Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Tuesday Quote
Spre a protesta fata de plicticosul "Wednesday w/out words" - what's the deal with it, anyways?! -, propun Tuesday's quote. First sample (nu mai stiu din pacate cine l-a spus, nu sunt eu autorul).
We dont see the world as it is, but as we are.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
.
God: [posing as a waiter named Al Mighty] I love that story, Noah and the Ark. You know, a lot of people miss the point of that story. They think it’s about God’s wrath and anger. They love it when God gets angry.
Joan: What is the story about, then? The ark?
God: Well, I think it’s a love story about believing in each other. You know, the animals showed up in pairs. They stood by each other, side by side, just like Noah and his family. Everybody entered the ark side by side.
Joan: But my husband says God told him to do it. What do you do with that?
God: Sounds like an opportunity. Let me ask you something. If one prays for patience, do you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If they pray for courage, does God give them courage, or does he give them opportunities to be courageous? If one prayed for their family to be closer, you think God zaps them with warm, fuzzy feelings? Or does he give them opportunities to love each other? Well, I got to run. A lot of people to serve. Enjoy. (Waves his arm and as he leaves Joan looks in shock to see her plate refilled without God having to leave and fill it).
.
God: [posing as a waiter named Al Mighty] I love that story, Noah and the Ark. You know, a lot of people miss the point of that story. They think it’s about God’s wrath and anger. They love it when God gets angry.
Joan: What is the story about, then? The ark?
God: Well, I think it’s a love story about believing in each other. You know, the animals showed up in pairs. They stood by each other, side by side, just like Noah and his family. Everybody entered the ark side by side.
Joan: But my husband says God told him to do it. What do you do with that?
God: Sounds like an opportunity. Let me ask you something. If one prays for patience, do you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If they pray for courage, does God give them courage, or does he give them opportunities to be courageous? If one prayed for their family to be closer, you think God zaps them with warm, fuzzy feelings? Or does he give them opportunities to love each other? Well, I got to run. A lot of people to serve. Enjoy. (Waves his arm and as he leaves Joan looks in shock to see her plate refilled without God having to leave and fill it).
.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
.
Traim printre reguli. Sunt peste tot, in societate, acasa, in bloc, pe strada, la plaja, etc.
V-ati intrebat vreodata de unde vin, de ce exista, de ce avem nevoie de acestea?
Luati o regula oarecare ce regleaza un aspect si asezati un punct P care sa o reprezinte pe segmentul cuprins intre aplicarea extrema a regulii si lipsa absoluta a acesteia. O regula durabila - a se citi acceptata- este de fapt un compromis ideal, un punct pe segmentul de mai sus care il imparte folosing un ratio destul de constant intre multimea L a situatiilor in care regula ar fi mai laxa si multimea R in care ar fi mai restrictiva decat in prezent. Un exemplu simplu ar fi definirea taxei de parcare a.i. venitul sa fie maxim: daca scazi pretul sub un prag nu castigi prea mult, daca il cresti peste prag nu mai ai destui clienti. Statistica functioneaza superb in a stabili raportul perfect L/R care defineste pozitia lui P.
Problema imensa este lipsa de constinuitate a acestui rationament in plan individual. Stim ca x% dintre relatii sunt durabile si satisfacatoare, in acelasi timp nu avem posibilitatea reala de a fi implicati intr-un nr atat de mare de relatii a.i. sa fim siguri ca x% are semnificatie in plan personal. Singura sansa este sa folosim shortcut-ul de a screen-ui superficial un numar mare de posibili parteneri folosind reguli care reprezinta de fapt interfata intre planul statistic si cel personal, screening aplicat in cea mai incipienta faza a interactiunii sociale. Simpatie, antipatie, atractie, repulsie - sunt doar denumiri ale acestor blocuri de algoritmi vechi conform carora probabilitatea de a face alegerea cea mai buna este mai mare.
Well, poate asta mergea in stone age, nu acum cand sansa de a insela acesti algoritmi este din ce in ce mai mare. Toti au sute de prieteni pe facebook- sunt de succes presupun, majoritatea sterg imediat o imagine sau comentariu care ii dezavantajaza, haine de sute de $ ascund imperfectiunile, smoke screens everywhere.
Societati care functioneaza dupa reguli arhaice au simplificat problema: altii decid pentru tine- de ex casatoriile aranjate. E perfect atat timp cat supunerea este absoluta, asemeni comunismului care in teorie este incantator iar in practica un esec monumental.
Intorcandu-ma la acel pct P reprezentand realitatea aplicarii unei reguli - si avand bineinteles in minte ca P poate fi dependent de variabile precum varsta/educatie/inteligenta/etnie etc- as fi curios daca vreun studiu social a descoperit vreun pattern, un fel de valoare nesperat de predictibila a raportului L/R de mai sus, vreun fel de "golden ratio" care sa izvorasca dintr-un aspect atat de profund al conditiei noastre incat sa depaseasca influenta nisei culturale/sociale/ etc.
.
Traim printre reguli. Sunt peste tot, in societate, acasa, in bloc, pe strada, la plaja, etc.
V-ati intrebat vreodata de unde vin, de ce exista, de ce avem nevoie de acestea?
Luati o regula oarecare ce regleaza un aspect si asezati un punct P care sa o reprezinte pe segmentul cuprins intre aplicarea extrema a regulii si lipsa absoluta a acesteia. O regula durabila - a se citi acceptata- este de fapt un compromis ideal, un punct pe segmentul de mai sus care il imparte folosing un ratio destul de constant intre multimea L a situatiilor in care regula ar fi mai laxa si multimea R in care ar fi mai restrictiva decat in prezent. Un exemplu simplu ar fi definirea taxei de parcare a.i. venitul sa fie maxim: daca scazi pretul sub un prag nu castigi prea mult, daca il cresti peste prag nu mai ai destui clienti. Statistica functioneaza superb in a stabili raportul perfect L/R care defineste pozitia lui P.
Problema imensa este lipsa de constinuitate a acestui rationament in plan individual. Stim ca x% dintre relatii sunt durabile si satisfacatoare, in acelasi timp nu avem posibilitatea reala de a fi implicati intr-un nr atat de mare de relatii a.i. sa fim siguri ca x% are semnificatie in plan personal. Singura sansa este sa folosim shortcut-ul de a screen-ui superficial un numar mare de posibili parteneri folosind reguli care reprezinta de fapt interfata intre planul statistic si cel personal, screening aplicat in cea mai incipienta faza a interactiunii sociale. Simpatie, antipatie, atractie, repulsie - sunt doar denumiri ale acestor blocuri de algoritmi vechi conform carora probabilitatea de a face alegerea cea mai buna este mai mare.
Well, poate asta mergea in stone age, nu acum cand sansa de a insela acesti algoritmi este din ce in ce mai mare. Toti au sute de prieteni pe facebook- sunt de succes presupun, majoritatea sterg imediat o imagine sau comentariu care ii dezavantajaza, haine de sute de $ ascund imperfectiunile, smoke screens everywhere.
Societati care functioneaza dupa reguli arhaice au simplificat problema: altii decid pentru tine- de ex casatoriile aranjate. E perfect atat timp cat supunerea este absoluta, asemeni comunismului care in teorie este incantator iar in practica un esec monumental.
Intorcandu-ma la acel pct P reprezentand realitatea aplicarii unei reguli - si avand bineinteles in minte ca P poate fi dependent de variabile precum varsta/educatie/inteligenta/etnie etc- as fi curios daca vreun studiu social a descoperit vreun pattern, un fel de valoare nesperat de predictibila a raportului L/R de mai sus, vreun fel de "golden ratio" care sa izvorasca dintr-un aspect atat de profund al conditiei noastre incat sa depaseasca influenta nisei culturale/sociale/ etc.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)