"Make a wish it's 11:11!"
Until recently, I lived in blissful ignorance, believing that this was a relatively confined "observance," obligating a handful of believers to announce the coming of four instances of the digit 1 to all in their vicinity, as if this we're some rare and magical incident. Increasingly though, I have witnessed random individuals sharing in this belief, individuals raised in developed, thoughtful, scientifically-driven societies!
The strongest challenge I face from supporters is "you can't prove that it isn't real" and they are technically correct (you cannot entirely prove/disprove something's existence); I can, however, raise a fair number of reasons why it is incredibly ridiculous.
1) You celebrate it at 11:11AM and 11:11PM, but since a day is 24 hours long, 11:11PM is actually 23:11. Technically 10:22PM (22:22) is the third celebration - 12:00AM (00:00) of course being the first - unless of course 1s are the only magical number, which seems rather arbitrary.
2) There are 28 time-zones worldwide... so there is an 11:11 every hour (2 if you count both AM and PM), as well as 4 (8) on the 41s because the other 4 time-zones are off-set by 30minutes. Whose 11:11 is correct? If everyone's is, then can't you celebrate the magic at any 11-minutes-past-the-hour? Are you going to tell me that the magic of 11:11 has decided to respect the arbitrary boundaries that humans have established as time-zones. REALLY?
3) Our clock is pretty arbitrarily established as well - there's no reason that 5:00AM couldn't be 12:52AM if we so decided... so this magic decided to conform to a random clock as well?
4) What about when you are moving at high speed and perceive time differently? Do relativity and special-relativity apply? If so, then the magic SHOULD be able to work at ANY time and not just 11:11 because anyone could experience 11:11 at ANY time given sufficient speed.
5) What about other planets? Should we observe 11:11 zulu-time?
6) Why is the 11th second not critically specified? Does magic have a skewed distribution of it's abilities? Or can magic only specify 60-second intervals?
I'm going to take this a step beyond 11:11 as a time - several cultures (without strong histories of astrological measuring or arithmetic) claim to hold various days in high regard. A recent example is a spiritual gathering (claiming an aboriginal origin) on November 11th, 2011. (Just a coincidence to my earlier comments; or is it?... Yeah, just a coincidence.) Note: The webpage has been significantly modified in the past two days. Because a natural harmony JUST HAPPENS to occur on a day with repeating numbers, as determined by a particular type of calendar developed by some aggressive Europeans, which has been adjusted a few times, and is employed globally for purely functional purposes (many cultures maintain their traditional calendars for to keep with important observances) ; I totally buy that story. It is a profiteering opportunity; groups organize "gatherings" and offer trips so that you can be with others while living through this "spiritual experience."
Oh and #Occupy movement? I don't think you can blame the top %1 for this, but I'm sure you'll try!
I know that I sound like I'm just coming down on a bunch of people who want to have something goofy to believe in. Look, I'm fine with superstition: much of it is derived from real-life experiences, but can we keep it reined in to only moderately-ridiculous things? Please? Our world proves that no matter how smart we get, we can still make stupid people in SO MANY WAYS, if the quasi-functional among you would try to not be inculcated by these idiots I'd really appreciate it.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
And a side of hipster to go
With a looming food crisis, Americans are looking for alternative sources of nutrition. Fortunately, a few creative enterprises have taken it upon themselves to find solutions, the most notable being tapping into America's abundant population of "undesirables."
Leading the charge is the recently re-branded KFH (Kentucky Fried Hipster). "Hipsters are actually a surprisingly accessible source of lean protein. Though much maligned in some circles, hipsterism's coming in vogue of late has massively grown the existing population of hipsters" Jim Caroosh, VP of marketing, told reporters at a recent news conference.
Caroosh also said that "what's great about this is that we can tie the shift in with our health-conscious initiative, since most of these hipsters were either very health-conscious or too poor to eat junk anyway. Furthermore, with proper breeding facilities and procedures, we feel that we'll be able to maintain a strong position as a global quick-serve food distributor." While some activists are complaining about the conditions that both free-range and farm-raised hipsters may soon endure, many hipsters recognize that it will still be a step up from the squalor they would otherwise have faced.
A representative from the United States Board of Commerce has suggested that this shift could provide much-needed stability for commodities markets specializing in hoodies, skinny jeans, lumberjack shirt, fixie-bikes and indie record labels.
Other firms are advertising the use of alternative food sources. McDonalds has begun to make their burgers out of recycled tires, Manchu Wok will replace all current protein sources with scorpions and Taco Bell has announced that it will continue its longstanding history of serving a "meat-like substitute."
Leading the charge is the recently re-branded KFH (Kentucky Fried Hipster). "Hipsters are actually a surprisingly accessible source of lean protein. Though much maligned in some circles, hipsterism's coming in vogue of late has massively grown the existing population of hipsters" Jim Caroosh, VP of marketing, told reporters at a recent news conference.
Caroosh also said that "what's great about this is that we can tie the shift in with our health-conscious initiative, since most of these hipsters were either very health-conscious or too poor to eat junk anyway. Furthermore, with proper breeding facilities and procedures, we feel that we'll be able to maintain a strong position as a global quick-serve food distributor." While some activists are complaining about the conditions that both free-range and farm-raised hipsters may soon endure, many hipsters recognize that it will still be a step up from the squalor they would otherwise have faced.
A representative from the United States Board of Commerce has suggested that this shift could provide much-needed stability for commodities markets specializing in hoodies, skinny jeans, lumberjack shirt, fixie-bikes and indie record labels.
Other firms are advertising the use of alternative food sources. McDonalds has begun to make their burgers out of recycled tires, Manchu Wok will replace all current protein sources with scorpions and Taco Bell has announced that it will continue its longstanding history of serving a "meat-like substitute."
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Politics: Sometimes it gets spoiled
Today is election day, so I figure this is an a propos topic...
I am a fervent believer in your civic responsibility to vote. True, if you don't vote you really don't deserve to complain about the government, since you could have played a role in it being different. My opinion stems more from the belief that it is like paying a tax - a responsibility borne by those who benefit from the social services, infrastructure, security and climate that the town/province/ nation stands for. That said, you have an option when voting that doesn't involve picking a candidate: spoiling the ballot.
Unfortunately, sometimes voting sucks. I'm not referring to the long lines, the awkward locations or the obnoxious campaigns (though as a long-time conservative, I'll tell you that if their policies hadn't made me abandon ship, their overly aggressive GOTV tactics would have.) No, I'm talking about the possibility that all candidates/parties suck. It isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence. Again, I'm not talking about disliking a leader for his/her lack of charisma, but fundamentally disagreeing with his/her views and policies.
Without getting down to the nitty-gritty, here's my problem with Ontario's parties as they stand.
Liberals: McGuinty has been deceitful through his past two terms, and doesn't have a legitimate platform beneath his feet. He's going with the flow and pandering for votes while making decisions that neither reflect public opinion, nor promote a fair or competitive province. I'm tired of the lies, I'm tired of watching him and his party alienate his constituents, I'm tired of waiting for him to lay down a policy so blissfully ignorant that it drives myself and like-minded Ontarians from this wonderful province.
PC: Tim Hudak scares me. He is a hard right conservative, and proof that the PC party has dropped the progressive component all but in-name. In fact, some of his ideas are downright regressive, and that has never been good for society. Traditionally a fiscally-sound party, the PCs have adopted an extreme stance that would bankrupt countless social programs that need to be improved and streamlined rather than shuttered, all based on quasi-developed economics that tend not to work. Normally this could be shrugged off as an election bluff, and a more balanced policy would actually end up being implemented except for one thing: historically, the Ontario PC party keeps their promises. Remember Mike Harris? Forget the stigma for a moment: he kept his promises. John Robarts? Yup. Bill Davis? Yes again. That's a horrifying track-record when you look at Hudak's promises.
NDP: Apparently nobody remembers Bob Rae. Do some research, and you will find out how absolutely terrifying his tenure as PM was. The NDP blows through your money like a lending your credit card to your sex-addict-friend so he can go to a strip club. You wake up one morning and realize that you're so far in debt it'll take you 10 years to get out. If you want to be mad at Mike Harris, you need to blame Bob Rae. Harris did what he promised - he balanced the budget after Rae destroyed it. All of the damage that Harris caused can be attributed to Bob Rae opening up pointless social programs and overspending your tax money, and all because of another bad pool of candidates on election day (more on this later). The NDP is O.K. in theory - look out for everybody, fairness, equality and balance (among other things), but their policies tend to focus on those who WILL NOT help themselves, rather than the "cannots." They are the counterpoint to the Conservatives, because they throw their weight behind any quasi-progressive policy, regardless of its usefulness or actual fairness. They are best kept as a scare tactic to keep the major parties in check.
Green party: Honestly I don't know enough complete details about this year's policies, but here's a quick run at it - they are unsustainable and limited in scope, and frankly just don't have the experience or knowledge capital to handle a position of power. Their presence should help keep some focus on green initiatives, but they aren't a viable option.
Back in the early 90s, when Bob Rae was elected, the electorate was faced with a similar conundrum. No party had a good leader/platform, so when voting time came, here was the shared public idea "I don't want to support the liberals or the progressive conservatives... Nobody votes for the NDP so I can show up and do my civic duty without having to back the big guys." Unfortunately, so many people did this, the NDP took power and did immeasurable damage. It's too bad, because they had another option.
Spoil the ballot. Just about anything you do to the ballot beyond marking an X in a single candidate's box will spoil it - marking it multiple times, for example, writing on it, etc... If a large enough pool of people do this, the parties will get the hint; we don't want any of you or your policies!
This is an important tool in the democratic process because it provides a great deal of feedback that parties need to hear. They are so busy listening to their supporters and lecturing their dissenters, parties often don't get to hear reasonable objections, and when they do, often go into attack-mode out of sheer habit. Getting wrapped up in the passions of the campaign is part of the romanticism of politics. Trying to best an opponent so you can make things work "the right way," looking out for the people who got you elected, setting up policies that will get you re-elected; these often lead to forgetting about the whole "greater good" that a politician is meant to strive for, let alone the myriad of constituents that s/he is supposed to represent, regardless of their political affiliation.
Bear this in mind the next time you vote: if you don't like the options, the best way to make your voice heard is to make it publicly silent; a glut of spoiled ballots is exactly the medicine Ontario needs to get its politics in order.
I am a fervent believer in your civic responsibility to vote. True, if you don't vote you really don't deserve to complain about the government, since you could have played a role in it being different. My opinion stems more from the belief that it is like paying a tax - a responsibility borne by those who benefit from the social services, infrastructure, security and climate that the town/province/ nation stands for. That said, you have an option when voting that doesn't involve picking a candidate: spoiling the ballot.
Unfortunately, sometimes voting sucks. I'm not referring to the long lines, the awkward locations or the obnoxious campaigns (though as a long-time conservative, I'll tell you that if their policies hadn't made me abandon ship, their overly aggressive GOTV tactics would have.) No, I'm talking about the possibility that all candidates/parties suck. It isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence. Again, I'm not talking about disliking a leader for his/her lack of charisma, but fundamentally disagreeing with his/her views and policies.
Without getting down to the nitty-gritty, here's my problem with Ontario's parties as they stand.
Liberals: McGuinty has been deceitful through his past two terms, and doesn't have a legitimate platform beneath his feet. He's going with the flow and pandering for votes while making decisions that neither reflect public opinion, nor promote a fair or competitive province. I'm tired of the lies, I'm tired of watching him and his party alienate his constituents, I'm tired of waiting for him to lay down a policy so blissfully ignorant that it drives myself and like-minded Ontarians from this wonderful province.
.jpg/220px-Tim_Hudak_(cropped).jpg)
PC: Tim Hudak scares me. He is a hard right conservative, and proof that the PC party has dropped the progressive component all but in-name. In fact, some of his ideas are downright regressive, and that has never been good for society. Traditionally a fiscally-sound party, the PCs have adopted an extreme stance that would bankrupt countless social programs that need to be improved and streamlined rather than shuttered, all based on quasi-developed economics that tend not to work. Normally this could be shrugged off as an election bluff, and a more balanced policy would actually end up being implemented except for one thing: historically, the Ontario PC party keeps their promises. Remember Mike Harris? Forget the stigma for a moment: he kept his promises. John Robarts? Yup. Bill Davis? Yes again. That's a horrifying track-record when you look at Hudak's promises.
NDP: Apparently nobody remembers Bob Rae. Do some research, and you will find out how absolutely terrifying his tenure as PM was. The NDP blows through your money like a lending your credit card to your sex-addict-friend so he can go to a strip club. You wake up one morning and realize that you're so far in debt it'll take you 10 years to get out. If you want to be mad at Mike Harris, you need to blame Bob Rae. Harris did what he promised - he balanced the budget after Rae destroyed it. All of the damage that Harris caused can be attributed to Bob Rae opening up pointless social programs and overspending your tax money, and all because of another bad pool of candidates on election day (more on this later). The NDP is O.K. in theory - look out for everybody, fairness, equality and balance (among other things), but their policies tend to focus on those who WILL NOT help themselves, rather than the "cannots." They are the counterpoint to the Conservatives, because they throw their weight behind any quasi-progressive policy, regardless of its usefulness or actual fairness. They are best kept as a scare tactic to keep the major parties in check.
Back in the early 90s, when Bob Rae was elected, the electorate was faced with a similar conundrum. No party had a good leader/platform, so when voting time came, here was the shared public idea "I don't want to support the liberals or the progressive conservatives... Nobody votes for the NDP so I can show up and do my civic duty without having to back the big guys." Unfortunately, so many people did this, the NDP took power and did immeasurable damage. It's too bad, because they had another option.
Spoil the ballot. Just about anything you do to the ballot beyond marking an X in a single candidate's box will spoil it - marking it multiple times, for example, writing on it, etc... If a large enough pool of people do this, the parties will get the hint; we don't want any of you or your policies!
This is an important tool in the democratic process because it provides a great deal of feedback that parties need to hear. They are so busy listening to their supporters and lecturing their dissenters, parties often don't get to hear reasonable objections, and when they do, often go into attack-mode out of sheer habit. Getting wrapped up in the passions of the campaign is part of the romanticism of politics. Trying to best an opponent so you can make things work "the right way," looking out for the people who got you elected, setting up policies that will get you re-elected; these often lead to forgetting about the whole "greater good" that a politician is meant to strive for, let alone the myriad of constituents that s/he is supposed to represent, regardless of their political affiliation.
Bear this in mind the next time you vote: if you don't like the options, the best way to make your voice heard is to make it publicly silent; a glut of spoiled ballots is exactly the medicine Ontario needs to get its politics in order.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Middle-Age Manifesto
Sometimes a song is so glaringly befitting of a situation that to ignore it would be pundit-sacrilege. (I am well aware that Queen is probably not the choice band of the Boomers, but this is an accessible reference for the reading public, plus it helps me avoid explaining how I know half of the old music that I do.) We are battling a stagnant, if not receding economy while a large segment of the baby-boom generation is getting ready to retire, poised to plunge a generation of youths into chaos for their own gains. Melodramatic? Take a look - on average public debt has grown at a faster rate than GDP during the boomers' tenure of the economy - we haven't even isolated consumer debt here! 
Let's start by setting the stage. Baby-boomers were raised in a strong savings and production economy, but heavily flocked to "make money by doing nothing" fields (we need almost every field that exists today, though the employment ratios could be better). They decided that they didn't want to have as many children, but instead of saving even some of the not-insignificant extra funds, they took on massive amounts of debt. The generation leveraged itself to the hilt amassing previously unheard-of levels of consumer credit while lobying for lower taxes to augment their income even more.Fast forward to today. Social security/government funded pensions as well as medical expenses are underfunded and this is only projected to worsen. Boomers are working to manage their debts and prepare for retirement, though with significantly smaller savings rates than will be required to sustain even a portion of their lavish lifestyles. Often boomers hold jobs that they retain out of seniorty rather than competence, yet they push for more debt and more government spending, while avoiding any of the consequences that their actions have wrought; truly they are an "all for me" generation.
The boomers set themselves up, ignoring the wisdom of their parents(a generation of devout savers), and now want to be coddled, wantonly disregarding the damage they will do to future generations (even if we ignore the damage that's already been done.) Fair? Hardly. And the boomers are setting up my generation to act in the same way because survival will demand it. Get your act together! I realize that this is entirely against your nature, and in fact it is your nature that got us into this mess in the first place, but stop prioritizing yourselves over everyone else! A lot less me and a little more we will go a long way to getting us onside to not legalize "preemptive euthanasia."
How about we make this deal then: if you want my generation to foot the bill for your retirement, get out of the jobs market so we actually have jobs and money with which pay down your fiasco of a debt. Your other option is to keep employment as is, but lose all sorts of government support. Baby boomers have been having their cake and eating it too (actually more like eating their cake and a large chunk of ours) for too long, and it isn't right to keep taking food out of the mouths of the youngest generations.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Human Foundations: Part 1 - There are no natural rights
Most people prescribe to some preternatural dictum outlining some measure of the virtuosity of actions and thoughts, be it natural or divine. Christianity's 10 commandments spring to mind as examples of behavioural guidelines, while claims of natural, "inalienable rights" like education, freedom of expression are ever-more pervasive in society. There is little doubt in my mind that the latter are important and highly correlated with a nation's economic progress, while the former greatly informed the modern legal system and provided strong deterrents to socially-destructive behaviour for millennia.
I'd like to start by making a distinction between government sanctioned rights and "natural-born rights". While the government promises to protect my belongings by means of rights of possession, there is no natural right to ownership. Aside from the age-old "who has the right to own something from the earth anyway", humans squabbled over food, hunting grounds and mates since their earliest times. Social "contracts" arose out of necessity, as humans discovered that they were often rather weak and under-equipped when facing the world alone. Thus the human became a social-creature. But that's just it, governmental rights are simple "guarantees" underwritten by the organism that embodies one of our many social contracts. These contracts only exist because from them, more effective/efficient results can be achieved.
In the economic analysis of law, it is widely discussed that laws are enacted to allow people to be more productive. How do you work to improve your garden when you must spend all day defending it from would-be brigands and thieves? It turns out that everyone is better off when we protect "rightful" ownership, which is to say we entitle resources to those who may "use them best". (That's a bit of a stretch in real life, though only because humans are far from perfect.)
The point is that there are no such things as natural rights - they arise because they allow us to create better living conditions. "What about the extension of rights to minorities and other interest groups? Are they not fueled on fairness?" I was asked once. My answer is that fairness is yet again a tool, a commodity to be traded. Now that people demand fairness (which is hardly guaranteed by nature, and I refuse to give proof of this because it is all around us), to be unfair is to spark protests, rioting and discontent; it slows the gears that keep society moving. It's all well and good to promote equity and justice, but these only exist because society works better when they do. People work harder when they are more content, this is hardly news, so society keeps them happy.
Animals do what they do best, survive, hunt, forage, build, etc... Humans, bearing an increased intellectual capacity, are fundamentally no different from animals in that we are bound by the same laws of physics and survival.
If you disagree, feel free to comment or e-mail me some of the supposed "natural rights", because though I try to be complete in my appraisal, there will be perspectives that I miss. It is worth noting that I've tried to keep my argument summative - there's much more to this type of argument, but this is hardly the venue for a full philosophic treatise.
Why does this matter? Because rights go hand in hand with morality, which I will be addressing in short order.
I'd like to start by making a distinction between government sanctioned rights and "natural-born rights". While the government promises to protect my belongings by means of rights of possession, there is no natural right to ownership. Aside from the age-old "who has the right to own something from the earth anyway", humans squabbled over food, hunting grounds and mates since their earliest times. Social "contracts" arose out of necessity, as humans discovered that they were often rather weak and under-equipped when facing the world alone. Thus the human became a social-creature. But that's just it, governmental rights are simple "guarantees" underwritten by the organism that embodies one of our many social contracts. These contracts only exist because from them, more effective/efficient results can be achieved.
In the economic analysis of law, it is widely discussed that laws are enacted to allow people to be more productive. How do you work to improve your garden when you must spend all day defending it from would-be brigands and thieves? It turns out that everyone is better off when we protect "rightful" ownership, which is to say we entitle resources to those who may "use them best". (That's a bit of a stretch in real life, though only because humans are far from perfect.)
The point is that there are no such things as natural rights - they arise because they allow us to create better living conditions. "What about the extension of rights to minorities and other interest groups? Are they not fueled on fairness?" I was asked once. My answer is that fairness is yet again a tool, a commodity to be traded. Now that people demand fairness (which is hardly guaranteed by nature, and I refuse to give proof of this because it is all around us), to be unfair is to spark protests, rioting and discontent; it slows the gears that keep society moving. It's all well and good to promote equity and justice, but these only exist because society works better when they do. People work harder when they are more content, this is hardly news, so society keeps them happy.
Animals do what they do best, survive, hunt, forage, build, etc... Humans, bearing an increased intellectual capacity, are fundamentally no different from animals in that we are bound by the same laws of physics and survival.
If you disagree, feel free to comment or e-mail me some of the supposed "natural rights", because though I try to be complete in my appraisal, there will be perspectives that I miss. It is worth noting that I've tried to keep my argument summative - there's much more to this type of argument, but this is hardly the venue for a full philosophic treatise.
Why does this matter? Because rights go hand in hand with morality, which I will be addressing in short order.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Learning Curve
A friend of mine brought this up about two months ago and so I want to approach it from a more thorough math perspective.
Occasionally you'll hear that something has an extremely steep learning curve. Naturally we think steep and imagine scaling a sheer wall (or something along those lines) and the sense is that this must be an arduous undertaking. In reality, that's actually pretty far from the case.
I've set up the "Learning Curve" as a graph, with skill level (y-axis), as a function of time spent learning/practicing (x axis). For non-math people this means we are observing what happens to your skill level as you spend more time practicing.
First of all, I will make the assumption that the relationship is positive - so the more time you practice, the better you get. It doesn't seem very reasonable to think otherwise - at worst your true skill level should remain constant (even if it feels like a particular performance is uniquely horrible). At the very least, this is likely true for the average person, and so we'll ignore the fact that you're a freak with no real skills while you go cry in the corner.
I'm going to start with two people learning to yodel, with each one's learning curve represented by one of two straight lines labeled 1 and 2. (See figure below.) Observe that line 1 is steeper than line 2. Mathologists will note this means 1 has a greater slope than 2, implying that A1/B1 > A2/B2. This implies that person 1's skill level increases more for each unit of time spent practicing than 2. In nerd-light terms 1 is getting better at yodeling faster than 2 is; more accurately if 1 and 2 spend the same amount of time practicing, 1 will reach a higher skill level than 2.
So now we know that a steeper learning curve is a good thing, but how many skills have proportional returns? I certainly can't think of any, so I thought about what some common learning curve would look like.
Below you'll see learning curves that should hopefully be a bit more realistic. These two curves should represent the transition from complete beginner to advanced level rider for snowboarding and skiing.
Curve 3 is meant to represent snowboarding. The first few times you try, it is hard, painful and often progress trickles as freely as chilled molasses (speaking of molasses, I've seen a few people give up the attempt in favor of gingerbread cookies and apple cider... losers). As the curve describes, this slow start lasts for a little while, until suddenly you find that your board is underneath you, your balance is solid and you are comfortable on the hill. With each trip to a hill you get better and better, faster and faster until you've earned the right to stop terrorizing skiers and risk serious bodily harm in the terrain park. Increased risk of injury and paralysis = nirvana.
On the other hand, strap on some skis and you'll be snow-plowing down the hill in no-time. You're riding chair-lifts and going anywhere you want in a matter of days, and then you hit that rut known as parallel skiing. It takes seconds to learn the dynamics, and years to master its application - not to mention that it requires constant practice. Unlike the proverbial bicycle, if you don't use this skill on a fairly regular basis you'll wind up frisky with the snow and intimate with more than a few trees. Curve 4 tells this story quite well, you start improving quickly, but gradually it gets slower and slower until it may take you a full season to fix a handful of small problems.
Occasionally you'll hear that something has an extremely steep learning curve. Naturally we think steep and imagine scaling a sheer wall (or something along those lines) and the sense is that this must be an arduous undertaking. In reality, that's actually pretty far from the case.
I've set up the "Learning Curve" as a graph, with skill level (y-axis), as a function of time spent learning/practicing (x axis). For non-math people this means we are observing what happens to your skill level as you spend more time practicing.
First of all, I will make the assumption that the relationship is positive - so the more time you practice, the better you get. It doesn't seem very reasonable to think otherwise - at worst your true skill level should remain constant (even if it feels like a particular performance is uniquely horrible). At the very least, this is likely true for the average person, and so we'll ignore the fact that you're a freak with no real skills while you go cry in the corner.
I'm going to start with two people learning to yodel, with each one's learning curve represented by one of two straight lines labeled 1 and 2. (See figure below.) Observe that line 1 is steeper than line 2. Mathologists will note this means 1 has a greater slope than 2, implying that A1/B1 > A2/B2. This implies that person 1's skill level increases more for each unit of time spent practicing than 2. In nerd-light terms 1 is getting better at yodeling faster than 2 is; more accurately if 1 and 2 spend the same amount of time practicing, 1 will reach a higher skill level than 2.
Below you'll see learning curves that should hopefully be a bit more realistic. These two curves should represent the transition from complete beginner to advanced level rider for snowboarding and skiing.
Curve 3 is meant to represent snowboarding. The first few times you try, it is hard, painful and often progress trickles as freely as chilled molasses (speaking of molasses, I've seen a few people give up the attempt in favor of gingerbread cookies and apple cider... losers). As the curve describes, this slow start lasts for a little while, until suddenly you find that your board is underneath you, your balance is solid and you are comfortable on the hill. With each trip to a hill you get better and better, faster and faster until you've earned the right to stop terrorizing skiers and risk serious bodily harm in the terrain park. Increased risk of injury and paralysis = nirvana.
On the other hand, strap on some skis and you'll be snow-plowing down the hill in no-time. You're riding chair-lifts and going anywhere you want in a matter of days, and then you hit that rut known as parallel skiing. It takes seconds to learn the dynamics, and years to master its application - not to mention that it requires constant practice. Unlike the proverbial bicycle, if you don't use this skill on a fairly regular basis you'll wind up frisky with the snow and intimate with more than a few trees. Curve 4 tells this story quite well, you start improving quickly, but gradually it gets slower and slower until it may take you a full season to fix a handful of small problems.
While this is far from an exhaustive list, I have demonstrated that a steep learning curve is actually preferable to a flat one, and that was my point (yay me for not getting sidetracked!)
Send in questions so I don't run out of things to brain-vomit about!!!
P.S. Check out my Dad's site http://www.robertswebessentials.com/
Maybe even click some ads on the right side? Awesome.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Economists ruin all the fun
Captain America unseated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 this weekend, raking in 65.8 $mi.
Granted, Harry Potter grossed a whopping 169 $mi, record-breaking first week, so you can't feel too bad for it. Except for the fact that that's a "nominal" record, but not a real one.
"What's the difference?" you may ask. Nominal implies that the numbers are measured in their own right, which is to say that they are not being compared on equal conditions. This is important because lots of factors change from year to year, let alone across a couple of years.
First off, ticket-price creep; box office prices have steadily risen since their "slashing" in the heyday of the economic slump, meaning that it takes less tickets sold at the current price to equal the revenue generated at the previous price.
Second, the massive surge of 3D movies and their subsequent raised ticket prices; ultimately the same effect as before gets taken into account.
Third, there is inflation: the general tendency of prices to rise over time. Essentially, there is no real growth (i.e. there is nothing extra being produced) but prices rise anyway, meaning that a dollar today buys less than a dollar yesterday. This is essentially a furthering of point 1 yet again; inflation means that your hard-earned dollars are now worth less, relative to before so 169 $mi today wouldn't buy as much as 169 $mi a year ago. More importantly 169 $mi today doesn't buy as much as 158 $mi did in 2007. That's right, in inflation-adjusted terms, Spider-Man 3's opening weekend was bigger than HPDHP2.
Interestingly enough, in ticket-inflation-adjusted terms (dealing with issue 1), Star Wars claims 4 of the top 10 total box office values. (I am unsure, but would tend to believe that the numbers for IV, V and VI include the re-releases of the movies.)
It is interesting to think that in relative terms, modern movies aren't cleaning up like the news would have us believe. That said, this is probably a boring post for most non-economists out there and yet another glimpse at what makes it the "dismal science."
Granted, Harry Potter grossed a whopping 169 $mi, record-breaking first week, so you can't feel too bad for it. Except for the fact that that's a "nominal" record, but not a real one.
"What's the difference?" you may ask. Nominal implies that the numbers are measured in their own right, which is to say that they are not being compared on equal conditions. This is important because lots of factors change from year to year, let alone across a couple of years.
First off, ticket-price creep; box office prices have steadily risen since their "slashing" in the heyday of the economic slump, meaning that it takes less tickets sold at the current price to equal the revenue generated at the previous price.
Second, the massive surge of 3D movies and their subsequent raised ticket prices; ultimately the same effect as before gets taken into account.
Third, there is inflation: the general tendency of prices to rise over time. Essentially, there is no real growth (i.e. there is nothing extra being produced) but prices rise anyway, meaning that a dollar today buys less than a dollar yesterday. This is essentially a furthering of point 1 yet again; inflation means that your hard-earned dollars are now worth less, relative to before so 169 $mi today wouldn't buy as much as 169 $mi a year ago. More importantly 169 $mi today doesn't buy as much as 158 $mi did in 2007. That's right, in inflation-adjusted terms, Spider-Man 3's opening weekend was bigger than HPDHP2.
Interestingly enough, in ticket-inflation-adjusted terms (dealing with issue 1), Star Wars claims 4 of the top 10 total box office values. (I am unsure, but would tend to believe that the numbers for IV, V and VI include the re-releases of the movies.)
It is interesting to think that in relative terms, modern movies aren't cleaning up like the news would have us believe. That said, this is probably a boring post for most non-economists out there and yet another glimpse at what makes it the "dismal science."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)