The iPhone I purchased last week has become an omniscient pet living in my pocket. I take very good care of it. I feed it power every couple of days, and clean it's soft outter shell when it gets dirty. I do not place it in my pocket with Mr. key chain, a sharp and dangerous enemy. And yet as I get closer and closer to my iPhone, I start to feel it pushing me away, as if it is looking for a more loving owner. It's up to me to become technologically fluent in order to retain my iPhone's love.
Like any one-sided relationship, I am in awe of the raw power and potential that my iPhone possesses. I am also scared of it. With each downloaded app, I fall further and further into it's debt. Where do the possibilities end? I have gazed upon the most beautiful creature on Earth, and my eyes have been locked into place for eternity. Is anything else worth seeing? My actions are subconscious; I am powerless to stop my hands from gliding over it's smooth, glistening screen.
And yet I abuse my iPhone in a different way. This concoction of metals and binary codes has power beyond what I am capable of controlling, and because of this I am forced to rein in it's power. It is with simple pleasures such as Words With Friends and simple texting that I hold my iPhone close to me. Like a mother keeping her adolescent daughter close to her, I grasp at the similarities that keep my iPhone from turning its back on me. My fear is that one day I will weight it down with the burden of unused applications and unnecessary data. Not that it cannot handle excess; Rather, I fear that it will instead just become bored. It is at this point that some difficult decisions will need to be made, the ones that each living individual dreads. But until that day, I will keep my iPhone safe and warm, together and unscratched, and enjoy every moment of our time together.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Starting A Job
I am finally ready to work, and again it feels like I am at an internship. I'm starting to think that THIS is what "work" entails. It is difficult for me to be the proactive individual that I claimed to be in the interview. Was I lying there, or is there actually no way for me to harness my motivation into something productive? I honestly believe that I can add value to an organization, but, so far, nobody has had work to delegate to me.
I started my job on Monday. I love how the first thing that every organization does is lead you around and introduce you to people. It's doubtful that either party remembers names during these introductions, making the entire episode pointless in my mind. Wait a week. Let the person get settled down and understand the organizations structure. This will allow for easier conversation.
It is difficult to come up with effective work when I really don't know what it is that the department is responsible for, and who I can work with to come up with ideas to help the organization. What do I do? How can I help to streamline what my department does and accomplish something that betters our mission?
At the same time, I am able to use the day and feel productive. I try to read and learn about anything I can. Learning all that I can about Excel will be exceptionally useful going forward. I suppose that this is part of what I can do right now to have an impact. The better I get at Excel now, the less time I will spend on perfunctory work and the more I time I can spend supporting other projects. It is my responsibility to spend down-time practicing Excel. I hope to find MLS data and put it into a spreadsheet format as a way to practice and improve my speed and efficiency.
It always feels like I understand what my boss is explaining in the first minute, but she continues to outline the entire project for the next 5 minutes. It's a common theme amongst the people I have worked under. It's usually more effective to learn from my mistakes, to jot down the questions I have, then ask them all together when there is time. I always want to cut them off and say that I understand, to wave my arms around and ask them to move on to something else, because I get it. But that's rude, so I sit and nod in earnest.
I started my job on Monday. I love how the first thing that every organization does is lead you around and introduce you to people. It's doubtful that either party remembers names during these introductions, making the entire episode pointless in my mind. Wait a week. Let the person get settled down and understand the organizations structure. This will allow for easier conversation.
It is difficult to come up with effective work when I really don't know what it is that the department is responsible for, and who I can work with to come up with ideas to help the organization. What do I do? How can I help to streamline what my department does and accomplish something that betters our mission?
At the same time, I am able to use the day and feel productive. I try to read and learn about anything I can. Learning all that I can about Excel will be exceptionally useful going forward. I suppose that this is part of what I can do right now to have an impact. The better I get at Excel now, the less time I will spend on perfunctory work and the more I time I can spend supporting other projects. It is my responsibility to spend down-time practicing Excel. I hope to find MLS data and put it into a spreadsheet format as a way to practice and improve my speed and efficiency.
It always feels like I understand what my boss is explaining in the first minute, but she continues to outline the entire project for the next 5 minutes. It's a common theme amongst the people I have worked under. It's usually more effective to learn from my mistakes, to jot down the questions I have, then ask them all together when there is time. I always want to cut them off and say that I understand, to wave my arms around and ask them to move on to something else, because I get it. But that's rude, so I sit and nod in earnest.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
March Madness
Is there anything more entertaining then the NCAA tournament, where the possibilities feel infinite and nothing is certain? It feels nice to know that nobody has any control over the situation, no strings are being pulled. Complete transparency. Who's to say that this year a 16 seed won't finally beat a 1 seed? It's drama that the sports fan and laypeople alike can enjoy.
Many people complain about the lack of efficiency displayed by so-called "experts", but, as someone who has spent a good chunk of his life absorbing the laws of probability via poker, I understand what they mean. Picking a clear winner of each game is insufficient. The correct way to do it would be to imagine that the two teams played each other 100 times, and to then guess how many times each team would win. If you think a team would win 70 times, pick them. If you think it's 50:50, flip a coin. If you think it's 51-49, you pick the team that you believe will win 51 times out of 100. This is why the ordinary guesser thinks the experts are full of poo. Since there is only 1 reality, it's very difficult to understand all the alternate realities that could have existed. Consternating? I know, but it's honestly how the people who dedicate their lives to understanding college basketball look at it.
People want definitive answers or predictions from experts, which brings about what I want to call "the expert's conundrum". Here's what it means: Experts have 2 choices. They can either explain their predictions using probability and have people assume they are equivocating, or make a prediction and get paid for saying what people want to hear. For example, guessers always want to hear who the experts pick for upsets, and are disappointed when the experts are wrong. But the expert is only picking the team with the GREATEST chance of pulling the upset, and that team may win only 30 games out of every 100 in their opinion. But it's the best upset pick available, so they go for it. If they are right, they are acclaimed, if they are wrong, publicly scrutinized. Not that public scrutiny is all that terrible. I would wager that picking an upset winner correctly is more memorable than picking an upset winner incorrectly. Although it's not the most academic alternative, it doesn't seem like too bad a situation.
I can't help but root for the underdogs in the first round of the NCAA tournament. They are so pure, so eager, so nervous. Not many of the players on these teams have ever been in the national spotlight, and it's fun to watch them get hyped up as they keep the game close. They are basketball players, not the freaks of nature that employ the upper echelons of division 1 (the Kentucky's, Syracuse's, and UCLA's of the world.) I can relate more to these teams because they are often less physically imposing, like myself. There is less individualism in these teams' brands of basketball, and I appreciate that. It's also a little bit of a win-win for my self-esteem: Win, and it's a huge upset, lose, and it's expected. And everyone can enjoy when the small guy takes down the big guy. Maybe it's a universal appeal.
Can't wait for tomorrow's opening round. New York City. Open bar tab. Chicken wings. A young man's heaven.
Let's do it.
Many people complain about the lack of efficiency displayed by so-called "experts", but, as someone who has spent a good chunk of his life absorbing the laws of probability via poker, I understand what they mean. Picking a clear winner of each game is insufficient. The correct way to do it would be to imagine that the two teams played each other 100 times, and to then guess how many times each team would win. If you think a team would win 70 times, pick them. If you think it's 50:50, flip a coin. If you think it's 51-49, you pick the team that you believe will win 51 times out of 100. This is why the ordinary guesser thinks the experts are full of poo. Since there is only 1 reality, it's very difficult to understand all the alternate realities that could have existed. Consternating? I know, but it's honestly how the people who dedicate their lives to understanding college basketball look at it.
People want definitive answers or predictions from experts, which brings about what I want to call "the expert's conundrum". Here's what it means: Experts have 2 choices. They can either explain their predictions using probability and have people assume they are equivocating, or make a prediction and get paid for saying what people want to hear. For example, guessers always want to hear who the experts pick for upsets, and are disappointed when the experts are wrong. But the expert is only picking the team with the GREATEST chance of pulling the upset, and that team may win only 30 games out of every 100 in their opinion. But it's the best upset pick available, so they go for it. If they are right, they are acclaimed, if they are wrong, publicly scrutinized. Not that public scrutiny is all that terrible. I would wager that picking an upset winner correctly is more memorable than picking an upset winner incorrectly. Although it's not the most academic alternative, it doesn't seem like too bad a situation.
I can't help but root for the underdogs in the first round of the NCAA tournament. They are so pure, so eager, so nervous. Not many of the players on these teams have ever been in the national spotlight, and it's fun to watch them get hyped up as they keep the game close. They are basketball players, not the freaks of nature that employ the upper echelons of division 1 (the Kentucky's, Syracuse's, and UCLA's of the world.) I can relate more to these teams because they are often less physically imposing, like myself. There is less individualism in these teams' brands of basketball, and I appreciate that. It's also a little bit of a win-win for my self-esteem: Win, and it's a huge upset, lose, and it's expected. And everyone can enjoy when the small guy takes down the big guy. Maybe it's a universal appeal.
Can't wait for tomorrow's opening round. New York City. Open bar tab. Chicken wings. A young man's heaven.
Let's do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)