StepTb blog

Black Coffee Blues

  • Archivio

  • Categorie

  • Best albums

  • Best films

Stuff Seen, Jul+Aug+Sep 2018

Posted by StepTb su ottobre 6, 2018

Mei ren yu / The Mermaid (Stephen Chow, 2016) [6.5]
Ah-ga-ssi / The Handmaiden (Chan-wook Park, 2016) [5] [the high ratings for this absolutely average movie are incomprehensible]
Ex Machina (Alex Garland, 2014) [7]
Merchants of Doubt (Robert Kenner, 2014) [7]
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (Alex Gibney, 2005) [7.5]
Whiplash (Damien Chazelle, 2014) [8]
Dirty Money, s1 ep6, “The Confidence Man” (Fisher Stevens, 2018) [7]
Billions, s1 ep1 (Neil Burger, 2016) [6.5]
Zero Days (Alex Gibney, 2016) [7.5]
American Gods, s1 ep1 (David Slade, 2017) [6]
The Science of Interstellar (Gail Willumsen, 2015) [6.5]
Sedmikrásky (Vera Chytilová, 1966) [7]
Valerie a týden divu (Jaromil Jires, 1970) [8]
Le départ (Jerzy Skolimowski, 1967) [6.5]
Performance (Donald Cammell, Nicolas Roeg, 1970) [6.5]
Don’t Look Now (Nicolas Roeg, 1973) [7]
La double vie de Véronique (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1991) [8.5]
Trois couleurs: Bleu (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1993) [8]
Trois couleurs: Blanc (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1994) [8]
Trois couleurs: Rouge (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1994) [8.5]
Les fantômes du chapelier (Claude Chabrol, 1982) [6.5]
Merci pour le chocolat (Claude Chabrol, 2000) [6.5]
Black Widow (Bob Rafelson, 1987) [6.5]
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, 2014) [6.5]
The Man Who Discovered Capitalism (Detlef Siebert, 2016) [6.5]
Mindhunter, s1 ep1 (David Fincher, 2017) [6.5]
Mindhunter, s1 ep2 (David Fincher, 2017) [6.5]
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (Alejandro G. Iñárritu, 2014) [6]
Hell on Wheels, s1 ep1 (David Von Ancken, 2011) [7]
(М)ученик / The Student (Kirill Serebrennikov, 2016) [6]
Nelyubov / Loveless (Andrei Zvyagintsev, 2017) [6]


Posted in logs, video | Leave a Comment »

Why do most Croatians have their name ending with “Ch” (pronunciation)?

Posted by StepTb su ottobre 6, 2018

It’s one of the variations of a patronymic.

Slavic name suffixes – Wikipedia

“Many, if not most, Slavic last names are formed by adding possessive and other suffixes to given names and other words. Most Slavic surnames have suffixes which are found in varying degrees over the different nations.”

-ić -vić -ović -ič -vič -ovič -ich, -vich, -vych, -ovich, -owicz/-ewicz: Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Republic of Macedonia (rare), occasionally Bulgaria. Yugoslav ex.: Petrović, means Petar’s son. In Russia, where patronyms are used, a person may have two -(ov)ich names in a row; first the patronym, then the family name (see Shostakovich).”

For example, my surname literally means “Stephen’s Son”.

When you encounter a Slavic surname ending with -ch, it usually means it comes from territories where the main transliteration used was the Latin one, and it has remained written down that way since then.
You can typically find the same exact surname spelled with -ć, and it just means it was either originally written down with the “Slavic” spelling, or changed to it at some point.
Just like you can find it ending with -c, which is nothing more than the previous spelling “made easy” by losing the accent.

Originally, this type of surnames comes from the early Middle Ages. This can be called a Proto-Balto-Slavic “common” era, when Croats were also known as “Veneti/Veneði/Venethi/Venedi”.
The original ethno-linguistic group of the “Veneti” was from the Vistula region (south-eastern Poland and western Ukraine).

Balto-Slavic languages – Wikipedia
Vistula Veneti – Wikipedia

“The term [Vistula Veneti] has been used in modern times to distinguish the Veneti (as noted by Roman and Greek geographers), who lived on the Central European plains, from the Germanic and Sarmatian tribes around them, and other Veneti tribes elsewhere, such as the Adriatic Veneti (modern-day Veneto), the Veneti of Armorica, and the Paphlagonian Veneti (modern-day Paphlagonia).”

Lots of people in modern Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Northeast Italy, etc. share this common Proto-Balto-Slavic root, and the long development process of their current languages has created a richness of variations of the same common basics.

The suffix -ch was written down this way when using the Latin alphabet.
The same exact sound becomes -ć with the split from Proto-Indo-European that gives birth to the Proto-Slavic common language, and goes then through many developments in the following centuries, creating the various modern Slavic languages.
The development and standardization of modern Croatian starts much later (17th century) after that first split, and doesn’t end until after Croatia’s independence from Yugoslavia.
From the same root/organizational system comes the Polish -cz (-vich becoming -wicz, -ich becoming -icz).

Thus you can find dozens of surnames that are just written in the same way they were written down back in the Middle Ages (-ch, -c or -ć, depending on the spelling used in their relative area). Others have been changed with subsequent wars and shifts of power. For example, it’s common in an area like Northeast Italy-Istria-Dalmatia (where the same territory has been under Venice, the Habsburgs, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and then Italy/Slovenia/Croatia) to find people from the same exact family who have changed from -ch to -ć, and/or vice versa from -ć back to -ch, depending on what was the last dominant language. Once Yugoslavia was formed, the surnames in -ch were made homogeneous to the already existing ones ending in -ć, while people from the same family who remained, say, in Trieste, kept the -ch. The surname and the sound are exactly the same, but they match the historical and/or dominant spelling forms of the relative area.

These spelling variations are quite common in all Slavic names and surnames (the most obvious cases being of course the transliterations in Latin from the languages that use Cyrillic).

Posted in food for thought | Leave a Comment »

Do many people applying to Data scientist positions end up either unemployed or in other positions because of the intense competition for most data scientist positions?

Posted by StepTb su ottobre 6, 2018

If you’re good at automating stuff via programming you’re never going to be unemployed.
Economic growth nowadays comes in large part from increasing productivity, which is done by automating.

If you’re good at analyzing and interpreting data, same thing.
Data is the equivalent of oil in the digital economy.

What you’re probably referring to is a specific type of position that matches the classic description of what a DS does that you can find posted online everywhere.
Well, the problem with that type of role is not exactly the competition. You’re going to find it difficult to get a position like that even if your skill set is perfectly aligned. The problem is that the companies owning very large data sets that also have a specific strategy about how to leverage them are still a low number, and for the moment are either American or Chinese.
You need to get hired by one of those companies in order to get the experience needed to reach the type of DS role you have in mind and articles on the interwebz love to talk about.

But why obsess over that when the same skills can get you so many easily accessible alternatives?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Why is becoming a data scientist so difficult?

Posted by StepTb su ottobre 6, 2018

It’s like asking why is becoming [any other high-level profession] difficult. DS is not an entry-level position, and I’m constantly surprised by how many here on Quora or elsewhere seem to think it is.

Let’s leave the theory alone, since the typical answer focuses on that.

The real mountain to climb is not learning theory, which is the starting point and can be done on your own, but developing as an applied programmer + developing a domain knowledge. Having all three is the only way to reach a DS position, because otherwise you’re not going to be useful there. You’ll just sit on a mountain of data and stare into the abyss, but that’s what the folks who accumulated that data are already doing, and they don’t need you for that.

For the first part, there’s no shortcut – you just have to practice constantly and challenge yourself with progressively complex issues to solve *in a real setting*. When you come out of academia you have no clue about this. And you won’t be able to do it in your room. You’ll need a work environment where you’ll be given real datasets and you’ll deal with real problems you’re expected to solve. This way you’ll be able to develop an eye for practical solutions.

For the second part, forget about shortcuts either. Developing domain knowledge is fundamental to understand what questions need to be asked, and the only way to reach that point of awareness is to work in a specific field and understand where exactly the well-known issues typically are, where the possible points of optimization are, and what ideas are actually still unexplored (and not new and cool in your head, but old news outside of it).

Previous points can take easily 10 years of work experience, and, even if there’s a fast progression in challenges and complexity, 5 years bare minimum.

Finding a place where that progression happens and you’re finally able to reach the point of being useful in DS is what’s really difficult.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

A person loves to socialize, but is too shy for that. Is s/he an introvert or an extrovert?

Posted by StepTb su luglio 6, 2018

One of the most common misconceptions people who have never studied psychology have.

Shyness is social inhibition. It has nothing to do with I/E personality preferences. In fact, when you break personality down using the Big5, shyness is related to the trait Neuroticism, not Introversion. Because it’s Neuroticism (feeling negative emotions strongly), and especially its facet Withdrawal (which is the one containing the subfacets of Anxiety, Self-consciousness and Vulnerability), that triggers the social inhibition mechanism.

If you feel a strong desire to be social and gregarious, but you can’t because you’re shy (=inhibited), you’re more likely to be an extravert.
Not all extraverts are born with superb social skills. But they’re better and faster at learning them because they value them much more in relation to their personal goals. Also, many of them are born with both high extraversion and high neuroticism, which causes mixed effects. Finally, even among the extraverts who are actually born with good social skills and are not naturally high in neuroticism, many are then repressed by environmental factors.

A good read: The H Factor of Personality

Posted in books, food for thought | Leave a Comment »

What’s something wealthy people know that normal people should know?

Posted by StepTb su luglio 6, 2018

Basically, everything listed in The Millionaire Next Door, a mythbusting research into the actual habits of actual American millionaires.
All “normal” people should just buy it and read it – even if I’m quite sure that, no matter how many times they read it, most will not put those things into practice.

Three points in my opinion especially stand out:
1) Millionaires not only have a different view of money, time and wealth, but also marry people who have those same views; in fact, the wives of the researched male millionaires were often even more strategic and thrifty than them
2) Their kids don’t grow up spoiled, and are economically self-sufficient the moment they become adults; millionaires are driven by the idea of passing down their wealth, therefore they’ll give the next generation the necessary knowledge and tools to learn its value, manage it well, and avoid burning it
3) They couldn’t care less about playing the consumerism game, wasting their resources (including time) just to display high social status (hence the book’s title); that path makes you more dependent, not less

Most people don’t care about becoming millionaires, but most people care about being financially stable. Thus, applying the book’s principles just partially would already be enough… but too many don’t (and won’t) even do that.

Posted in books, food for thought, generic stuff | Leave a Comment »

Stuff Seen, Apr+May+Jun 2018

Posted by StepTb su luglio 6, 2018

Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980) [8.5]
The Matrix (Wachowski & Wachowski, 1999) [7.5]
Mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017) [7]
Roman Holiday (William Wyler, 1953) [7.5]
The Brown Bunny (Vincent Gallo, 2003) [7.5]
While We’re Young (Noah Baumbach, 2014) [7]
Hell or High Water (David Mackenzie, 2016) [7]
Wind River (Taylor Sheridan, 2017) [7]
Breakfast at Tiffany’s (Blake Edwards, 1961) [7]
Silicon Valley, s2 ep. 1-10 (Mike Judge & Alec Berg, 2015) [7]

Posted in logs, video | Leave a Comment »

What are some other good books I might enjoy if I loved “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman?

Posted by StepTb su giugno 22, 2018

Shorter, lighter reads: Predictably Irrational (revised)Free Market MadnessFreakonomics, and The Myth of the Rational Voter

Real-world applications, in organizations and public policy: NudgeExamples from Singapore, and Wiser

Applications to finance and investing: Beyond Greed and Fear, and Irrational Exhuberance

Less “pop” and more advanced, regarding decision-making: Rational Choice in an Uncertain World

On decision-making and counterintuition, but more pop: More Than You Know, and Think Twice

On political and religious tribalism: The Righteous Mind, and Going to Extremes

Historical perspective on how the field has evolved: Misbehaving


Related, on status-seeking and the human quest for personal satisfaction: Choosing the Right Pond

Related, on analysts and forecasters: Superforecasting

Related, a different perspective: Gut Feelings

Related, a biological approach: Behave (this one is comparable in size, scope and ambition as well)

Related, on human cooperation: The Evolution of Cooperation

Related, on decision-making using insights from Neuroscience, Economics and Psychology (academic/legit, not pop): Neuroeconomics

Posted in books, food for thought | Leave a Comment »

What is your review of Thinking, Fast And Slow (book)?

Posted by StepTb su giugno 22, 2018

If we were to organize a top10 of the greatest non-fiction books of 2000–2020, I think Thinking, Fast and Slow should make it.

The book was published in 2011, but it’s already a classic, and has dramatically changed the debate in anything related to the social sciences.

It summarizes some of the most interesting insights from the last 50 years of research in cognitive and social psychology, and it makes self-evident how large their effects can be on other fields like economics and politics.

With one exception: the chapter on priming. I’m actually surprised Kahneman included that one, since in 2011 the ground the theory was resting on was already shaky.
Danny himself wrote an open letter about this and related issues just one year later, and confirmed including priming was a mistake in 2017.
Priming is still being cited and used by a large amount of people doing bad science and trying to become famous “pop psychology” figures, “influencers”, marketers, or politically influential activists by pumping up studies that are badly designed and/or failed to replicate. This is why it’s important to underline the mistake and instead make it clear that it’s not-reproducible pseudoscience. See hereherehere and here.
Even the very example made famous by the book, the “watching eye effect”, failed to replicate recently.

Conclusion: it’s a must-read, but skip the chapter on priming.

Posted in books, food for thought | Leave a Comment »

If the Stanford prison experiment was fake, does it mean its findings are fake as well?

Posted by StepTb su giugno 22, 2018


Like many have already noted, in psychology it was widely known that the SPE was badly designed as an experiment – and its conclusions were not just unreliable, but it was unclear in any case what they even were.

But what in the popular culture are thought of being the SPE’s conclusions, are in fact the conclusions of the Milgram Experiment and its variations. Which have been successfully replicated.

Add to those Sheridan & King, and the Asch conformity experiment plus its variations, which all tap into very overlapping mechanisms and have been replicated as well.

Posted in food for thought, news | Leave a Comment »

What is the fastest declining religion?

Posted by StepTb su giugno 22, 2018

At any point in history, any religion with the highest growth in incomes and wealth for its members will be the fastest declining one as well.

This is due to the combined effect of these trends:

  1. Religiosity is both heritable and strongly related to fertility.
  2. Wealth and income are negatively related to fertility.
  3. Religiosity is negatively related to urbanization.

Posted in food for thought | Leave a Comment »

Which Eastern European countries have the best chances of surpassing Western European countries? (by economic development)

Posted by StepTb su giugno 16, 2018

In terms of GDP per capita, the best positioned is Estonia.

The country has, for now, made all the best possible choices it could have made regarding economic reforms and digitalization of the public and private sector, has a good education system, very low levels of crime, a lean and fast bureaucracy, a sustainable <8% pensions/GDP ratio, a healthy financial sector, citizens with a strong civic sense, and a culture that firmly and instinctively rejects bad populist (both leftist and conservative) policies disguised as “socially good”.

Tallinn is already the biggest innovative ecosystem in Eastern Europe in terms of investments volume and ROI on startups.
They really want you to bring money and businesses there, and have made things as attractive as they could from a bureaucratic and fiscal point of view.

The crucial problem Estonia faces is a dramatic brain drain – young professionals get a good education and formation, but then escape to some other place in Western Europe where the climate is less cold and salaries are high, no matter how smart and effective their own government is.

Other possible issues: geographic location, and small territorial size (but in an advanced digital economy, they can be both at least partially neutralized).

Give it time, though.
We’ve already had two examples of countries following similar patterns and strategies: Singapore and Israel. Look at where they both are now.
Also, many Western European countries seem to struggle quite a bit with heavy debt, aging population, absurd bureaucracy, and are not at the point where they should be in terms of digitalizing the economy and creating innovative ecosystems. The political direction is controlled by baby boomers, and they’re systematically averse to any possible loss of privileges and any status quo change. The majority of the wealth is in their hands, and is not getting invested where it should. The political currents on the rise are infected by far right and far left populists talking about rubbish instead of sound, rational reforms.

Estonia either didn’t start with or already solved those problems when it was time to first rebuild itself fast after 1991, and then to push itself hard to join the EU in 2004. They won’t likely face anything similar in the next decades, and they’re small, flexible and rational enough to potentially become an Eastern Europe’s equivalent of Singapore. Time will tell…

Posted in food for thought, generic stuff | Leave a Comment »

What does the Hungarian language sound like to those who don’t speak it?

Posted by StepTb su giugno 16, 2018

I lived in Budapest for 4 months.

I’m a native Italian, but quite accustomed to listening to Slavic languages, especially Croatian and Slovenian, and with of course an obvious exposure to Germanic languages as well as other Romance languages.

The first big thing I noticed was how it didn’t sound Slavic at all, and it didn’t have any of the typical Slavic sounds. Ditto for Germanic. Almost all Slavic (with, for me, the interesting exception of Russian, which I find quite “polished” and musical compared to the others) and Germanic (yes, even English, at least in part) languages can sound quite harsh and “angular” when you come from a Romance language – while Hungarian doesn’t. The sounds are softer and the words and sentences have a better flow, more fluid.

The second, surprising one, was that it didn’t seem like it had an accent. Not only that, but it sounded more “natural” and similar to what I’d recognize as an Italian speaking. The bizarre sensation was to feel like people could have easily switched and talked to me in Italian from one moment to the next if they wanted. That’s probably because of the ancient connection to Finnish, which is oddly similar in phonetics and pronunciation to Italian.
Written Hungarian doesn’t look like anything else (you can just find some similarities with Finnish, Estonian and Turkish, but it’s a stretch), so you have to start decoding it from absolute zero, and this created the very weird contrast of listening to familiar sounds, which thus sounded easy to the ear, that at the same time looked impossibly alien once seen in their written form.

Finally, Hungarians sounded to me like having a quite “steady” way of speaking, with little swings or peaks in any direction. And, when someone had a more different tone than the average, it almost always was on the soft-spoken side of the spectrum. I never heard anyone shouting, and rarely someone even being just loud (then again, my benchmark is Italians, so I’m sure many Northern and Eastern Europeans will disagree). This also contributes to the way you process what you hear.

Posted in generic stuff | Leave a Comment »

What’s a better personality indicator test than the MBTI?

Posted by StepTb su giugno 5, 2018

The MBTI has four main problems:
1. The black-and-white dichothomy, which is enough to make it unscientific: a person scoring 49% on Extraversion will be classified as Introverted, and more similar to someone scoring 5%, while instead being basically identical to an Extravert who scored 51%.
2. The cognitive functions theory; this is absolute pseudoscience with no empiricism behind it whatsoever. But you can choose to ignore that whole part, like many do, and only read the result as a 4-dimension measure – that approach will actually lead to more accurate insights.
3. There is an industry behind it, that is interested in pushing it and promote it to make money.
4. The whole F/T dimension is bogus. First of all, it’s been proven by science that all our choices and decisions derive first from an emotional impulse, and there’s a process of rationalization after it that works to justify the impulse (this is why the scientific method is hard – you have to train yourself to go against human nature – and necessitates of peer reviews and communities). Which means that we’re all actually “F”. Second, the work of Kahneman and Tversky on the difference between intelligence and rationality is quite brilliant, and it would make sense to have a dimension for that, but that’s *not* what F/T measures, even if most of the people who score T will tell you otherwise to feel superior (while in reality a person scoring high in T can be completely irrational). Third, we now know (from research with the Big5 model) that feeling often/strongly positive emotions is associated with Extraversion, and feeling often/strongly negative emotions with Neuroticism. Thus, those two Big5 dimensions actually capture much better (and they do it twice more precisely, by separating them) what’s *really* going on in the F/T dimension. So you have “super feelers” (high E + high N) as well as “super stoics” (low E + low N), plus all the other possible combinations in the middle.

The Big5 solves 1 and 4, doesn’t have 2 and 3, and at the same time doesn’t sacrifice any of the “good” parts, because S/N gets captured by Openness, J/P by Conscientiousness, and E/I remains the same.
On the other hand, it has the annoying issue that the 5 dimensions were named with an obvious implicit value judgment. For example, why call it Agreeable/Disagreeable instead of Non-Confrontational/Confrontational? The name choice is clearly biased and quite irksome. But still, the scientific value of the test is definitely higher than MBTI’s.

Also, Kibeom Lee and Michael C. Ashton expanded the Big5 model with an additional dimension, H, which measures Honesty-Humility.
The only problem is they also rebranded Neuroticism as Emotionality, which is misleading.
With the additional H dimension, it’s also possible to identify narcissistic (low H, high E) and psychopathic (low H, low C, low N) tendencies.
One of their most interesting/useful findings is that high Agreeableness doesn’t actually predict high Honesty-Humility, which makes high A + low H people particularly deceitful and dangerous, since the high A works like a social mask hiding the low H.
I strongly recommend reading their book The H Factor of Personality for a breakdown of all the 6 dimensions and the research behind them.

Posted in books, food for thought | Leave a Comment »

How can Peter Thiel reconcile his libertarianism with mimetic theory?

Posted by StepTb su maggio 29, 2018

It seems quite straightforward to me.

Girard’s position on Christianity derives from the fact that the more you emphasize the innocence of the scapegoat, the more difficult it becomes for people to fall into the trap of scapegoating.
So the Gospels were an especially important milestone in human cultural history because of their role in the unmasking of the mechanism.

In the very same fashion, the more you emphasize the uniqueness and centrality of the individual, the more difficult it becomes for people to fall into the trap of mimetic desire.
So probably Thiel thinks libertarianism is the best we currently have in politics to reach the goal of independent thought and differentiation at the individual level, in stark contrast to the nature of the dominant political currents, which instead seem to encourage and exploit various shades of mimesis and scapegoating.

Of course, this is also tied to a problem already noted by Girard himself, especially in Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World: mimesis could very well be this powerful because it’s the easiest way to escape the problem of meaninglessness. So is it really feasible to someday reach a society that avoids it on a mass scale?

Some more Girard-inspired reflections on modern politics can be found in Psychopolitics, which expands on the observation that scapegoating doesn’t work as well anymore and therefore ‘traditional’ politics and its electorate are facing a crisis.

Posted in books, food for thought | Leave a Comment »

Which is the most liberal European country in terms of culture?

Posted by StepTb su maggio 25, 2018

With liberalism defined as the maximization of both personal/social and economic freedom:

It ranks as world’s #1 in:
– Cato’s Index of Personal and Economic Freedom
And Europe’s #1 in:
– Heritage’s Index of Economic Freedom

Followed very closely by:
Sky-high in all three as well.

Other super rankers:
Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Luxembourg, Estonia, Sweden.

All these countries rank higher than the US in all three measures.

If your question had more to do with the personal/social dimension, add to the list Norway, Finland and Austria, which surpass all the others there.

Posted in generic stuff | Leave a Comment »

Who is the most underrated rapper?

Posted by StepTb su maggio 25, 2018

Treach, of Naughty by Nature. I’ve never understood why his name has never become huge. Yes, they’re not unknown, judging by the number of views on YouTube, but when I say huge I mean Biggie/Ice Cube/Ice-T level of huge.

When I was just discovering hip-hop by digging through bunches of cassettes, it was clear to me from the first listening that he was one of the best, but whenever I see people talking about the greatest MCs his name never seems to come up… I don’t get it.

Just listen to his absolute jaw-dropping flow and use of syllables on these three songs, paired with a naturally great vocal timbre.

Posted in music, video | Leave a Comment »

How does Elon Musk organize his time so that he can work 80 hours a week?

Posted by StepTb su maggio 25, 2018

I don’t know when and where the “5 minute slots” story started, but it’s false.
He just wrote on Twitter he doesn’t use it:

Which is perfectly in line with what all the research on creative and “deep” work (I use this term since it’s been popularized by Cal Newport) says.

It’s pretty much well-known that he splits his time 50/50 between Tesla and SpaceX (confirmed recently by Gwynne Shotwell).
On more than one occasion (here’s one), Musk stated he enjoys focusing on engineering and design, not on sales and finance.
He also doesn’t enjoy managing in general, as confirmed by another recent tweet:

And, as documented in his biography (plus various interviews), he typically sleeps 6.5 hours and eats meals in 5 minutes.
Add to all this the fact that he obviously outsources a lot, just like any other CEO.
So, combining all these info, I think it’s plausible to say he tries to organize his time to do what he enjoys the most – which is uninterrupted, focused, creative work on engineering and design. And that’s the reason why he’s able to work like crazy, to the point of seeing eating and sleeping as distractions to optimize.
He likely tries to outsource everything he can – but of course it’s not possible. So he still has to do a lot of stuff in operations, processes, finance, sales, PR via media and interviews, etc. But he likely sees all that as a necessity to be able to do what he actually enjoys and would potentially spend all his time doing.

Posted in generic stuff | Leave a Comment »

Are conservative individuals more authoritarian-minded than liberal individuals?

Posted by StepTb su maggio 17, 2018

Any person can be “conservative” on any single issue, just like any person can be “liberal” on any single issue.
But let’s assume individuals can be classified as being “liberal” or “conservative”.
“Conservative” means you prefer the traditional way of how things have worked until the present moment, and you want to preserve it.
“Liberal” means you want to maximize liberty and freedom, and this goal takes priority over traditions if they’re an obstacle to it.

”Authoritarian” means you want a single, specific set of views, preferences, values, clothes or whatever to be forced on everyone else, with no room or tolerance for differences.

Therefore being a true “liberal” means being anti-authoritarian, since authoritarianism decreases (or opposes any increase of) liberty and freedom, instead of the opposite.
And having “conservative” preferences doesn’t tell us anything, because you could be an authoritarian conservative as well as a non-authoritarian one. Just like the terms “right” and “left” don’t tell us anything, because both preferences can be expressed through tolerant as well as intolerant means.

P.S. A super-professional visualization!

How the typical American mistakenly reads the political spectrum:


How the political spectrum is actually supposed to be read:

Hope this helps!

P.P.S. See also Why did Europe become so leftist and liberal?

P.P.P.S. A timeless, recommended read: The Open Society and Its Enemies

Posted in food for thought | Leave a Comment »

Stuff Seen, Jan+Feb+Mar 2018

Posted by StepTb su aprile 3, 2018

Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese, 1990) [9]
Heat (Michael Mann, 1995) [9]
L.A. Takedown (Michael Mann, 1989) [TV] [7.5]
Casino (Martin Scorsese, 1995) [8+]
Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017) [7]
The Insider (Michael Mann, 1999) [8.5]
Black Rain (Ridley Scott, 1989) [6.5]
Ransom (Ron Howard, 1996) [7.5]
Donnie Brasco (Mike Newell, 1997) [7.5]
Ronin (John Frankenheimer, 1998) [7.5]
Following (Christopher Nolan, 1998) [8]
The Enforcer (Bretaigne Windust, Raoul Walsh, 1951) [7]
Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005) [8]
Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000) [8]
To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955) [6.5]
The Lineup (Don Siegel, 1958) [7.5]
Payback (Brian Helgeland, 1999) [6]
Pociag / Night Train (Jerzy Kawalerowicz, 1959) [6]
Katok i skripka / The Steamroller and the Violin (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1961) [7]
Something Wild (Jonathan Demme, 1986) [7.5]
The Wild Bunch (Sam Peckinpah, 1969) [9.5]
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (Sam Peckinpah, 1974) [8+]
Major Dundee (Sam Peckinpah, 1965) [7]
Charley Varrick (Don Siegel, 1973) [7.5]
Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976) [9+]
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) [9.5]
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014) [7.5]
Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017) [7]
The Martian (Ridley Scott, 2015) [7-]
Nocturama (Bertrand Bonello, 2016) [6]
Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010) [6]
Iron Man Three (Shane Black, 2013) [6]
L’eau froide (Olivier Assayas, 1994) [8]
Fin août, début septembre (Olivier Assayas, 1998) [7]
Die xue jie tou / Bullet in the Head (John Woo, 1990) [9] [Yes, this movie clearly wouldn’t even have existed without Cimino’s The Deer Hunter. But Woo managed to basically take that classic and change it on such a personal level, infusing it with his own complete philosophy and his own complete set of both East Asian and Western filmmaking influences, that Bullet in the Head really manages to stand on its own as a masterpiece]
Ying hung boon sik / A Better Tomorrow (John Woo, 1986) [7.5]
Dip huet seung hung / The Killer (John Woo, 1989) [9]
Fong juk / Exiled (Johnnie To, 2006) [7.5-]
Irma Vep (Olivier Assayas, 1996) [7.5]
Demonlover (Olivier Assayas, 2002) [7.5] [What a pity – it could have been an 8, if it wasn’t for that sudden fall into incoherent plot devices (which starts with the murder and then escalates at about 2/3), with the clear intention of imitating (without any of his brilliance) Lynch’s Lost Highway, then closed by a not really convinced moral provocation halfway between Videodrome and 8mm, just used as a tool for trying to give the final a meaning]
Clean (Olivier Assayas, 2004) [7]
Boarding Gate (Olivier Assayas, 2007) [6.5]
L’heure d’été (Olivier Assayas, 2008) [7.5]
Clouds of Sils Maria (Olivier Assayas, 2014) [7]
Personal Shopper (Olivier Assayas, 2016) [6]

Posted in logs, video | Leave a Comment »

%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: