= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
...a good looking woman that doesn't seem interested in any of the things that the aforementioned might...
Not to be humourless, but I wonder if this could be rephrased to something a little more neutral.
Done. I didn't mean to imply that none of the others mentioned were attractive, but I understand the concern. Thanks for the heads up.
Don't know if I did, but I think this caching notion is a bad way to look at it.
Could you elaborate a bit more on why you think so?
Sure. You are having to cache each thought with certain assumptions in mind (e.g. group of people that like the singularity, people that tolerate talking about the possibility of computers, people that take fantasy seriously, a person that doesn't seem interested in any of the things that the aforementioned might). If we try to think about these assumptions as variables, attempting to cache for a future conversations quickly leads to combinatoric explosion leaving you with an impossible number of things to think about before. This forces you to consider a small number of cases that may well do more harm then good.
I also don't like cache here because of how static in implies the ideas are. Conversation, and quality thinking, are dynamic and deserve to be let evolve on their own.
StarUML. Which was probably a pretty bad tool for it, but it was what I had installed.
So the nice thing about pajek, and some other network displaying software, is that you can use algorithms that will attempt display things that are closely related to each other closer together. If I were going to produce your graphic I would:
- Get the graph in memory some how, for one this size I would just set up some hash maps in irb
- Write a text file where each line consists of two nodes that are connected seperated by a tab.
- Use the software here: http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/howto/text2pajek.htm to get a pajek file
- Open it in pajek and preform a physics based layout algorithim
- Export to png
It's pretty cool what you can get out form this (I made this: http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/56256047/bhtv3d.png Network of bhtv coversations) and there's a lot to be gained by checked out what ends up near the center etc.
Let me know if you have any questions. I'd be glad to help.
I think you're misinterpreting my post somehow. I'm not saying you should have a ready list of ideas to convince other people of. I'm saying you should be prepared to have something to say about a lot of things, and be able to shift topics until you find a subject the other person also has an interest in.
Of course, if the other person is capable and willing to do that, that's fine as well, but not everyone is. You'll miss out on a lot of interesting discussions if you're not capable of doing your own part.
Don't know if I did, but I think this caching notion is a bad way to look at it. However, to inject a positive note, thinking about the connections between your interests is a fruitful activity that has value far beyond pre planning conversations.
Made the picture a bit smaller.
A png version would look a lot better. Did you use pajek to make it?
In response to
How to always have interesting conversations
I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. Coming into a social situation with a prepared set of ideas to cover is something a preacher does. Doesn't mean it doesn't have its place for certain situations, but it is not the way to approach having a conversation.
Good conversations are a complicated interaction between people. If you want to have a good one with someone, you need to hold their interest as well as your own. To extend a ridiculous metaphor a little further, cache misses in this context with cost you a bit more than a few hundred cycles, it could blow a chance at a quality interaction with another person.
I find the best technique for conversation is to try to find something that they are interested in. You never know where it might lead, and that is interesting.
but I have trouble with the concept of an 'oath'.
How so?
Yeah I like Kevin's short answer. But in general I said to Rain:
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn't trust that assertion, how will they ever trust 'no really I'm serious'.
When you make something a contract you see there are some legal teeth, but swearing to uphold the constitution feels silly.
My explanation: It is ironic that 'more time at school after it finishes' is used as a punishment and yet 'days off school' is considered a worse punishment.
Given the chance I would go back in time and explain to my younger self that just because something is presented as a punishment or 'worse punishment' doesn't mean you have to prefer to avoid it. Further, I would explain that getting what he wants does not always require following the rules presented to him. He can make his own rules, chose among preferred consequences.
While I never actually got either a detention or a suspension, I would have to say I'd prefer the suspension.
In theory but I wonder how long it has been since you were in school. In GA they got around to making a rule that if you were suspended you would lose your drivers license. Also, suspensions typically imply a 0 on all assignments (and possibly tests) that were due for its duration.
Oaths in general can be a form of precommitment and a weak signal that someone ascribes to certain moral or legal values, though no one seemed to take it seriously in this instance. On my first day, it was just another piece of paper in with all the other forms they wanted me to sign, and they took it away right after a perfunctory reading. I had to search it out online to remember just what it was I had sworn to do. Later, I learned some people didn't even remember they had taken it.
Personally, I consider it very important to know the rules, laws, commitments, etc., for which I may be responsible, so when I or someone else breaks them, I can clearly note it.
For example, in middle school, one of my teachers didn't like me whispering to the person sitting next to me in class. When she asked what I was doing, I told her that I was explaining the lesson, since she did a poor job of it. She asked me if I would like to be suspended for disrespect; I made sure to let her know that the form did not have 'disrespect' as a reason for suspension, only detention.
Personally, I consider it very important to know the rules, laws, commitments, etc., for which I may be responsible, so when I or someone else breaks them, I can clearly note it.
Far out. That is important.
As for your story, it's something I would have done but I hope you understand that a little tact could have gone a long way.
What I was trying to get at you seem to think also. You think you are sending a 'weak signal' that you are committed to something. But you are using words that I think many around here would be suspicious of (e.g. oath and sworn).
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn't trust that assertion, how will they ever trust 'no really I'm serious'.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The linked articles on commutes are long and I'm not sure how to search for my specific question: what were the typical happiness-costs of, say, a half hour commute on a subway, vs a two hours commute in car vs a two hour commute on a train.
I used to commute 1.5 hours on a train to my job in NYC. It was definitely stressful - I had a hard time maintaining any social life. Now I have a half hour subway commute which is definitely better, but I wonder if it'd be worth the money to move a more expensive place closer to my job.
The big difference between the two is that commuting is isolating whereas trains/subways put you around other human beings. Also, having to focus on other slow moving vehicles is mentally taxing with no obvious benefit. Being able to read, or sometimes nap, is liberating.