions, but is that concrete action?) will not move the nation forward.
It is interesting how I have got a friend who once commented that all forms of market failure is a result of imperfect information. He says that people are consuming too much or too little of a product because they don’t have perfect information about the impact of the products, and so basically all the inability to analyse cost and benefit is a result of imperfect information. Likewise, to this friend of mine, technological advancement is basically slowly discovering information, truths that we previously know nothing of. Of course, that’s a little extreme and basically demanding perfect knowledge as well. For him, perfect knowledge would naturally be attained from having sufficient information.
The digital age ushered in lots of information; so much that we don’t have enough time to process them. In fact, even cataloguing them might be troublesome enough and the process generates meta-data, which in fact is information about information. They would prove useful though they actually add to the information heap. Say for example I give you a quote:
The setting sun, and music at the close,
As the last taste of sweets, is sweetest last,
Writ in remembrance more than things long past:
If I don’t provide the source, it’s not particularly helpful unless you’re able to identify it from just the content. It’s from Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Richard the Second. But then that’s just a little bit of metadata; there’s more: it comes from Act II Scene I. And even more: it’s from Line 14-16. The ability to manipulate all these data themselves would create more information too. And they all might just prove to be way too much.
Economics have definitely become more complex thanks to the flood of information. Technology has allowed suppliers to maintain tighter inventory and reduce idle capacity but reality seem to drift further away from classical economics even as the economic agent are becoming more equipped with the information necessary to create a more perfect market. It appears, the next big assumption of Economics about the real world that needs toppling is in fact the idea of independence.
We read frequently in the news about the demise of Pax Americana or the rise of the post-American world. I am not about to discuss at length the decline of America, but I want to bring attention to what many people might have neglected as they watch America’s supposed decline: Europe’s concurrent decline. And Europe’s decline is also of its own making, though of a different nature compared to the Americans: the financial crisis and its aftermath triggered all these claims about America’s decline, but it is the EU (European Union) and the way it operates that will do Europe / the EU in as a global power.
In Time magazine this week, The Incredible Shrinking Europe discusses why EU is beginning to lose its shine as a global power of equal importance compared to America and China. The magazine recognises that it is not that Europe is becoming poorer or that the people in the EU are suffering (unlike in America right now), but rather how the EU administration does things.
I highlight some of the main problems I see with the EU.
Some problems with the EU that have affected its standing in the global arena:
1. EU is too huge. Managing 27 member nations that each want their own voice to be heard is a mess. Obviously there will be countries that dominate (large ones like France & Germany), but its actions seem to be confounded by the differences in opinion between many of the nations, which will hamper what it is trying to say and do. Germany wants to work closely with Russia but the Eastern European nations in the EU are terrified of getting closer to Russia due to fears of the Cold War / Soviet Union days. This makes EU decisions on issues regarding Russia difficult and contentious.
2. EU seeks too much consensus. It goes for the “least-bad options”, which may be useful in slowly amending the status-quo, but when it comes to crucial decisions necessary to reform, the EU might fail because it decides to go for the lowest common factor instead of what is really best even if it might hurt. The procedure and the eventual selection of the permanent President and Foreign Minister reflect this. Picking two affable and unoffending people, Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy and British Lady Catherine Asthon, may have achieved the purpose of happiness amongst all EU members, but it does not help EU if it really wants people who can “stop traffic” and portray images of leadership, decisiveness and power.
3. EU has too many underwhelming leaders. With regard to too many, it now has 4 leadership axes that will potentially create much conflict. There’s a permanent EU Council President and EU Foreign Minister, on top of the original leaders: the rotating presidency (amongst the EU nations) as well each country’s heads of government / state. This is a “complex mechanism” that makes it difficult for constructive work. It could encourage turf wars as well as make it difficult to show solidarity. Who is American President Obama supposed to call when he needs help from the EU? Chances are, he will probably end up calling French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown or / and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, because he will directly enlist their help rather than go through the EU before reaching these leaders who make the decisions. Especially given current conditions, chances are he’ll skip calling Europe and go straight to other nations (that are, not coincidentally, emerging powers) like China, as evident following the Copenhagen climate summit where EU was almost totally sidelined despite having hosted the key summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.
4. EU is not as democratic as it claims to be. The way the Lisbon treaty was rammed down the throats of governments was evidence of how the EU parliamentarians and decision-makers just wanted to get things done without getting sufficient support from the people for their actions. The French and Dutch in 2005 first rejected amendments to the European Constitution. Then with the Lisbon treaty, making Ireland go through another referendum to force it to ratify the treaty (making little and unexplained amendments in the treaty along the way) does indicate of some undemocratic tendencies.
The United Nations (UN), with close to 200 members, has even more members, but while the UN may often be described as inefficient, it is still serving a huge purpose as a gathering of world governments that can act together in times of crises. At very least, it still has the symbolism and serves a purpose in its existence. While the EU has created much benefit for the member nations, it often seems to undermine or contradict local government decisions, probably because there is an isolated European Parliament that is rather insular to the real, on-the-ground views of the EU citizens.
In addition to this article in Time magazine, Time magazine interviewed EU Foreign Minister Lady Catherine Ashton for her views about EU. She does a good job with the publicity, but we will wait and see how she manages to get her job done given the difficult conditions she’s been placed in.
In my opinion, the EU has a lot of potential to create a balance of powers between America and the East / ascending developing nations such as China, India & Brazil. Indeed if we talk about the decline of Pax Americana, Europe should by right be part of the decline as well because it is after all closely allied with America and part of the West that is seeing stagnation / decline in political and socioeconomic spheres in the global domain. The EU can still serve as a role model in terms of an economic model that generally promotes cooperation and creates wealth for its denizens (but less so after the Greek debt crisis) as well as a relatively peace-loving actor on the global stage that can serve as a reminder for cooler heads to prevail in dealing with touchy issues like Iran and North Korea.
It has been a long time since I wrote something about handling school work and such. I’ve been working on a couple of articles for some external parties and doing quite a lot of research and writing. The experience can be frustrating and tiring as I plow through loads of data, informative material and readings and then get lost in bits of thoughts here and there, never settling down to write. Such is research, you ask a few simple questions that you expect could be answered with a sentence or two but end up having loads of related answers and information that leads you to the fact that answers you’re looking for is way more complex. Then you realise you have got to put together evidence for each of your claims and explanations. People were asking me how I manage all that stuff, I told them that you’ve got to work out a plan somehow.
So in this article, I’d be discussing my method of planning writing and research. It’s by no means a definitive answer to managing your research or school projects but it might be an option you’d like to choose. I’m writing very generally about the kind of information research that leads to writing a paper/article; the sort that doesn’t require you to don on a lab coat and hold up test-tubes.
Ultimate Tool
I recommend that before you start using Google, lay out some fundamental questions your paper/article would answer or specific information it will provide. It can be as general as an overview to a topic, or as specific as the number of petrol kiosk in a particular town. After listing them out, mark out the more specific questions and then hunt for the data first. These are usually the data sets you are going to use to introduce a particular claim or to support your theories. If there’s no such data available then you can find other proxy indicators or try and switch the type of evidence. It is important that you start off checking for the availability of the data you need or whatever you’re going to write would be groundless anyways.
After gathering the data you need, hunt for general articles on the topic that you are working on. These are the articles that refer to other more specific sources for information, or sites like Answers.com and Wikipedia. They serve as a directory for the topic and also to alert you or anything about the issue/topic that you might have overlooked. Often, these can also be blog entries that link up articles of related topic, much like the ones on ERPZ. When you’re clear you have a general idea of the topic and know briefly the issues involved, start planning your writing, listing the arguments, the progression of arguments and the sequence you present information to make your case. Often, some information you will need to provide are things you are not necessarily aware of, perhaps the revenue of a particular firm, the market share in an industry, or the response of a CEO to a recent affair. These are the stuff you didn’t initially set out to include but subsequently find rather significant.
Armed with the plan, start searching specifically for the information you need and formulate/sharpen your arguments according to these information. Unknowingly, you have actually slashed down the amount of content that you’ve read. By using general articles as signposts for your planning, you have drawn up the parameters of your research, something difficult when you’ve not read up anything or done any research. This explains the preliminary research into key and essential data you need as well as the general articles to get you started. The rest of your writing would build around these anchors that you’ve found in the beginning.
Then, follow through your plan as you write. This works for any volume of research, those that takes days to weeks and possibly months. For the ones where data sets have to be built from scratch either through ripping apart official statistics or carrying out your own surveys, the process would be placed between preliminary research and the ultimate planning. So happy searching and re-searching!
Imagine you need a square meter of light, perhaps for a single ’tile’ on the ceiling that emits lights at your building. You’d probably get contractors to make a box with circuits inside that connects to a couple of fluorescent tubes (or if you’re quite rich, a couple of LEDs) and then cover the thing with a translucent white piece of acrylic. The entire structure is bulky and probably quite energy consuming. Now, scientists have found a way to make a ‘sheet’ of LED that would allow you to make that ‘lighted tile’ much more easily and is also much more compact. Essentially, the technology allows you to print a circuit that is wired in a way that acts as a diode, and one that emits light.
And since we’re at the issue of printing stuff; we mentioned previously about industrial prototyping machines that churns out 3D structures/models. I was quite intrigued by the idea of being able to print out a peg for your clothes or even design a shoe that fits you perfectly. But perhaps even more amazing would be the ability to print out cells, tissues and even organs as reported by The Economist.
The article mentioned about growing organs from scratch and raised the example of bladders being grown from original cells of patients. Essentially the patients are donating organs to themselves; the same applies for the printing of organs. The idea is appealing because there’s nothing artificial about them beside the involvement of doctors in the process of growing the cells and putting them together – ultimately the organ is still organic and from the patients. Perhaps then, Iran’s model for kidney donation won’t be so appealing anymore.
The sweltering heat these days reminds me of my old, favourite introduction: “The monstrous red ball of supreme heat hung on the light-blue sky, threatening to melt all the helpless pedestrians on the busy street with its radiating warmth“. I loved this introduction so much that I would use it for almost every primary school composition assignment irregardless of the question; after some time, my teacher became so accustomed to my writing that he could identify my composition from its first sentence. Since my teacher did not complain much, I had the false belief that my descriptive introduction reflected good writing style. Eventually, the use of adjectives became a desire to show off my rich vocabulary and that resulted in an immature writing style.
I did not realise my mistake until much later, when I entered high school. My heavily adjectival prose caught my teacher’s attention and when she could not take it any longer, she summoned me to her office. That day in her office changed my writing drastically because it was there that I understood the shortcomings of my style; instead of displaying my proficiency in the English language, the constant use of adjectives only made my writing embarrassingly ornate. In addition, my writing also suggests a lack of confidence, as if I am trying to make up for my inability by overdecorating my sentences. If every crisis is a critical crisis, every emergency an urgent emergency, and every problem a grave problem, then the whole idea of a crisis, an emergency, or a problem becomes devalued. In these situations, the adjective becomes the enemy of the noun.
That does not mean that we can do away with adjectives. Adjectives have their uses when they define and refine rather than simply emphasise. In the sentence “We are in legal trouble“, the adjective, legal, has a truly informative function. For a vigorous style, you can try replacing adjectives with colourful nouns. “The penniless man that lives in a small, filthy hut” can be replaced by “the pauper that lives in a hovel.” A “large and impressive house” can be replaced by a “mansion” and so on. You get the idea. Now, before you give in to the temptation of using flamboyant language, do remember the guiding principle of using adjectives and you will surely produce a good piece of writing!
This article was written by a guest writer on ERPZ.net and not by Kevin – its presence in this blog is merely due to the archived nature of Kevin’s blog posts from the past.
A couple of weeks back I mentioned that I was reading ‘How would you move Mount Fuji‘ by William Poundstone. It’s an interesting read but no doubt pretty ‘scary’ in terms of the facts it is trying to convey. Poundstone presents not only the puzzles that are offered in interviews conducted by Human Resource departments of ‘talent-intensive’ firms but also a discussion on whether this methods work to hire people that these companies need. He highlighted that companies thinks bad hires are way too high a risk that they would rather risk losing a good hire than getting a bad one by mistake. As a result the interview processes are all skewed towards rejecting people (more or less) and identifying somewhat extraordinary people.
Poundstone identifies an important question HR people should be asking themselves when posing puzzle questions and that is whether the candidate’s response is going to make an impact on your decision to hire or not. If it doesn’t then there’s no point asking the question, like this particular interesting one. Indeed, from a HR point of view, interview time is precious and missing out on good hires is not a pleasant thing either, so structuring an interview to be efficient is very important. If a puzzle can help to bring out key information then it should be used; otherwise, it might just be an abuse of the interviewer’s position.
Well if you’re not interested in the software industry or the finance industry then the puzzles in the book would be nothing more than just a great past-time. This makes Poundstone’s book more interesting because his section of answers to the puzzles given as examples in the book launches into elaboration discussion of how one should approach the puzzles. He attempts to give us some general guidelines on solving these puzzles. He gives nine steps (mainly for interviewees though):
1) Decide what kind of answer is expected (monologue or dialogue)
2) Whatever you think of first is wrong (that’s why it’s a puzzle)
3) Forget you ever learned calculus
4) Big, complicated questions usually have simple answers
5) Simple questions often demand complicated answers
6) “Perfectly logical beings” are not like you and me
7) When you hit a brick wall, try to list the assumptions you’re making. See what happens when you reject each of these assumptions in succession
8) When crucial information is missing in a logic puzzle, lay out the possible scenarios. You’ll almost always find that you don’t need the missing information to solve the problem.
9) Where possible, give a good answer that the interviewer has never heard before
Overall, Mount Fuji is a good read, but I’m guessing most readers would want to speed past the explanations and go straight to the answers themselves. The best puzzles always have the most counter-intuitive solutions and elegant answers. For more practice, you might like to visit some of Poundstone’s reference sites: here, here and here.
The Straits Times, on 19 February this year, republished an article written by Adam Cohen of the New York Times. Cohen’s article reminded me about some of the benefits of the Internet which many often overlook in view of the tremendous upwelling of “junk” (for instance, rag and gossip made more accessible online) on the Internet.
Cohen argues that some feel the Internet may be “driving culture ever lower”, but it is also allowing “a wealth of serious thinking”. He uses the example of a BBC podcast “In Our Time” which delves deep into history to examine “arcane topics from history, literature, science and philosophy”. This certainly would be the other side of the “Internet coin”, the benefits that could be accrued to laymen and academics alike. Albeit one needs to be interested before one can actually be open and be exposed to such “high-brow” knowledge, but at least it provides avenues for those interested to be enlightened.
While I admit I am not in the least interested in the “arcane topics” listed above, I am myself a beneficiary of the Internet in terms of exposure to “serious thinking”. TED.com is a good example. Short-form for Technology, Entertainment & Design, the website devotes itself to “Ideas Worth Spreading” by broadcasting presentations relating to these spheres and more, allowing netizens access to a more interactive / interesting showcase of what might be normally deemed inaccessible and arcane, meant only for academics and to be showcased in libraries and institutions. I have watched lectures / presentations that have amazed and enthused me about issues that interest me but would not propel me to borrow books from the library about it, such as on HIV/AIDS.
So… if you are bored, dont just watch paint dry on Youtube, watch something educational on TED.com and dont let your brain rot and idle.
The Economist ran an interesting story about “a government-issued stamp that is expected to remain unpurchased, but which users of illegal goods must, by law, affix to substances they are not allowed to possess”. Essentially, the government is creating another layer of crime above a crime. It’s as good as saying you should not be stealing people’s money, but if you do really steal, then you’ve to pay taxes on your loot. If you avoid the taxes, you’re committing tax evasion plus theft.
Authorities seem to believe that the tax helps to further punish people who are arrested for a crime (since the inability to discover the original crime would make the taxes lame anyways) and thus serve a higher level of deterrence to the crime. I wonder if criminals would bother to discover that they would be penalized twice for a single crime.
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was cited as an early conception of taxing illegal drugs. It is interesting that old bureaucracies sometimes like to make an act inconvenient rather than ban it outright. Maybe it just happens to drugs; Singapore could actually try applying extremely steep taxes on Chewing Gums rather than ban it outright.
