Intellectual Incest

I have come to understand my reluctance to extensively socialize with colleagues. Now, I often get invited to outings and chat with them a lot when I do turn up, but something has always bugged me about going out in this manner. Of course, there's the obvious implication that my going out has political undertones, in which cementing relationships that way does help cement one's position in an organization. That much always bugs me, but there's something else. That something else may well be what I call intellectual incest.

By intellectual incest I mean the very concept of going out with people you ordinarily spend a lot of time with, and by implication have been influenced by and are actively influencing you. The influences through social contact during working hours will invariably color discussions outside (apart from the obvious tendency of work talk) and basically wind up shrinking one's intellectual circle since one's exposure to outside disciplines is diminished as a result. In fact, it must be to one's advantage to engage social compatriots outside that work circle, to maximize one's overall exposure to reality in general.

I struggle with the incest thing, especially in an age where weak links abound and it really isn't as easy as it used to be to find people out there and spontaneously create links with them. Gone are the days of active random instant messaging and getting to know locals from different disciplines but similar interest. Most people may do that over Facebook interest groups, but in a sense that starts off on the wrong foot whereby the very presence of the Facebook (or other social media) accounts creates a greater intimacy than would be comfortable in comparison to a more anonymous medium like the IRC of old. I guess I will need to find my alternatives. Stagnation is certainly not a good thing at all.

In Time

Remember what I wrote a couple days back about the sequence of narrative creation, and how creating details before composing a proper narrative proves to be problematic? Well In Time is precisely that: A movie with an intriguing premise that winds up falling flat because it doesn't have a solid narrative to stand on.

Right, so here's the good stuff: In Time is about a world where time is both life and money. Run out of time/money, run out of life. You die. Ok that's the good part. It's an interesting concept, and something they could've taken quite far. After all, we're familiar with Blade Runner and how the replicants were so desperate to extend their lives.

The bad news? A sophisticated narrative never emerged. The movie turned from something that could've been a philosophical study in variable human mortality...into a flat Bonnie and Clyde heist fest where time turned out to be...money. Really they could've just made the movie about money and it'd be pretty much the same. The narrative itself is fraught with logical problems, and the attempts to create a convincing universe around the time/money/life concept fail simply because the explanations wind up looking rather implausible. In fact, they might've been better off not trying to explain the mechanics behind the whole system and focusing more on the narrative itself.

Much as it pains me to do so, I'd say the movie deserves 5.5/10. It'd be 4.5, but I liked the concept, and that's where the other point went to.

Detailing Narratives

I have come to realize that creating a narrative is a lot like creating a drawing: It is often less helpful to do the detailing first before having the grand structure planned out already. For example, it is often not very useful creating beautiful dragon scales before you're sure that you're actually drawing a dragon, nor is it useful to start writing about an intriguing mechanic by which the fictional society runs if the drama itself is not ready for action.

The thing I've found about detailing first is that first it crimps the narrative some. If the narrative didn't already exist, it'll start to be a process whereby the narrative becomes shaped and often distorted by the details. That's because the narrative is being forced to be consistent with the details. Worse yet, this tends to lead to the neglect of proper narrative design, which can result in stories that are logically plausible, yet are extremely flat in every other sense.

I think my view for now shall be that a narrative is best designed first, so that it flows and the grand structure is made known, after which the details can be dropped in so that they spice up what could have been an otherwise drab setting.

Childhood?

I was enroute to work today and as my lift passed one apartment, I saw a dad helping his kid to light a sparkler. It's a simple enough act, only that I'm seeing it while I'm going to work. On a morning that I wouldn't ordinarily see if I wasn't saddled with office hours. To be honest, that sucked.

Story time. First things first. I hate mornings. I do my best to deny their existence, and while I don't hate my work (I love it to pieces, in fact), I really hate having to get my butt to work before 5pm. And now on to childhoods. Well the thing is, I really don't remember all that much about my childhood. I do vaguely remember that sparklers are fun, and I did a lot of pyromaniacy things when I was a kid. The thing is, I feel like I miss the simpler days of my earlier childhood. That is, the not having a lot of weird things to worry about. Those who know about my problems also know that I only realized what was up a number of years back, and life's never really been the same since. Of course, it's improved a lot in the recent years, but it's certainly nowhere near as simple as it used to be.

Anyway, I guess the important thing is that I'll always remember the times back in university when I had months long holidays (that's how holidays oughtta be) and I'll never be comparing work leave to that. It just won't measure up. I find it funny that some people would point out that well...work just doesn't work that way. You don't get months off at a go. Well technically you can spam unpaid leave, but generally the company would want you to leave pretty soon if you did that. The fact remains that the comparison will be apples to oranges, but whenever someone tells me that wow that was a long weekend, I just tell them...my long weekends are 3 months long. And I haven't had a good long weekend in ages.

Changes

My life has changed significantly for the better lately, and so has that of one of my friends. Basically, she's been given the opportunity to work in game development as a designer, and it really isn't something that's commonly offered so readily to a newbie. After some persuasion, she decided to take up the offer. I cannot be sure if she's of the right temperament to pull it off, but hey at least it's an opportunity to try her hand at the industry and to see if it suits her.

Looking back at my life over the last 5 years, I really do wonder at how my other friends have been doing in all that time. Some people invariably drop out of touch for a long time, and stay in contact only via the internet. I think it's a good time to meet up where possible, and see how things have changed for them.

The Thing

It's funny how I've not actually watched all that many movies back in my day. It's a fairly recent development, my watching of movies, since my company does hand out movie tickets every month or so. Otherwise, I really wouldn't have bothered. That said, this is the second movie I've watched this week with my friend, mainly 'coz I really could've done with something to do at night after work.

Anyway, The Thing is your average monster stalking kind of movie. The sort where an alien picks humans off one by one till precious few survivors remain. It's no spoiler, because everyone who is going to watch this probably already know that.

I'd say I liked the movie, because it makes the viewer consider exactly what the Thing is, and how it propagates. There's something to having aliens that can perfectly mimic humans. I suppose the story's got its logical issues and whatnot typical of cinema, but I rather do appreciate the trip. Probably at least in part due to the Inquisition style approach of burning anything that's suspicious or contaminated. I'd say the movie's somewhere around a 7.5/10

On a related but non-review note, is it a bad thing if I thought the tentacle creatures were rather kinky?

Johnny English: Reborn

Agent Bean returns! Well, everyone knows that JE is pretty much a spoof of Bond, and pretty much everything you expect to find in a reasonably serious secret agent movie. I'd say there is very little to discuss about the movie itself, because the premise and gags will be familiar to those who've seen Bean's antics, and the previous movie.

Some would say that the movie is predictable and silly. Me, I think that's kind of the point of the movie, and really, there are only so many ways you can deliver slapstick comedy. All I can say is that the movie kept me laughing through its entire length, which says something about my sense of humor and perhaps how funny the show actually is. Evaluating it on its merits and the intent of the production, I'd say that the show deserves a hearty 8/10.

Faith And The Financial Market

I've been reading House Of Cards lately, and it's the same story of over-leveraging. One would think that it's pretty obvious when a company's sunk into risky assets as collateral and has precious little stuff in its reserves. The funny thing here is that well...if everyone knows it already and they're still going for it, it seems to me that they're really just running on faith. And hot air.

If an economy is indeed heavily reliant on credit, it is obvious how a credit crunch can utterly devastate the economy. Yet it seems that leverage is the steroid of choice amongst financial institutions. It's hard to think of a better way to create a heck of a lot of stuff out of a small pool of assets. Arguably, it's the only crazy effective way available in your average capitalist economy.

Yet, humans will be humans. If faith were to be maintained regardless, runs on banks would not occur as often, and everyone can happily live in Oz with the magickal flying dollar bills. Obviously, this doesn't happen. Someone invariably loses heart out there and realizes that things are going south in one part of the economy, and starts figuring that liquidity is beginning to look like a good idea. Seeing a big player do that, others will start to take their cues and so on. The house of cards comes tumbling down.

Human Cognitive Pathways

It is interesting how differently humans process the exact same input. That is, give a bunch of humans a single scene or thought, and the output will likely be quite different between the humans. What's more interesting is that some humans will actually process the same thing in completely different pathways, which may even be completely opposite to one another.

Amusingly enough, most people are not telepathic and have limited ability to discern what the other is thinking. Therefore, it is entirely possible for them to talk clean past one another and result in some rather damaging misunderstandings. The fun part here is that both (or more) parties will be convinced that the other's responding to one's statement in the same spirit, and it's difficult to ascertain otherwise.

Shallow Professionalism

I am the sort to believe in raw performance in favor of appearance. If one fails to perform, it matters little to me what their personal bearing is like. Which, of course, is why shallow professionalism remains one of my pet peeves. I'd call shallow professionalism the art of appearing to be professional, be it by obvious conduct like constant apparent seriousness, or by appearance by dressing in a particular fashion.

Now, what irks me about it is how many professional-appearing individuals prove to be quite unprofessional in the practical sense. They are not performing their jobs to the best of their abilities simply because they are employed (and paid) to do so. Worst of all, the appearance of professionalism can easily throw off an unschooled supervisor, who may mistake the appearance for the actual performance of professionalism.

Unfortunately, it seems my views are in the power minority when it comes to this matter. The elevation of shallow professionalism to an art form remains to date, and really...not all that many of the people who matter are inclined to evaluate things otherwise. For one, that'd just take too much effort on their part. It may even involve a restructuring of management itself to dedicate resources to true performance evaluation.

Portal 2 Is Quality

I am crazy about Portal 2. Well...not drooling crazy, but crazy enough to play the game straight till 6am on a weekend. That's some good score, for a game that practically screams quality from every game moment. Not only is the game full of references to the goings on from the previous game, it manages to proceed with the kinds of twists and humor that are typical of the original.

From the very beginning, it's clear that the level designers paid very close attention to the principles of level design. The composition of scenes is impeccable, and always informs the user as to what she/he is to do next. If anything, the use of framing in the introduction gives users a very clear idea of exactly what portals are and how they operate. I'd say the intro itself did such a brilliant job of being an introduction, without feeling like a tutorial. Even the first parts of the game felt extremely well crafted, with the sort of dramatic tension that you'd find in good movies. The puzzles are also amazingly well crafted, requiring rather unorthodox solutions most of the time.

So...just how did Valve get something so right? =p

Space Marine: Improvements

First things first, I am a fan of the Warhammer 40k universe. As such, I do try very hard to like the Space Marine video game. Unfortunately, try as I might, I cannot not see just how they tried too hard in the wrong areas such that they made a potentially great game merely good.

Now, I am not sure exactly what constraints Game Workshop put on the company, but it seems that they are rather reluctant to engage canon. This is quite unfortunate, seeing as how they're using a well known chapter like the Ultramarines, and pitting it against some random Chaos warband. The first thing I would've done is consider revising the storyline to feature the Space Wolves, and the nasty involvement of the Thousand Sons. As a bonus, it's entirely possible for Magnus the Red to make a guest appearance.

The problem I see is how they've come up with an incredible variety of componentized armor for the different Traitor and Loyalist factions. It bewilders me as to exactly why they'd do that, when the chapters aren't quite featured in the campaign. We see a hint of Blood Ravens and some Dark Templars, perhaps, but little else. Simply put, there's a lot of possible variety in the mediocre multiplayer without popping the content in the campaign. For those who purchased Space Marine as a single player experience, the DLCs would've looked utterly useless.

It would've made sense to save the other content for possible expansions, while focusing on the core storyline as a content source for multiplayer. For example, if the conflict is between the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons, it would've been a small matter to bring in more detailed hierarchies in the campaign, reusing those assets in the context of the multiplayer as well. As a bonus, the weaponry used by the combatants can be iconic of their respective factions. For example, the plasma cannon's charged attack is AOE, which for damage purposes would be identical to virtually any other AOE in the game. Using the damage code, and replacing the plasma special effect with warpfire, it's entirely possible for a Thousand Sons sorceror to fire empyreal bolts. Overall, it would've added a lot of flavor to the overall game.

Focusing on the gameplay, with less on the progression (which is very art heavy), it's possible to dedicate more resources to the core gameplay polish. It would've probably been better to create a flexible system for the armor, but to hold back the asset development for future content. As it stands, having a full armor set for completing the campaign just feels like overkill, since that armor set has absolutely the same stats as every other armor. Moreover, the lack of distinctive faction-specific armors prevents the establishment of significantly different character silhouettes in multiplayer, which adversely affects IFF.

This is not to say that I'm bashing the game outright, since I have no idea why it turned out the way it did, and overall the melee combat is highly satisfying. However, I still reckon that it's entirely possible to have created a more polished gameplay with the exact same resources, securing the user base for the acquisition of future expansions.

Focus Good, Forgetfulness Bad

Gona be a short muse post here. Now, in general, it's a good thing to not be absentminded. Here's why: Today, I was making some soup and I noticed that a ladle next to me had a very healthy ant population because it had residual soup on it. Ok fine, time to leave it alone and get a clean one. I can always wash that later.

After which, I started boiling and grabbed a ladle to stir it with. Yup...you guessed it...the one covered in living things. Well, few things beat ant soup. Adds protein to the mix. *flexes*

Horrible Bosses

First things first: I'm biased against comedies. I don't really like to watch a show that exists purely to make me laugh. Considering that, it shouldn't be surprising that I find most comedies meaningless. But not this one.

Now, what makes Horrible Bosses an acceptably good comedy? It's got a semi-plausible storyline with characters that people can sorta relate to. That is, three of the worst sorts of bosses anyone is likely to meet, and three very unhappy fellas who would love to have them killed. In fact, that's precisely what they strive to. Along the way, they get into the most hilarious situations that routinely come right back to bite them in their asses, and that only serves to add to the enjoyment.

Right, and here's a spoiler: There's no Hollywoodized romance in this flick. BOOYEAH! Of course, given the synopses most people have already likely read by now, they might wonder just why that would be...

I'd say this movie deserves a 8.5/10. High. Especially for a comedy. But is it worth it? Well for me I'd say this is a movie I'd actually pay to watch. The witty dialog and the politically correct (and grossly incorrect) situations make for a truly enjoyable movie experience. Watch. It. Now.

On Capitalism

Sometimes I think capitalism really doesn't agree with the more selfish side of Chinese culture. That is, they really shouldn't be trusted with that economic system lest it ruin them. Of course, the same could be said for every other selfish administration out there (yes, I'm looking at you, Uncle Sam) but I'm just writing about the stuff I've been observing about the Chinese as featured in the news.

My impression is that there's a mile wide streak of greed not tempered by a sense of civic duty at play here. Chinese culture is quite socialist by nature, and garnering wealth exclusively for one's private gain is somewhat taboo. For one, openly declaring that one cares primarily for oneself can have some major negative repercussions on one's social image. However, seeing the unethical and sometimes outright cruel things that are done, I get the impression that the perpetrators have outright ditched the moral values enshrined in their own culture and taken on bare faced greed instead. That's not very healthy at all.

I'm not sure if this is really the case, or if it is whether it can be rectified in some way within a generation or two. Times change, I guess.

Manual Control

A lot of the bodily functions are automatically controlled. That is, they work by themselves and aren't really something that comes to the forefront of one's attention on a daily basis. An example of this is how one's eyes focus. For now, I'm experimenting with my eyes and getting them to work at will, and it's been quite an interesting experience.

For one, I realize that the degree of light diffraction varies by the extent to which one opens one's eyes. For example, I see more astigmatic spikes from streetlights when I squint my eyes, as opposed to when I have them wide open.

And then there's the matter of eye focusing. Interestingly, eye focusing appears to be contrast detection based, so an object with higher contrast tends to be focused on more than one of lower contrast. For example, I can be on a bus with an ad on the windows. These ads are effectively black from the inside of the bus, with holes cut in a pattern that allows passengers to see through. This resultant mesh is relatively high contrast in certain situations, and low contrast in others. Hence, if I tried to discern a vehicle marking from close range, the eye tends to focus on the marking. If I tried it at a longer range, the comparative contrast of the mesh makes it incredibly difficult to focus on the vehicle's marking from then on.

After some experimenting with shifting focus along the length of a pencil near to the eye, I've managed to establish some control over how the eyes focus. So far I'm having some success in forcing the eye to focus past the mesh and on whatever it is that I intend to look at. Tiring on the eyes, unfortunately, but it's most likely something that'll become easier with practice.

It's The Steel

After grinding my blade for quite some hours, I was puzzled as to exactly why it refused to take on a durable razor edge. As far as I could tell, I was maintaining the correct angles and taking my time with the grind so I was unlikely to be botching the edge. It was then that I figured that perhaps the problem was not with the technique so much as it was with the steel itself. Simply put, the 440 I was working was probably didn't have the world's best temper and might not even be 440 to begin with. Hmm.

So what happened...I looked to my shelf and noticed some old knife blades I had lying about and not worked for some years. In fact, the blades had a touch of rust on them, so clearly they're not the best sort of stainless steel. They might even be some sort of carbon steel. Intriguing.

After spending 20 minutes completely reworking the edge to the angle I wanted, the blade seemed to be quite happy to maintain the edge. In fact, the edge was a lot more "bitey" than I got from doing the exact same thing to my 440 pocket knife. I kept at it till the edge felt good, then I tried the paper test. It melted through the paper this time. Hmm!

So, it does seem that the steel does make a big difference in the kind of edge the blade can take. Undoubtedly, my 440 knife could take a workable edge and if properly resharpened every time, it probably could be quite serviceable. However, when trying to get a true razor edge that lasts for some time, the blade falls flat. It's the steel!

Pick Your Madness

I discussed the matter of irrationality with my friend earlier today, talking about gambling in general. Gambling is patently unsatisfying to me, because the losses clearly exceed the gains, but people play it anyway. Somewhere along the discussion, he noted that watching movies was similarly irrational, because one pays to experience an illusion and comes out of it with no tangible gains as well. Good point!

So clearly, we all have our personal madnesses of choice. In fact, we probably have em without realizing exactly what they are. After some pondering, I figure the crux of the problem is that there's no absolute measure by which value is evaluated. I get negative value from losing money in a gamble and so I would not participate in gambling even though there's a chance that I can win. On the other hand, someone who likes the excitement of gambling will think me mad for watching movies if there's no monetary upside.

What the two seem to have in common is experience. There's an experience in the excitement of anticipating the gambling results. Movies and other similar entertainment are pure experiences. Likewise for hobbies and sports. If there's a madness people seem to be stuck to, chances are it's because the madness is associated with an experience that they truly like. Pick your madness.

On Sharpening Knives

I've recently decided that I wanted to know how to sharpen knives. I've carried a knife with me just about everywhere for a whole lot of years, but I realized that I had no clue as to exactly how I was supposed to put a killer edge on the thing. One thing I do know is that a knife that doesn't slice through stuff cleanly doesn't feel particularly good.

First thing I tried was with my pocket knife. It's a fairly cheap Boker, with 440 stainless for the blade. So far I figure perhaps I'm not particularly good with knife sharpening, seeing as how I've been putting a lot of time into it, but the edge doesn't stay for long. I figure I'm generating a wire edge on the blade itself.

After stropping, I managed to grind a fine edge into the knife that's fairly lasting. Hopefully the edge will hold. I figure it may be a good idea to reprofile the edge itself so that it'll stay sharp. We shall see.

On Self-Esteem

Self esteem is a very delicate thing. Some seem to have a healthy lot of it, others are critically deficient. Me, I find that my self esteem is split. It's a weird predicament. Or perhaps more common than I'm implying. Most likely the latter, come to think of it.

Well anyway, I have this split between my self esteem when it comes to evaluations of my own aptitude, and evaluations of my appearance. If anything, the first is way higher than the latter. I suppose that may be related to why I'd rather work on buffing my aptitude than my appearance, which is generally a good thing anyway. Might also be related to why some people do the opposite.

That said, the power of knowledge is right there, to put things in perspective. If one doesn't know how things really are in the wider world, one would be quite content (or unfairly discontent) in what one's like. And of course, that evaluation would be quite inaccurate indeed. It'll also have the potential to create quite some unnecessary anguish. Let's say I learned something today, and it's comforting indeed.