Seven days with a (any) phone, day two

Day two, raining,

Hmmm, I started to notice some inconveniences of not having a phone:

  • I can’t check train and bus schedule with google map on the way. (but I can check it on computer before heading out!)
  • I can’t take pictures and videos when something interesting happen (no, I won’t carry a camera around! but normally things happen faster than I can grab my phone and swipe open the camera app, so not a big loss.)
  • I can’t multitask, mainly can’t eat and read at the same time. But maybe this is good for my stomach, and I looked at the beautiful ladies on the nearby table a few more times.
  • The coming weekend we are going to Long Island, I might have to turn on my phone for the GPS. I would love to try to find the place by my instance, but my wife might not approve that…

I thought that there were a few more instances that I missed the function of smart phone, but I can’t recall them now when I start writing. Maybe after all they are not that important to me.

Well, of course people started to complaint that they can’t find me. But that’s not a bad thing :p

I do from time to time have the itches of wondering what’s going on on my wechat and whether I missed some message from beautiful girls. 但瘾越大,说明中毒越深,要戒。

这也证明了behavior engineering的威力。



Seven days without a (any) phone, day one

Day one, cloudy,

(12/??, the first thing I noticed is that when I start writing this dairy on subway, I have completely no clue what date it is today!! and what time it is now!! The biggest function of a half kilo dollar full-loaded electronic device is to replace a time piece…)

The clock in the living room happened to run out of battery in the midnight. 秒针在27分的位置上无助的摆动但没有足够的动能跳到下一格,短针停在3和4之间。


路上不能查email和微信,不知道老板是否发了什么指示,也不能和小情人(们)打情骂俏,连歌也不能听,有点boring. I thought that I would have started noticing the beautiful color of sky, or hearing the singing of the birds. But sorry, that kind of piffany only happens in the movie.

I read Andreev Reflection in Strong Magnetic Fields when I was waiting on the platform instead of playing 植物大战僵尸2. But the absent of phone hasn’t helped to sink my mind into the equations, yet. So I start writing down this. Now is time to change train and re-start the reading. Just to clear all the thoughts keeping overflowing out of my head, today’s plan is:

  1. Finish reading this paper.
  2. Leak test the recovery line (I should probably teach the new student to do it). Then fix all the leaking joints.
  3. Setup the Labview and teach the student the basis, so that he can write drivers for the new Zurich lockin during the weekend.
  4. Call (but I don’t have a phone!!) McMaster-Carr to figure out the components for the bed.

Continue reading

a Saturday morning reflection

A few year back, a friend opened an art gallery for about half an year. It didn’t prevail. This morning it came across to my mind. As a witness to history, I can see several more things now from what I learnt between now and then.

The focus has been placed around art rather than on art. The idea emerged as “seeing a trend coming”. The store is located in a upraising neighborhood. There are many art galleries opened around the area. So the hope was that they will attract tourists and buyers to the area. This concept has no problem. But the core competition with this approach will be laying on the quality of the art work acquired and the salesmanship. Because the purpose behind this concept is hoping to “sell”, rather than “promoting” art. So without external fund support, the high burning rate eventually killed the operation.

What could have been done differently?

1. Getting the store front vs not getting it. Getting the store front actually is some how the starting point. It provided an anchor. It provided credibility up to a certain level. But the cost is a higher burning rate, which later on became a burden. (The friend also invested quite some money to renovate the space. This can be argued as an unappreciated action in The Lean Startup model.)

2. Getting customers vs getting artists. This is a chicken and egg problem. With the store front, indeed the two sides meet. But they didn’t trade. The tone of the operation had been set on “waiting”, because it is believed that selling art is not selling life-insurance. So you shouldn’t up sell your customers.

3. Didn’t obey the first dollar rule. As mentioned before, some resources has been allocated on non-essential tasks. (Or said the decision has been made without marketing research or market validation.) For example, the renovation. The most essential question, how to make the first dollar, has been procrastinated.

All these are after thoughts. Basing on the expertise and knowledge of the group at that time, I don’t know how we could have done better at that point. So, the biggest lesson might be: don’t enter a business in which you (and also important, your friends) are not the expert. If you want to start a business, start it around your core competence.

law and moral standards are set against personal interests by definition

Law, moral standards and etc. are all set for public welfare (either for human species or a subgroup). They will go against certain group of people’s personal interests by definition. Because if it is to your benefit, you would do that automatically. For example, we can, but we don’t need to set a law saying that people should go eat when they feel hungry. But we set a law saying that you CANNOT eat someone else’s food without their permission. In a plain language: there’s no need to regulate people to do something people would do anyway.

This, leads to an interesting question — marriage. With above being said, it implies that getting married and obey the vow and comply with the law is going against your personal interest. But, most people get married anyway. The society approve these people because it is for the good of the entity human society – you reproduce the offspring and you educate them for the society and etc – you do your duty, good. On the same time, this is also a main reason for the singles who passed their “should get married age” and LGBT people to bear social pressure, because they put freedom or love or some other reason – something that can be argued as more personal interest, above their “making offspring duty”.

Notice here, for married people who have affairs, they got blamed not because they are not allowed to pursuit love or happiness or whatever. They received criticism because they failed to comply to another rule: the society expect you to do what you said you would do, obey your vow and be responsible. If you manage to make your wife happy and your children well educated, in principal, you should get treated as “who cares what you do after hours?” However, that’s not the case, the society still can’t give you approval even you are super rich and so on. Why? Still because of public welfare, there are some stupid people who don’t have the money/time/energy to take care of multiple wives or husbands, but still want to f*ck around. If the society publicly gives green light to some people but not others, there will be an uproar.

When you read to here, are you thinking it is unfair? Well, in other situations, the protocol for handling this kind of situation is to make tiers and differentiation. For example, in paying salary, you get paid more if you work harder (in principal). So why this is not happening here? Well, my guess is that there are too many reasons people are reluctant to bring up this issue to a level that requires a change (People just talk, it will take a lot of courage for someone to lead such a reform movement. So bottom-up is hard.), and the law makers doesn’t think this is a big enough problem because they charge fees on both getting married and getting divorce (No top-down motivations).

Do you think this is the underlying reason for “Marriage is the tomb of love“? With the divorce rate rockets up, does it come to a time for the society to rethink about marriage and change the regulation?

Share your opinion.

Twitter Updates

%d bloggers like this: