Update on various things in life
1. I asked a classmate if he could keep quiet in class, because he's wasting a lot of time with unhelpful comments and questions. My exact words were, I think: Do you mind keeping quiet in class, it's very disruptive.
He first said sorry. And then he commended me for being frank. And then he said something about us starting on the wrong foot. After a brief conversation in which he tried to maneuver me to start on the other foot, he said thank you again, for conveying my criticisms face-to-face. To which I enquired if anybody had done that before, after 3.5 years in school. He said no. He said people would usually talk behind his back, but never once face-to-face. To which I was quite surprised, because this fellow has a very pervasive presence, one that I think cannot be safely ignored.
(What, too, is the world coming to: people are too polite or unhelpful or tolerant to give constructive criticism)
We talked a bit and after a while I tried to soften my stance. I pointed out an instance where he made a good contribution and said if you would say things like that I wouldn't mind him speaking up in class. It is often the case that we are harsh towards people we don't interact with. Once we get to know them better, we find that they're not all that irritating after all.
Next task: this group of 3 girls who are constantly whispering during lecture. Why don't I relocate? The room's not big enough; the problem will still persist. It's likely they would be apologetic because they genuinely don't think they're being a royal nuisance.
2. You may have heard of the analytic-continental divide in philosophy. A recent philosophy tutorial showed how different people in philosophy can be, a student fervantly explaining and defending some view that has some roots in the continental tradition, to the puzzlement of some others. I say puzzlement, not disagreement, because after ten minutes most students (and the tutor) were still trying to figure out what exactly he was advancing.
I fear I may be saying something immature here, but I have the feeling people on either side of the divide have radically different mindsets. All disagreement can be traced to this purported fact, as well as all puzzlement. A contintental person may give a comprehensive account of what being-in-the-world means, and the analytic person may still not have a good intuitive grasp of what's that, even if she can grasp it via some other means. It's kind of like the person who is blind but is hooked up to a machine that can translate light waves into sensations on the skin. Such a person may still be able to correctly identify colors, but we may think he doesn't have an intuitive, or direct, grasp of what colors are. Only thing here is that in the case of the divide, there's no saying who's the blind one, if any.
3. I went to attend a singalong session of Chinese evergreens last weekend. It was held at the Esplanade's outdoor theatre. Mostly middle aged and old people were there. Heartening to see the some young people and foreigners as well who stayed through one whole session.
Old classics have this feel to them that one cannot accurately describe, except to classify songs that have this feel as evergreen classics. Some songs played by the live band (the mic was passed to members of the audience) were this, this and this. Seeing how the older generation sang to songs of their time, I am reminded of something indescribable this generation has lost.
4. I tried Starcraft 2 and I have to say I don't fancy the game. People will think it is a strategy game, but if it is, it's a very poor one: the game places too much emphasis on reaction speed and the dexterity of one's fingers. Units are very easily killed and battles are frequently over in 3 blinks of the eye.
This is not to say there are no strategic elements in the game. There are. There is the usual unit -counter thing going on. There is a tradeoff between an early rush and teching up. If you spend resources on early military units, you spend less on resource-gathering activity, which means you may lose out in the later part of the game if your rush didn't cripple the opponent enough. But all this is, in my opinion, undermined by the emphasis on reaction speed. It favors the player who is slightly weaker in tactical thinking but significantly better at managing all his units at battle and pressing hotkeys to produce even more units, than the player who is worse in that aspect but significantly stronger in tactical thinking.
Let me digress a bit to anticipation, a concept I quite like in games. We see this in Company of Heroes, one of my favorite all-time strategy game. In that game, a starting unit a player playing the American faction can recruit is the Rifleman squad: good in close range but poor at long range. A starting unit a player playing the German faction can recruit is the Volksgrenedier squad: poorer in close range combat but better at a long-range fight than the Rifleman squad. Now, what happens when these 2 units meet in the opening stages of a match? A good player with the Volksgrenedier squad will choose to disengage from the Rifleman squad if the range is too close. The player with the Rifleman squad, however, will want to close in to that opponent squad as much as possible.
If I am the German player, upon seeing a Rifleman squad, I would immediately back away, luring the opponent into traversing an open terrain, where damage inflicted is multiplied. That's because I anticipate that a Rifleman squad will want to close in to my squad. Thus I can get the enemy out of position and win that fight. Now, a good American player will correctly guess this luring move. In a way, he will anticipate the German's anticipation. In seeing a Volksgrenedier squad backing off, he may not chase that squad, because he anticipates the German's move. Thus he will choose to back off, Riflemen are poorer fighting at a distance anyway.
Here's another example. A Machine Gunner can easily win a fight against any of those squads - if the machine gunner is set up in the right position (it has a 140 degree firing arc). If I opt to build a Machine Gunner as my first unit (and not the respective basic infrantry squad listed earlier), I must correctly anticipate the direction of the enemy's first unit. If not, the Gunner will lose. A smart opponent will out-anticipate me by sending his first unit down a different path than what I anticipate, so that he can get my Machine Gunner from the rear or sides.
If he doesn't, and his unit gets caught in my unit's line of fire, he has to retreat that unit - resulting in precious time lost as he has to move his unit up again for map control (to gain resources). Now, here's where he gets his second unit (and I will have a second unit too). At this point he knows the position of my Machine Gunner. So he can use his two units to flank my Gunner. But a competent player will anticipate that move, and reposition his Machine Gunner to a different spot, so that he can't be flanked. (He may move his Gunner up closer to the enemy's base, for example, so that both of the enemy's units coming out from his base meets the firing arc). The competent opponent would anticipate this move, so he may choose to lead his two units down a different path. And so on it goes. Through moves that anticipate the enemy's moves correctly, one can outsmart the opponent from move 1 to victory, leaving the opponent no breathing space at all times.
Now, there's no such anticipation in Starcraft 2. (There is the usual kind of anticipation: an opponent is Zerg, so he will either build AAA or BBB) It's hard to pinpoint why exactly, but I think the lack of unit variety and terrain factors figures. The way units are so easily destroyed also takes away the potential for the kind of tactical positioning and countering described above.
I spent $3 on the game. Yes, if you haven't realised, Starcraft 2 has a prepaid option where you buy cards from 7-11 stores. There's a $3 for 7 days card. And then you can download the Starcraft 2 game for free. If you're the kind of player who only plays campaigns, then you can easily finish the game for $3. It's a nice option to have. And it probably makes sense on the company's part too, because earning $3 is better than earning $0. There's also the possibility that a person may spend $3 to try it out for 7 days, and then buy the full game for $100.
5. I'm quite happy there's now a 24-hour coffeeshop 500m from my home. And they have prata too. Well, technically there was: just that the stalls in it weren't open in the night. They've introduced some new stalls recently, so hopefully that means it will now really be a 24-hour coffeeshop. I asked the stall owners, and they said yes they will be open 24 hours. I'm not so confident the volume of business they get will make this situation a lasting one though.
6. Skippy Dies is an excellent book. So excellent that after borrowing it from the library I got to buy it. I will mention it again in the future.
7. I was in a queue to top up my EZlink card. The girl in front of me was taking a long time to get her business in order; she was inserting and reinserting coins and pressing and repressing buttons. I was quite annoyed and tried to make it known that I was quite annoyed. When it came to my turn, I took a very long time too, because the machine wouldn't read my NETS card, and I reinserted it several times, having to wait for 30 seconds for the message to reaffirm my belief that the machine isn't reading my card each time. I found this ironic and funny and laughed silently to myself, because I can just imagine the frustration the person behind me must be feeling, having two people in front of her who had to take such a long time at the machine. Of course, I almost immediately imagined what she would be feeling at someone in front of her who was laughing to himself, and that made me laugh even more.
He first said sorry. And then he commended me for being frank. And then he said something about us starting on the wrong foot. After a brief conversation in which he tried to maneuver me to start on the other foot, he said thank you again, for conveying my criticisms face-to-face. To which I enquired if anybody had done that before, after 3.5 years in school. He said no. He said people would usually talk behind his back, but never once face-to-face. To which I was quite surprised, because this fellow has a very pervasive presence, one that I think cannot be safely ignored.
(What, too, is the world coming to: people are too polite or unhelpful or tolerant to give constructive criticism)
We talked a bit and after a while I tried to soften my stance. I pointed out an instance where he made a good contribution and said if you would say things like that I wouldn't mind him speaking up in class. It is often the case that we are harsh towards people we don't interact with. Once we get to know them better, we find that they're not all that irritating after all.
Next task: this group of 3 girls who are constantly whispering during lecture. Why don't I relocate? The room's not big enough; the problem will still persist. It's likely they would be apologetic because they genuinely don't think they're being a royal nuisance.
2. You may have heard of the analytic-continental divide in philosophy. A recent philosophy tutorial showed how different people in philosophy can be, a student fervantly explaining and defending some view that has some roots in the continental tradition, to the puzzlement of some others. I say puzzlement, not disagreement, because after ten minutes most students (and the tutor) were still trying to figure out what exactly he was advancing.
I fear I may be saying something immature here, but I have the feeling people on either side of the divide have radically different mindsets. All disagreement can be traced to this purported fact, as well as all puzzlement. A contintental person may give a comprehensive account of what being-in-the-world means, and the analytic person may still not have a good intuitive grasp of what's that, even if she can grasp it via some other means. It's kind of like the person who is blind but is hooked up to a machine that can translate light waves into sensations on the skin. Such a person may still be able to correctly identify colors, but we may think he doesn't have an intuitive, or direct, grasp of what colors are. Only thing here is that in the case of the divide, there's no saying who's the blind one, if any.
3. I went to attend a singalong session of Chinese evergreens last weekend. It was held at the Esplanade's outdoor theatre. Mostly middle aged and old people were there. Heartening to see the some young people and foreigners as well who stayed through one whole session.
Old classics have this feel to them that one cannot accurately describe, except to classify songs that have this feel as evergreen classics. Some songs played by the live band (the mic was passed to members of the audience) were this, this and this. Seeing how the older generation sang to songs of their time, I am reminded of something indescribable this generation has lost.
4. I tried Starcraft 2 and I have to say I don't fancy the game. People will think it is a strategy game, but if it is, it's a very poor one: the game places too much emphasis on reaction speed and the dexterity of one's fingers. Units are very easily killed and battles are frequently over in 3 blinks of the eye.
This is not to say there are no strategic elements in the game. There are. There is the usual unit -counter thing going on. There is a tradeoff between an early rush and teching up. If you spend resources on early military units, you spend less on resource-gathering activity, which means you may lose out in the later part of the game if your rush didn't cripple the opponent enough. But all this is, in my opinion, undermined by the emphasis on reaction speed. It favors the player who is slightly weaker in tactical thinking but significantly better at managing all his units at battle and pressing hotkeys to produce even more units, than the player who is worse in that aspect but significantly stronger in tactical thinking.
Let me digress a bit to anticipation, a concept I quite like in games. We see this in Company of Heroes, one of my favorite all-time strategy game. In that game, a starting unit a player playing the American faction can recruit is the Rifleman squad: good in close range but poor at long range. A starting unit a player playing the German faction can recruit is the Volksgrenedier squad: poorer in close range combat but better at a long-range fight than the Rifleman squad. Now, what happens when these 2 units meet in the opening stages of a match? A good player with the Volksgrenedier squad will choose to disengage from the Rifleman squad if the range is too close. The player with the Rifleman squad, however, will want to close in to that opponent squad as much as possible.
If I am the German player, upon seeing a Rifleman squad, I would immediately back away, luring the opponent into traversing an open terrain, where damage inflicted is multiplied. That's because I anticipate that a Rifleman squad will want to close in to my squad. Thus I can get the enemy out of position and win that fight. Now, a good American player will correctly guess this luring move. In a way, he will anticipate the German's anticipation. In seeing a Volksgrenedier squad backing off, he may not chase that squad, because he anticipates the German's move. Thus he will choose to back off, Riflemen are poorer fighting at a distance anyway.
Here's another example. A Machine Gunner can easily win a fight against any of those squads - if the machine gunner is set up in the right position (it has a 140 degree firing arc). If I opt to build a Machine Gunner as my first unit (and not the respective basic infrantry squad listed earlier), I must correctly anticipate the direction of the enemy's first unit. If not, the Gunner will lose. A smart opponent will out-anticipate me by sending his first unit down a different path than what I anticipate, so that he can get my Machine Gunner from the rear or sides.
If he doesn't, and his unit gets caught in my unit's line of fire, he has to retreat that unit - resulting in precious time lost as he has to move his unit up again for map control (to gain resources). Now, here's where he gets his second unit (and I will have a second unit too). At this point he knows the position of my Machine Gunner. So he can use his two units to flank my Gunner. But a competent player will anticipate that move, and reposition his Machine Gunner to a different spot, so that he can't be flanked. (He may move his Gunner up closer to the enemy's base, for example, so that both of the enemy's units coming out from his base meets the firing arc). The competent opponent would anticipate this move, so he may choose to lead his two units down a different path. And so on it goes. Through moves that anticipate the enemy's moves correctly, one can outsmart the opponent from move 1 to victory, leaving the opponent no breathing space at all times.
Now, there's no such anticipation in Starcraft 2. (There is the usual kind of anticipation: an opponent is Zerg, so he will either build AAA or BBB) It's hard to pinpoint why exactly, but I think the lack of unit variety and terrain factors figures. The way units are so easily destroyed also takes away the potential for the kind of tactical positioning and countering described above.
I spent $3 on the game. Yes, if you haven't realised, Starcraft 2 has a prepaid option where you buy cards from 7-11 stores. There's a $3 for 7 days card. And then you can download the Starcraft 2 game for free. If you're the kind of player who only plays campaigns, then you can easily finish the game for $3. It's a nice option to have. And it probably makes sense on the company's part too, because earning $3 is better than earning $0. There's also the possibility that a person may spend $3 to try it out for 7 days, and then buy the full game for $100.
5. I'm quite happy there's now a 24-hour coffeeshop 500m from my home. And they have prata too. Well, technically there was: just that the stalls in it weren't open in the night. They've introduced some new stalls recently, so hopefully that means it will now really be a 24-hour coffeeshop. I asked the stall owners, and they said yes they will be open 24 hours. I'm not so confident the volume of business they get will make this situation a lasting one though.
6. Skippy Dies is an excellent book. So excellent that after borrowing it from the library I got to buy it. I will mention it again in the future.
7. I was in a queue to top up my EZlink card. The girl in front of me was taking a long time to get her business in order; she was inserting and reinserting coins and pressing and repressing buttons. I was quite annoyed and tried to make it known that I was quite annoyed. When it came to my turn, I took a very long time too, because the machine wouldn't read my NETS card, and I reinserted it several times, having to wait for 30 seconds for the message to reaffirm my belief that the machine isn't reading my card each time. I found this ironic and funny and laughed silently to myself, because I can just imagine the frustration the person behind me must be feeling, having two people in front of her who had to take such a long time at the machine. Of course, I almost immediately imagined what she would be feeling at someone in front of her who was laughing to himself, and that made me laugh even more.
3 Comments:
Hm...makes me miss COH.
Aquila
Do you think they would have patched it up properly by now?
Later log in 4 users.
Aquila
Post a Comment
<< Home