DP, Identifying Examples

Mission #5 by an STM

In other cases though, say (when you are organizing information and providing solutions) [1] - based on that - to your boss, you might want to (be like Tiger Woods, conscious, controlled and not automatic)[2]”

You’ve described [2] using a lovely concrete example in the last post. However, [1] is sorely lacking in examples. What is this “organizing information”? Or “providing solutions”? That could be anything from “it’s hot today” all the way up to “e = mc^2”. Contrast that to PG’s business plan for his startup in 1995:

OVERVIEW Webgen allows clients to generate web catalogs remotely.

There are several other companies that can generate and serve web catalogs. The best known site of this type is Marketplace MCI (www.internetmci.com). But while these other sites use their generators in-house to build catalogs from materials provided by clients, Webgen’s generator can be used interactively by anyone with a modem and a copy of Netscape. …

You might want to describe what you’re doing in such terms, like “generate web catalogs remotely” or “used interactively”, so that it is clear even to an outsider what you’re doing.

Mission #5: Time to chunk it up. Right now, you are working on sentences and paragraphs at a time. That is, you get feedback about your output dimensions after writing the entire paragraph (or God forbid, the entire essay). The feedback isn’t immediate enough (principle #3 from TiO). In contrast, look at how I narrowed down the specific phrases [1] and [2] where you gave examples or not.

You need to take passages you feel you don’t understand clearly (perhaps some things you’ve written yourself about important yet unclear issues in “rationality” and some outside material about tough technical problems), mark within parentheses each important phrase like I did with [1] and [2], check if you’ve given an example for it, and if not, rewrite it with a concrete example. If you’re not sure if a phrase is important or not, err in favor of an example. 200 repetitions should be a good start. Soon, you will come to notice immediately if you are throwing out words without any concrete example, the way a misspelled word in an editor shows up with red underlines.

Does it mean that PG and EY will give examples after every phrase? Not necessarily. But they will have an example in mind as they write. I suspect that when we say “people don’t think clearly”, we mean that their words don’t correspond to any concrete example (see: “critical thinking”). And when your words don’t correspond to anything concrete, you can make them say anything. For a striking example, check out this philosophical passage that EY tore to pieces: https://youtu.be/D6peN9LiTWA?t=1067

What was the problem there? The words didn’t correspond to any known piece of reality. They were figments of the poet’s imagination, and yet he thought they described something real. It sounded convincing even to me. I was like, yeah, maybe we really are fallen people compared to those wise, brotherly ancients.

How would you and I tackle that? We would stop at the first phrase in the first sentence: “In the age when life on Earth was full”. Ok. Give me a historical example or empirical evidence for what you mean by “life on Earth was full”. People had AC’s? Cars? Long lives? Lots of sex? (Could be true. Could also be not true. Need empirical evidence. And if you say you can’t get that evidence from millenia ago… well, that’s the whole point! Why are you using as an example something that you have no real evidence about? End of story then and there.)

Let’s take another example closer to home. “I need to practice critical thinking and become a master.” - Anonymous, 1785 AD. Well, Mr. Anonymous, what is this “critical thinking” you speak of? Let’s see at least one example (after you’ve practiced on a bunch of other sentences).

Goal and how to do it.

Mission: You need to take passages you feel you don’t understand clearly (perhaps some things you’ve written yourself about important yet unclear issues in “rationality” and some outside material about tough technical problems), mark within parentheses each important phrase like I did with [1] and [2], check if you’ve given an example for it, and if not, rewrite it with a concrete example. If you’re not sure if a phrase is important or not, err in favor of an example. 200 repetitions should be a good start. - an STM via e-mail

Goal: All fluff words (like problem solving, critical thinking) have to be associated with examples. And we need to do this on 200 phrases.

The first example is given below…

“(I want to get better at critical thinking)“[1]- Anonymous 1795 AD

P: I want to get better at “critical thinking”.

E: In the article on scope insensitivity there is a lot of discussion about how to design experiments that distinguish the “prototype-dominated” affect and the warm glow of moral satisfaction. I don’t understand this. There is a whole discussion and I am finding it hard to wrap my head around it. I’d like to get better here.

At work, I am having to do quite some “problem solving”. By that I mean I am given a couple of observations (about leak in the Vacuum Chamber). I need to isolate what is the problem is (is it leaking from outside? or are these virtual leaks? etc…), I need to design experiments (pump down the chamber and measure leak) and I need to convey the results (make a presentation and explain how my diagnosis is right). This is hard for me, I want to become better here, i.e., I often find myself banging my head to make sense of what is happening and presenting it. :)

What is and isn’t DP (38)

From my summary on TIO about ‘What is and isn’t DP’,

Sometimes I go to basketball practice and try a few shots from one spot. Then I try (some drills in ball handling)[3] to (improve play during the game)[2]. I try (multiple variations)[3] 2-3 times each and get bored and then play some one-on-ones with someone and feel happy that I have clocked 2 more hours of practice (that hopefully gets me to amazing levels someday)[4]; you know, ‘Practice makes perfect’ and the like. The author hosts a similar example from his life when he went golfing and (“practiced” with golf balls)[5]. He says with conviction that (this will do jack shit to your performance)[6].

P: improve play during the game

E: So every Sunday I play basketball with my friends. Mostly I suck and people make fun of it, especially when you make air balls or miss a silly ass layup when you are so close to the basket. Whilst this is me, my friends, almost all of them, have very good shooting percentage and good range from where they can shoot. I would like to be atleast as good as them.

P: some drills in ball handling; multiple variations

E: I start with shooting from different places randomly (roughly 20 shots), and then try 5 spin moves, and then move on to left handed layups

P: Hopefully gets me to amazing levels

E: amazing levels like that of my peers (in a year or two)

P: “practiced” with golf balls

E: The author hit a few balls and picked one of 1000 reasons why he didn’t hit the ball “right”, then believed he was practicing for it. He then got distracted to another reason he didn’t hit the ball “right”. In the end he hit about a few hundred balls and felt happy that he was getting better.

P: this will do jack shit to your performance

E: You will NEVER be better than your peers.

The idea of deliberate practice (DP) is quite different from the above form of practice. Jerry Rice according to the author is a near perfect example of someone who did massive amounts of DP and in the end became a legend.

Deliberate practice is characterized by several elements, each worth examining. It is activity (designed specifically to improve performance)[1], often with a teacher’s help; (it can be repeated a lot)[2]; (feedback on results is continuously available)[3]; (it’s highly demanding mentally)[4], (whether the activity is purely intellectual, such as chess or business-related activities)[5], or (heavily physical, such as sports;)[6] and (it isn’t much fun)[7].

P: designed specifically to improve performance

E: You want to be a better basket ball player. How do you do that? You first need to identify spaces where you suck, example, shooting, lay ups, spin moves, passing, court vision, team playing etc… Lets for now say we want to improve shooting, we need to design an activity that will specifically improve that. We saw earlier how I had designed an activity to improve shooting. I shot from random places, and did less than 20 shots and moved on to something else. That is surely designed by me but not to improve performance. Instead I should shoot 100 shots from similar spots. Or practice until I get the ball in a 100 times. There is a huge body of knowledge about the mechanics, the form and the way to do the practice, which is available to us to improve our skills.

P: it can be repeated a lot

E: The pathetic practice I had designed earlier seriously missed out on this. I shot 20 times from different places. Instead I should have shot 20-100 times from the same place over and over again.

P: feedback on results is continuously available

E: When I am practicing shooting, I look at the parameter of shooting percentage and log it every week as I practice. So I know if I am getting better or if I still suck, so I can take some additional steps to keep improving. In addition I train with a friend who gives me critical feedback, laughs at me when I suck. Furthermore, on game nights you see if practice is helping you or not.

P: it’s highly demanding mentally

E: It is quite a mental load to practice. You are physically tired and you still need to keep grinding. Yesterday I was practicing this spin move and wanted to do it 20 times. By the 10th time, I felt like I wanted to stop, but I needed to keep grinding. So I had to push myself to do more.

E2: I was practicing some shooting and I was sucking so hard, but I still needed to keep grinding over all the negativity. I have put in so much hard work over the last many weeks and the extent to which I sucked was incredible, but I still need to grind. I was tired, my arms couldn’t do it and I forced myself to do those 100 shots from close to the 3-point-line anyways.

P: activity is purely intellectual

E: “such as chess or business-related activities”

P: activity is heavily physical

E: “Sports”

P: It isn’t much fun

E: Shizuka Arakawa, gold medal in figure skating, had fallen on ice with her derriere atleast 20000 times. It did get her the gold medal after years and years of practice though.

It’s designed specifically to improve performance.

During DP, one must identify certain (sharply defined elements that need improvement)[2] and (work on them intently)[3]. These practices should be designed in such a way that (they stretch your current abilities)[4]. The great performers, (see a couple of issues and isolate each one of them)[5] and (work on them)[6] until they have (seen sufficient improvement before moving on to the next aspect)[7].

P: sharply defined elements that need improvement

E: shooting 3 pointers, or delivering spin moves,

P: work on them intently

E: Kobe Bryant the legend who quits practicing only after he makes 400 shots (around 3 hrs of only shooting). Legend!

E2: Jerry Rice working out all day during the off season to improve his explosiveness and precision in running patterns

P: they stretch your current abilities [4]

E: Jerry Rice’s off-season workout was known for being extremely strenuous and he was the only one who could perform it.

P: see a couple of issues and isolate each one of them

E: Benjamin Franklin understood from his father that his work stinks. His father pointed out a few of his flaws. One of the issues was that he had poor vocabulary, so he designed his practice just for that. Another practice for organization of the prose etc…

E2:

Not being the fastest receiver in the league turned out not to matter. He (Jerry Rice) became famous for the precision of his patterns. His weight training gave him tremendous strength. His trail running gave him control so he could change directions suddenly without signaling his move. - TIO chapter 4

P: work on them

E: BF found the best work, made notes on it, a few days later he would make his own version and compare it to original.

P: seen sufficient improvement before moving on to the next aspect [7]

E: In basketball, currently I would be happy if I reached 60% shooting percentage every week in practice before adding other aspects to my practice, such as shooting when there is a defender etc…

E2: You master the scales while learning piano before moving on to things like trill, jumping octaves.

P: the author suggests to atleast give it (getting feedback from the teacher) another thought

E: Ben Franklin’s teacher was the writings of Spectator, some work that is clearly of a higher class than what he was capable of doing.

E2: All sportsmen have coaches

P: While learning it is good to be in the zone where we are just beyond our comfort zone; which makes us stretch our abilities; it is quite motivating instead of being a daunting task to approach…

E: I can easily bike with an average-heart-rate (AHR) of 161bpm over 20 mins. If I stick to that every day there will be no improvement. I need to push myself to a much higher AHR. 175 bpm is too hard, so much so that the I am crying every minute and it becomes so repulsive to pick up such a task later. On the other hand 165bpm is just outside my comfort zone and is challenging enough. If I really wanted to train to be the best of the best of the best, I should be going for 175bpm, but it drastically tones down the motivation and it becomes such a daunting task especially after surviving a grueling weight training workout.

It can be repeated a lot

In golf the ball rarely gets buried into the sand. Such shots are quite rare. But when they happen you cannot expect to perform well as you have rarely performed that shot. Top performers repeat a lot. (Isolation of the specific space where you need to improve is key)[1], (followed by a lot of repetitions)[2].

Ted Williams, baseball’s greatest hitter, would practice hitting until his hands bled. Pete Maravich, whose college basketball records still stand after more than thirty years, would go to the gym when it opened in the morning and shoot baskets until it closed at night.

P: Isolation of the specific space where you need to improve is key

E: One of the important aspects of “critical thinking” is to see all words as clear cut examples and not as vague sentences. Identifying where examples are needed and providing them is the skill

P: followed by a lot of repetition

E: identifying where examples are needed and providing them for ~200 phrases, like I am doing now.

Feedback

Following all this, one can work on his technique but it is very important (to see progress and get feedback)[1]. Otherwise one will (stop getting any better and stop caring about the end goal)[2]. (Feedback is extremely crucial to feel motivated)[3]. (Sometimes results might need interpretation)[4], (trusting your own judgment might not really be the best way to go about it)[5]. Is the blog post clear to a new reader? Will people get the main idea? Is it organized well? Paul Graham for example, appears to take this very seriously. Before he publishes a post, he runs atleast a few loops of getting feedback from his friends followed by correction before publishing it.

P: to see progress and get feedback

E: If you are able to lift more weight the next time you go to the gym you see progress, the feedback is that you are getting better.

P: You will stop getting any better and stop caring about the end

E: If you don’t get better at the gym, then you start to question what you are doing here, if this is really for you etc… Will you ever be able to lift 100kg? I had such a slump a few weeks back and I am trying to do things that will get me over that slump, like eating properly and training harder.

P: Feedback is extremely crucial to feel motivated

E: I mainly care about the Basketball I play on Sunday. Based on how I suck and where all I suck I feel the motivation to come back every Saturday and grind. This week I sucked so hard I want to up my practice like that of the Kobe Bryant the legend.

There was a time when for three weeks straight I didn’t really get to play the Sunday games, I am sure I contemplated not going to train on Saturdays during those weeks. I was like, “I mean whats the point of going and grinding”. But I didn’t have problems going to practice this Saturday, nor with last Saturday. :)

P: Sometimes results might need interpretation

E: Its easy to fool yourself that you played “well” today. If you scored the last basket, you usually feel good. For a better understanding of how well you actually performed, you need to look at some sort of statistics like how many points you scored per game or what was your field goal percentage or even compliments from your peers ( #gaining-peoples-respect!)

P: trusting your own judgment might not really be the best way to go about it

E: “Is the blog post clear to a new reader? Will people get the main idea? Is it organized well? Paul Graham for example, appears to take this very seriously. Before he publishes a post, he runs atleast a few iterations of getting feedback from his friends followed by correction before publishing it.” #PG

It is painful

I can imagine working on things like (improving writing)[1]. I know (I suck, I have read my essays)[2]. (First I would need to identify good sentences and maybe try to emulate them in other works consciously)[3]. This could be qualified as DP. But the shear (repulsion to that activity is huge)[4], and pushing through all of it for maybe atleast 10k sentences, makes it painful I think. The violinists from the Ericsson experiment stated practice as the least fun activity in their daily life.

P: improving writing

E: Looking at better-text in comparison to your work and trying to imitate it; using the Benjamin Franklin method.

P: I suck at writing

E: I make lot of grammatical errors and missing words, e.g., my post on the “purpose of life”.

P: First I would need to identify good sentences and maybe try to emulate them in other works consciously.

E: Benjamin Franklin identified the Spectator as superior work and used it to improve his writing.

P: repulsion to that activity is huge

E: Today as I am making this exercise, it is hard. Generating examples of all kinds, knowing that I might not really make the goal of 200, and pushing myself to still make it, is all the strain mentally, and I want to let go of it.

Everyone would achieve greatness if it were easy and fun. But everyone doesn’t and it is not easy and fun. Your willingness to do (it will distinguish you all the more(from the rest))[4]. Think about Jerry Rice again!

P: it will distinguish you all the more from the rest

E: Aamir Khan for a movie makes a ridiculous transformation in short time. It was not easy or fun for him as you can see from the video. He is constantly made to push beyond what he is capable of. He struggles with doing it everyday, but pushes himself anyway. His willingness, the mental struggle he had to go through to do what he did distinguishes him all the more from the rest; just like Jerry Rice. How many Jerry Rice’s and Aamir Khan’s do we know of?

These tasks (whether physical or not)[1], seem to drain out much of our mental energy)[2] as they are all about (improving an unsatisfactory performance and trying your hardest to improve these)[3]. It is estimated that 4-5 hours of DP per day seems to be the upper limit, (across disciplines)[4], with sessions frequently lasting no more than 90 minutes. The study of violinists (TIO chap 4) for example shows that the kids that do DP slept more not only during the night but also during the afternoons.

P: whether physical or not

E: Bodybuilding or playing the piano or improving writing

P: drain out our mental energy

E: While writing my first DP post I say this:

Well, I remember the day when I started writing it all out. After around 2 hrs I just couldn’t. I tapped out!

P: Improving an unsatisfactory performance and trying your hardest to improve these

E: Jerry Rice’s grueling conditioning workouts

Not being the fastest receiver in the league turned out not to matter. He became famous for the precision of his patterns. His weight training gave him tremendous strength. His trail running gave him control so he could change directions suddenly without signaling his move. The uphill wind sprints game him explosive acceleration

P: across disciplines

E: be it body building or be it learning to write or play the piano

Becoming a critic of your thinking (5)

From criticalthinking.org,

There is (nothing more practical than sound thinking)[1]. No matter what your circumstance or goals, no matter where you are, or what problems you face, you are (better off if your thinking is skilled)[2]. As a manager, leader, employee, citizen, lover, friend, parent — in every realm and situation of your life — (good thinking pays off)[3]. (Poor thinking)[4] in turn, (inevitably causes problems, wastes time and energy, engenders frustration and pain)[5].

There is way too much vagueness in this paragraph and the coming paragraphs. Oh my! especially for a website titled “critical thinking”.

P: Nothing more practical than sound thinking

E: If engaging in drama consumes your mind, and does not allow you to focus on things, you should stay away from drama, even if it means apologizing to a superior when it not your fault; as your priority is to squash the beef and move on with other important things.

P: better off if your thinking is skilled; good thinking pays off

E: Skilled thinking can come up with “right answers” for questions like, “should we marry?”, or “Should we freeze ourselves”

P: Poor thinking

E: I was moving from one house to another, and in an attempt to save 400 euros I brought self some major stress over the entire month. I didn’t know how to equate money to time, I still struggle with the idea.

I sometimes end up wasting hours and hours, just so I can save a few 10’s of euros. I was buying a phone recently and spent the entire day trading off different phones, when I could be doing a week of courses from my Data Science course, and keep moving ahead. A phone is 250€. In the worst case if I bought a bad phone I could return it or buy a new one in a year. I was trying to make the best decision and guess what, the phone still sucks, its not good enough. Now I want to return this phone and buy another one which is even more pricy. #GreatThinkingNot. Lack of ability to realize what is important and how to trade off money is one example of my poor thinking. Some of the realization is in hindsight, but I am about to do it again :(

P: inevitably causes problems, wastes time and energy, engenders frustration and pain

E: Once I was expected to inform if the Vacuum chamber was able to go to low pressures. I did some experiments and saw that the in some cases it went to the expected low pressures and in other cases the leak was too high. I was expected to present this, along with why I think it was happening, how to verify my claim and also propose solutions for the reducing the leak. So I looked at the observations and failed to tell a convincing story (logical) about why we were observing certain phenomenon. I felt quite confused while making the presentation even, and naturally it showed in the review.

Critical thinking is the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are capable of in any set of circumstances. The general goal of thinking is to “figure out the lay of the land” in any situation we are in. We all have multiple choices to make. We need the best information to make the best choices.

I think I will be dead before I finish this. I stop here. This is too hard or impossible. So many words meaning the same freaking thing.

Technical writing (30)

Excerpts from the dynamics paper I wrote long back.

Abstract—This paper presents a new paradigm for design of (mechanical components that are subjected to dynamic loading in their regular operation)[2]. Traditionally, such design tasks are handled by (artificially raising the level of the static load)[3] by introducing a factor of safety, which is meant to compensate for the (unknown variations of the actual loads)[4]. This method works nicely when the (dynamic component of the total loads are low)[5], but (not necessarily otherwise)[6]. The connecting rod of an IC engine is such a component, as it suffers large inertial load when the engine runs at high speeds. To design such components, an iterative strategy is presented, which relies (upon a kinetostatic model)[7] to assess the dynamic loads, and (incorporates the effects of the mass distribution of the resulting designed component on the inertial loads themselves)[8]. An application of this design technique on a reported scenario leads to (significant variations)[9] in the dimensions, mass of the designed components, as well as the loads experienced by them.

P: mechanical components that are subjected to dynamic loading in their regular operation

E: typically parts moving at very high speeds such as parts of the IC engine (connecting rod, piston), or Gas Turbine components (turbine).

P: artificially raising the level of the static load ; unknown variations of the actual loads

E: For instance, lifts and buildings are designed typically with a factor of safety of 100 over the expected static load of the people and furniture, accounting for unknown dynamic loads due to earthquakes or winds etc…

P: dynamic component of the total loads are low

E: they are low when for instance people jump on a table, or say a table fan rotating at very low speed. A factor of safety or 2-3 can easily account for the dynamic component

P: not necessarily otherwise

E: The connecting rod of an IC engine is such a component where the factor-of-safety (FOS) method will not work due the coupling between inertia and mass. If you have more FOS, you will have more mass leading to larger inertial loads, than what you wanted to compensate for in the first place.

P: upon a kinetostatic model

E: The angular velocity of the crank in an IC engine is constant

P: incorporates the effects of the mass distribution of the resulting designed component on the inertial loads themselves

E: Mass distribution changes the inertial loads. Effects of mass distribution is taken into account by splitting the connecting rod into 2 point masses and a varying I section. This mass distribution has a different effect on the inertial loads as opposed to the traditional 2 point-masses.

P: significant variations

E: the mass reducing by 30%, the loads reducing by 50%

The process of design of mechanical component usually starts with (the identification of the loads on the component)[1], and (their variations, if any, in the stipulated operating scenarios)[2]. In (many cases, it is not possible to model the loads very accurately)[3], (more so when they vary with time)[4]. In such situations, it is customary to come up with a design based in (available knowledge of load)[5], compensating for the undetermined variations by introducing a “factor of safety”, which essentially simulates a higher level of static load. This method, though used fairly commonly, (is not guaranteed to produce the best results)[6], particularly when the (dynamic loads are comparable/greater than the static loads on a component)[7]. In such cases, (over-compensation of the loads)[8] lead to heavier designs, which in turn result in greater inertial loads for the same operational speeds. An alternative design methodology could be to employ a (detailed analysis of the mass distribution, strength and loading of components)[9]. However, because of the (coupled nature of these)[10], it is a challenging task in terms of both modeling and as well as computational burden. Nevertheless, some components, such as the connecting rod of an IC engine in an automotive,..

P: the identification of the loads on the component; their variations, if any, in the stipulated operating scenarios

E: For an IC engine, we look at the torque the engine has to generate and the forces at the joints (varying with time) of the piston, crank and connecting rod.

P: In many cases, it is not possible to model the loads very accurately

E: With the IC engine, there are 3 main parts, resulting in roughly 10 forces. Solving for these forces is quite hard and computationally intensive when we have the second order inertia terms. We settle for lesser accuracy and simplify the model.

P: modeling the loads accurately when they vary with time

E: If the loads vary with time you have to make atleast another 360 to 720 calculations for the case of the IC engine.

P: it is customary to come up with a design based on the available knowledge of load

E: We set the inertial terms to 0 and this makes computation faster and straight-forward to get closed form solutions and design the parts.

P: This method (FOS method) is not guaranteed to produce the best results

E: If you apply this to an IC engine, the parts designed are expected to break.

P: dynamic loads are comparable/greater than the static loads on a component

E: Dynamic loads are greater than static loads in Gas Turbines and IC engines rotating at greater than 4000 rpm

P: over-compensation of the loads

E: To account for unknown variations, we take the static loads on a table, say due to a man sitting on it, and then assume the maximum load is going to be 3 times the static load and design the table for that.

P: detailed analysis of the mass distribution, strength and loading of components

E: for example using Finite Element Methods

P: coupled nature of these

E: if you increase mass of the part the inertia increases, if the inertia increases loads increase, if the loads increase the dimensions increase/change, which have an effect on the mass

Usually, in the analysis of a connecting rod, its mass is substituted for by an (equivalent system of concentrated masses)[1]. One thirds and two thirds of the mass are lumped at the piston and the crank end of the connecting rod, respectively. Based on the forces calculated, engine parts are designed for maximum piston load or inertial load. This approach does not capture the (true variation of the dynamic forces on the connecting rod, and their effect on the piston pin)[2]. Another lumping model is presented, where in the (connecting rod is divided into three parts)[3]: two concentrated end-masses, and distributed central part. The central part remains a rod with linearly varying I-section along its longitudinal axis. The ends are modeled by a point of mass each at their barycenter, such that the resultant moment of inertia is equivalent to the original.

P: equivalent system of concentrated masses

E: For example the connecting rod is simplified as follows: “One thirds and two thirds of the mass are lumped at the piston and the crank end of the connecting rod, respectively.”

P: true variation of the dynamic forces on the connecting rod, and their effect on the piston pin

E: The FOS method thinks that there is no fatigue loading on the system within every cycle, where as in reality there is fatigue loading.

P: connecting rod is divided into three parts

E: “two concentrated end-masses, and distributed central part. The central part remains rod with linearly varying I-section along its longitudinal axis”

Sometimes, (a dynamic loading case is decomposed into a series of static loading cases)[1] referred to as screen shots. This allows for accounting for dynamic loads by (solving a simple static case repeatedly)[2] and is called quasi-dynamic. Though this is adequate for most cases, it becomes computationally expensive when (huge computer models)[3] (Finite Element) are used.

P: a dynamic loading case is decomposed into a series of static loading cases

E: The crank in an IC engine rotates 360 degrees. So for every degree you can compute the forces as though the system was static

P: solving a simple static case repeatedly

E: Solving the same set of equations for every degree of rotation of the crank.

P: huge computer models

E: “Models using Finite Element Methods”: For the IC engine simulation it could take upto 1 hr on a 8gb ram system per simulation.

This paper proposes a new design paradigm that incorporates the (effects of dynamic loading on a mechanical component)[1]. The loads on the component are computed using a (kinetostatic analysis model)[2], which is (simple and analytical in nature)[3], and (significantly more accurate)[4] than the static model at the same time. Using the example of the connecting rod of an IC engine, it has been shown that there is a significant change in resulting design when the proposed methodology is applied to an (existing design scenario reported in literature)[5]. It is expected to produce more realistic results as the (analysis and design modules in each iteration, are refined further)[6].

P: effects of dynamic loading on a mechanical component

E: such as the loads experienced by parts of an IC engine.

P: kinetostatic analysis model

E: crank is assumed to have a constant speed.

P: simple and analytical in nature

E: We don’t need to solve differential equations but solve simple simultaneous equations

P: significantly more accurate

E: for example, the static load calculation does not capture the cyclic loading and overestimates the forces

P: existing design scenario reported in literature

E: The formulas for stress, used to dimension the piston, connecting rod and crank, based on loads

P: it is expected to produce more realistic results as the analysis and design modules in each iteration, (are refined further)

E: For instance, if the mass distribution of the parts resulting in better estimates of the inertial load improve, then we should have more realistic results.

Article by Paul Graham on writing (16)

From PG’s writing on “Writing, Briefly”,

I think it’s far more important to (write well)[1] than most people realize. Writing doesn’t just (communicate ideas)[2]; it (generates them)[3]. If you’re (bad at writing)[4] and don’t like to do it, you’ll miss out on most of the ideas writing would have generated.

P: write well; generates ideas

E: Writing that generates ideas and clarifies thought implies that you are writing well. For example, I was writing an article on my career choices and found that it didn’t make much of a difference to me to save 600 lives as opposed to 500 lives. I was looking at them like they were €’s. It was during this writing that discovered for myself about how wrong I was.

I was constantly worrying myself about how I couldn’t save 10k lives while I was treating the difference between 500 and 600 lives as meh! It was with this article, when I was writing it, that I understood why even a 100 lives is nothing short of incredible.

P: communicate ideas

E: PG writes blogs after blogs to share his ideas with people, ideas on how to write, how a business plan should look, etc…

P: bad at writing

E: Writing that does not communicate ideas or generate them would be considered bad writing. If you look at this article on the purpose of life you will get an idea of what I am talking about. I wrote it a while back based on the discussion I had with an STM, but boy, I had to turn my head away while I was looking at it recently. It’s all over the place, needs some major re-writing.

As for how to write well, here’s the short version: Write a bad version 1 as fast as you can; rewrite it over and over; cut out everything unnecessary; write in a conversational tone; develop a nose for bad writing, so you can see and fix it in yours; imitate writers you like; if you can’t get started, tell someone what you plan to write about, then write down what you said; expect 80% of the ideas in an essay to happen after you start writing it, and 50% of those you start with to be wrong; be confident enough to cut; have friends you trust read your stuff and tell you which bits are confusing or drag; don’t (always) make detailed outlines; mull ideas over for a few days before writing; carry a small notebook or scrap paper with you; start writing when you think of the first sentence; if a deadline forces you to start before that, just say the most important sentence first; write about stuff you like; don’t try to sound impressive; don’t hesitate to change the topic on the fly; use footnotes to contain digressions; use anaphora to knit sentences together; read your essays out loud to see (a) where you stumble over awkward phrases and (b) which bits are boring (the paragraphs you dread reading); try to tell the reader something new and useful; work in fairly big quanta of time; when you restart, begin by rereading what you have so far; when you finish, leave yourself something easy to start with; accumulate notes for topics you plan to cover at the bottom of the file; don’t feel obliged to cover any of them; write for a reader who won’t read the essay as carefully as you do, just as pop songs are designed to sound ok on crappy car radios; if you say anything mistaken, fix it immediately; ask friends which sentence you’ll regret most; go back and tone down harsh remarks; publish stuff online, because an audience makes you write more, and thus generate more ideas; print out drafts instead of just looking at them on the screen; use simple, germanic words; learn to distinguish surprises from digressions; learn to recognize the approach of an ending, and when one appears, grab it.

P:

(Write a bad version 1 as fast as you can)[1], (rewrite it over and over)[2], (cut out everything unnecessary)[3]

E1: For my summary on Talent Is Overrated, I wrote a rough version in 5 hrs[1] followed by 3 editions of the same text taking 8 hrs, 4 hrs and then 45 mins respectively[2]. The rough version has spelling mistakes, formatting errors, lots of text dump. I reduced the word count drastically (30 to 50%) by the final edition [3].

For example…

Bad version 1 The purpose of life is to save people because that is what you want to do. Imagine you are walking on the street and see a baby floating in the water (i.e., a massive chance of dying), wouldn’t you save it? Now think of a child in Africa who is starving, boy that mothafreaker is hungry as hell for so 5 days and no one is able to help him, he is a fucking kid, and here you are deciding which phone to buy and worrying about it. I was recently starving my ass off and very much needed food but would have to go through some tasks before getting to it, imagine being like that every single time. What should you do with your money again?

First rewrite The purpose of life is to save as many people as possible, in the present and in the future. The value of life is X, saving nX lives gets you n times the value.

Imagine the pain of starving. I very badly wanted to eat at 4 pm one day. but I had to weight-train and then do some strenuous cardio and then go back somewhere and find my food and heat it up. It was 7pm. I was pushing every ounce of motivation towards keeping me upright and finishing my work. A starving child in Africa has to starve more than often. All you have to do is not eat that chocolate, or not eat outside and he could eat a glorious meal. How could I be justified in eating a chocolate while an innocent kid for no fault of his starves.

Second re-write

I have 10$ and I have the option to allow an innocent kid far far away to starve (a kid who has probably been starving for atleast a meal before) or go to a nice Indian restaurant. The choice is simple in’it? What should I be doing again?

P:

write in a conversational tone;[4]

E: I think this means, write like you talk. The following is an example.

Just writing

Traditionally, such design tasks are handled by artificially raising the level of the static load by introducing a factor of safety, which is meant to compensate for the unknown variations of the actual loads.

Uff!

Writing like your talking! Traditionally such design tasks are handled by artificially raising the level of the static load, i.e., factor of safety design. This is expected to compensate for the variations in the actual load.

Much better I think! Ok, So do not write ridiculously long sentences. Speak what you want to write inside your head and then write it.

P:

develop a nose for bad writing[5], so you can see and fix it in yours[6]; imitate writers you like[7];

E: An exercise like this, “deliberate practice for writing”, shows how to develop a nose for good and bad writing and how to fix it. In the process you end up imitating the writers you like as you use their work as reference.

Benjamin Franklin took the Spectator and made notes of it. After a few days, re-wrote them in his own words, compared his work to the original, and understood what all he could do better. He focused on one skill at a time, such as writing-organization, vocabulary etc… This he did many many times to become “America’s first great man of letters”. [5,6,7]

P:

use anaphora to knit sentences together[8]

E: DP is hard, DP is repetition, DP is a lot about feedback, DP is painful, DP is needed, DP is going to make you a legend.

P:

work in fairly big quanta of time[9]

E: I don’t work on essays or even data science if I have less than 2 hrs to give it. Usually I finish all my work and have like 3-4 hrs left at the end of the day, which is when I pick up essay writing.

P:

use simple, germanic words[10]; learn to distinguish surprises from digressions[11]; learn to recognize the approach of an ending, and when one appears, grab it[12].

E: I have no idea what germanic words mean [10]. I don’t have an example for [12] either.

In the last essay on DP, I was following the Benjamin Franklin method and trying to find out how I compared to an essay written by an STM. I was writing some final words, when I jumped out of my way to write about Unconscious consistency. It was nice for me to understand that separately, but it didn’t fit in the context and I put it in as a note. This seems like a digression[11].

In the essay on my Career-Research, I was calculating the impact due to various careers and saw that there was a difference of sometimes a 100 people, and I didn’t pay too much care for it, but realized while writing further that I was valuing the life of 100 people much much less than what they were worth. This was a surprising insight[11].

P:

expect 80% of the ideas in an essay to happen after you start writing it, and 50% of those you start with to be wrong;

E: I don’t have an example. But I usually don’t plan my writing. All my thinking happens only during writing. So I write, write and write.

Article by Eliezer Y on Availability (9)

From EY’s blog on Availability Bias,

The availability heuristic is (judging the frequency or probability of an event, by the ease with which examples of the event come to mind)[1].

A famous 1978 study by Lichtenstein, Slovic, Fischhoff, Layman, and Combs, “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events”, (studied errors in quantifying the severity of risks, or judging which of two dangers occurred more frequently)[2]. Subjects thought that accidents caused about as many deaths as disease; thought that homicide was a more frequent cause of death than suicide. Actually, diseases cause about 16 times as many deaths as accidents, and suicide is twice as frequent as homicide.

An obvious hypothesis to account for these skewed beliefs is that murders are more likely to be talked about than suicides - thus, someone is more likely to recall hearing about a murder than hearing about a suicide. Accidents are more dramatic than diseases - perhaps this makes people more likely to remember, or more likely to recall, an accident. In 1979, a followup study by Combs and Slovic showed that the skewed probability judgments correlated strongly (.85 and .89) with skewed reporting frequencies in two newspapers. This doesn’t disentangle whether murders are more available to memory because they are more reported-on, or whether newspapers report more on murders because murders are more vivid (hence also more remembered). But either way, an availability bias is at work.

P: judging the frequency or probability of an event, by the ease with which examples of the event come to mind

E: (paraphrasing) “ According to a study there was a high correlation between reporting frequencies in two newspapers and the guess that murders were more frequent than suicides”

P: errors in quantifying the severity of risks, or judging which of two dangers occurred more frequently

E: “subjects thought accidents caused about as many deaths as disease, but diseases cause about 16 times as many deaths as accident.”

(Selective reporting is one major source of availability biases)[1]. In the ancestral environment, much of what you knew, you experienced yourself; or you heard it directly from a fellow tribe-member who had seen it. There was usually at most one layer of selective reporting between you, and the event itself. With today’s Internet, you may see reports that have passed through the hands of six bloggers on the way to you - six successive filters. Compared to our ancestors, we live in a larger world, in which far more happens, and far less of it reaches us - a much stronger selection effect, which can create much larger availability biases.

In real life, you’re unlikely to ever meet Bill Gates. But thanks to selective reporting by the media, you may be tempted to compare your life success to his - and suffer hedonic penalties accordingly. The objective frequency of Bill Gates is 0.00000000015, but you hear about him much more often. Conversely, 19% of the planet lives on less than $1/day, and I doubt that one fifth of the blog posts you read are written by them.

P: Selective reporting is one major source of availability biases

E: “The objective frequency of Bill Gates is 0.00000000015, but you maybe tempter to compare your life success to his. Conversely, 19% of the planet lives on less than $1/day, and I doubt that one fifth of the blog posts you read are written by them.”

(Using availability seems to give rise to an absurdity bias)[1]; events that have never happened, are not recalled, and hence deemed to have probability zero. When no flooding has recently occurred (and yet the probabilities are still fairly calculable), people refuse to buy flood insurance even when it is heavily subsidized and priced far below an actuarially fair value. Kunreuther et. al. (1993) suggests underreaction to threats of flooding may arise from “the inability of individuals to conceptualize floods that have never occurred… (Men on flood plains appear to be very much prisoners of their experience)[]… Recently experienced floods appear to set an upward bound to the size of loss with which managers believe they ought to be concerned.”

Burton et. al. (1978) report that when dams and levees are built, they reduce the frequency of floods, and thus apparently create a false sense of security, leading to reduced precautions. While building dams decreases the frequency of floods, damage per flood is afterward so much greater that average yearly damage increases.

P: Using availability seems to give rise to an absurdity bias

E: “Burton et. al. (1978) report that when dams and levees are built, they reduce the frequency of floods, and thus apparently create a false sense of security, leading to reduced precautions. While building dams decreases the frequency of floods, damage per flood is afterward so much greater that average yearly damage increases.”

(The wise would extrapolate from a memory of small hazards to the possibility of large hazards)[1]. (Instead, past experience of small hazards seems to set a perceived upper bound on risk)[2]. (A society well-protected against minor hazards takes no action against major risks)[3], building on flood plains once the regular minor floods are eliminated. (A society subject to regular minor hazards treats those minor hazards as an upper bound on the size of the risks)[4], guarding against regular minor floods but not occasional major floods.

(Memory is not always a good guide to probabilities in the past, let alone the future)[5].

P: The wise would extrapolate from memory of small hazards to the possibility of large hazards

E: We recently had a mild earthquake in India. I think what Eliezer is trying to say is that we should look at understanding the probability of a bigger earthquake and possibly get an insurance on it as the damage could bring you to a 0$ bank balance.

P: Instead, past experience of small hazards seems to set a perceived upper bound on risk

E: “Building of dams and levees lead to reduced precautions”

P: A society well-protected against minor hazards takes no action against major risks; A society subject to regular minor hazards treats those minor hazards as an upper bound on the size of the risks

E: Burton et. al. (1978) report that when dams and levees are built, they reduce the frequency of floods, and thus apparently create a false sense of security, leading to reduced precautions.

P: Memory is not always a good guide to probabilities in the past, let alone the future.

E: People think suicide is more common than homicide, based on selective reporting. But that is wrong. When predictions in the past are already wrong, and if extrapolation of the past is a way to see in the future, then the future is also going to be wrong.

Article by Eliezer Y on Scope Insensitivity (12)

From EY’s blog on Scope Insensitivity,

Once upon a time, three groups of subjects were asked how much they would pay to save 2000 / 20000 / 200000 migrating birds from drowning in uncovered oil ponds. The groups respectively answered $80, $78, and $88. This is (scope insensitivity or scope neglect)[1]: the number of birds saved - the scope of the altruistic action - had little effect on willingness to pay.

Similar experiments showed that Toronto residents would pay little more to clean up all polluted lakes in Ontario than polluted lakes in a particular region of Ontario, or that residents of four western US states would pay only 28% more to protect all 57 wilderness areas in those states than to protect a single area.

P: scope insensitivity or scope neglect

E: Once upon a time, three groups of subjects were asked how much they would pay to save 2000 / 20000 / 200000 migrating birds from drowning in uncovered oil ponds. The groups respectively answered $80, $78, and $88.

E2&3: Toronto residents would pay little more to clean up all polluted lakes in Ontario than polluted lakes in a particular region of Ontario, or that residents of four western US states would pay only 28% more to protect all 57 wilderness areas in those states than to protect a single area.

People visualize “a single exhausted bird, its feathers soaked in black oil, unable to escape”. (This image, or prototype, calls forth some level of emotional arousal)[1] that is primarily responsible for willingness-to-pay - and the image is the same in all cases. (As for scope, it gets tossed out the window)[2] - no human can visualize 2000 birds at once, let alone 200000. The usual finding is that exponential increases in scope create linear increases in willingness-to-pay - perhaps corresponding to the linear time for our eyes to glaze over the zeroes; (this small amount of affect is added, not multiplied, with the prototype affect)[3]. This hypothesis is known as (“valuation by prototype”)[4].

P: This image, or prototype, calls forth some level of emotional arousal [1]

E: Emotional arousal like feeling sad or crying or disturbed mentally.

P: As for the scope, it gets tossed out of the window [2]

E: “No human can visualize 2000 birds at once, let alone 200000”.

P: this small amount of affect is added, not multiplied, with the prototype affect [3]

E: Studies show that people pay 80$, 78$ and 88$ when asked about saving 2k, 20k and 200k birds respectively. Increase in birds exponentially, causes barely an increase in donations.

P: Valuation of prototype [4]

E: Value of 2k, 20k, and 200k birds, being in the same order.

An alternative hypothesis is “(purchase of moral satisfaction)[1]”. People spend enough money to create a warm glow in themselves, a sense of having done their duty. The (level of spending needed to purchase a warm glow depends on personality and financial situation)[2], (but it certainly has nothing to do with the number of birds)[3].

P: Purchase of moral satisfaction [1]

E: “People spend enough money to create a warm glow in themselves, a sense of having done their duty”

P: Level of spending needed to purchase a warm glow depends on personality and financial situation [2]

E: I would easily donate 10$ without really getting into the cause. If it was Bill Gates he would probably give 100$ or more without thought.

P: but it certainly has noting to do with the number of birds [3]

E: Donations for 2k, 20k, and 200k birds, being in the same order.

(We are insensitive to scope even when human lives are at stake)[1]: Increasing the alleged risk of chlorinated drinking water from 0.004 to 2.43 annual deaths per 1000 - a factor of 600 - increased willingness-to-pay from $3.78 to $15.23. Baron and Greene found no effect from varying lives saved by a factor of 10 .

P: We are insensitive to scope even when human lives are at stake[1].

E: “WTP increased from 3.78$ to 15.23$ even though there was a factor 600 increase in the number of human lives at risk.”

A paper entitled Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychological numbing collected evidence that our (perception of human deaths follows Weber’s Law - obeys a logarithmic scale where the “just noticeable difference” is a constant fraction of the whole)[1]. A proposed health program to save the lives of Rwandan refugees garnered far higher support when it promised to save 4,500 lives in a camp of 11,000 refugees, rather than 4,500 in a camp of 250,000. A potential disease cure had to promise to save far more lives in order to be judged worthy of funding, if the disease was originally stated to have killed 290,000 rather than 160,000 or 15,000 people per year.

P: perception of human deaths obeys logarithmic scale where the “just noticeable difference” is a constant fraction of the whole

E: “if 4500 people were saved out of 11000 people, then the perception of human deaths is higher, than if 4500 people were saved out of 250k people.”

Webers law

The moral: (If you want to be an effective altruist, you have to think it through with the part of your brain that processes those unexciting inky zeroes on paper)[1], not just (the part that gets real worked up about that poor struggling oil-soaked bird)[2].

P: if you want to be an effective altruist, you have to think it through with the part of your brain that processes those unexciting inky zeroes on paper[1]

E: if value of 2k birds as 80$ then 20k birds are valued at 80$*1000

P: if you want to be an effective altruist it is not enough to get worked up about poor struggling oil-soaked bird[2]

E: As 2k, 20k, 200k birds will all mean the same to you.

Article by PG on business plan(37)

From PG’s blog on Webgen’s business plan,

I recently found what I think is Viaweb’s original (business plan)[1]. I didn’t know what a business plan was supposed to have in it, so I just wrote down what I thought was important (in plain text, to make it easy to send by email).

The company was called “Webgen” at first. We thought we only needed $15,000 in startup capital; this proved to be an underestimate.

P: business plan[1]

E: The entire business plan is shown here.

Reading this, you can see that even we were still trying to grasp what a web-based application was. In the system description we listed the (site generator)[1] and the (web interface)[2] as separate components; now one would just think of them as a (web-based site generator)[3]. And we still thought that some users would prefer to update their sites via email than via a browser, because using a web browser was such (an esoteric skill)[4].

MarketplaceMCI was the big power in e-commerce at the time. They had a (service bureau model)[5], but they created (nice looking sites)[6]. Our original page design imitated theirs.

P: site generator [1]

E: Github, Wordpress, Blogger

P: Web interface [2]

E: Browser, websites

P: Web-based site generator [3]

E: Wordpress, Blogger

P: an esoteric skill [4]

E: like playing the dijiredoo for example, not many people have the knowledge about it.

P: Service bureau model [5]

E: MarketplaceMCI offering business services

P: Nice looking sites [6]

E: “MarketplaceMCI sites which Webgen ended up copying as they looked nice.”

Sketch of a business plan for Webgen. 24 Aug 95.

OVERVIEW

Webgen allows clients to generate (web catalogs)[1] remotely.

There are (several other companies that can generate and serve web catalogs)[2]. The best known site of this type is Marketplace MCI (www.internetmci.com). But while these other sites use their generators in-house to build catalogs from materials provided by clients, Webgen’s generator can be used interactively by anyone with a modem and a copy of Netscape.

This will (lower the cost)[3] of putting a catalog online by, say, 90%. It also means that our (volume is not limited by the number of clients we can serve personally)[4]. We would be a (software company)[5], (not a service company)[6].

P: web catalogs [1]

E: a catalog of products like this?

P: several other companies that can generate and serve web catalogs [2]

E: “Marketplace MCI (www.internetmci.com)

P: lower the cost [3]

E: “by 90%”

P: Volume is not limited by the number of clients we can serve personally.[4]

E: Alphabet serves billions of people, where as Mckinsey serves a limited number of clients. Alphabet is not limited by the number of clients they can serve personally.

P: Software company [5]

E: Alphabet, Facebook, Microsoft, Accenture, IBM

P: Service company [6]

E: MarketplaceMCI, Mckinsey

Anyone will be able to sign up to keep a catalog at our site for a flat monthly fee. And we have made Webgen (so easy to use)[1] that any graphic designer or “web consultant” can generate catalogs with it. So instead of approaching catalog companies with an offer to put their catalog on the web, we will let them do it themselves.

Suppose you are running (a catalog company)[2]. Today, if you want to have (an online catalog that people can order from)[3], you have two options. You can have a company like MCI create and serve it for you, or you can set up your own server. Both options are expensive. When our service goes online for real, (you will be able to do it in-house)[4]: anyone who can use Netscape can generate catalogs at Webgen.

P: So easy to use [1]

E: “any graphic designer or “web consultant” can generate catalogs”

P: a catalog company [2]

E: similar to Amazon, flipkart

P: an online catalog that people can order from [3]

E: Amazon and flipkart, where you can see and buy from.

P: do it in-house [4]

E: “anyone who can use netscape can generate catalogs at Webgen”

(There are a large number of companies who would like to be able to market products on the web)[1], (if it were cheaper and easier)[2]. To our knowledge, Webgen is the only system that can tap this market.

As the market matures, we would consider spinning off a standalone catalog generator/server as a commercial product.

P: Large number of companies who would like to able to market products online [1]

E: Have a look at amazon; books, furniture, clothes, food etc…

P: if it were cheaper and easier [2]

E: “90% cheaper than others, and a graphic designer being able to do it”

HOW BIG A DEAL IS WEBGEN?

Even (assuming it succeeds)[1], what are the prospects for Webgen? How big a role in the future of the Internet will a company like Webgen play?

The answer, perhaps surprisingly, seems to be: (a very big role)[2]. (Technical people and business people)[3] agree, the web is going to be important. A large part of the web’s importance will come from online commerce. And Webgen could, in turn, be involved in a large part of the online commerce.

P: assuming if it succeeds [1]

E: if the company makes profits or if the company is capable of sustaining itself

P: a very big role[2]

E: “A large part of web’s importance will come from online commerce. And Webgen could, in turn, be involved in a large part of the online commerce.” ( as it is currently the only easy-to-use generator)

P: Technical people and business people [3]

E: No examples are given, out of scope of this essay.

Why? Forget about Webgen for a moment, and just ask: what will the (future of online commerce look like)[1]? (When someone wants to sell things on the Web, how will they do it)[2]? At the moment, they can either go to a company like MCI, or set up their own server. But what will they do a year or two from now? Ten years from now?

(If selling things online were like other software applications, the future of the market would be general-purpose software packages)[3]. You would eventually be able to buy a copy of Microsoft Catalog, and use that to put your catalog online.

There are a couple reasons why this is not likely to happen anytime soon. The main problem is, (an online catalog is not just something that happens on your own computer)[4], like word-processing. It has to be on a web server, with encrypted transactions, a high-bandwidth network connection, 100% uptime, security, backups, order tracking, and so on. (Setting up a server is expensive and difficult)[5]. On the East coast, the network connection alone costs about $2000/mo.

P: future of online commerce look like

E: (paragraph 2) “the future of the market would be general-purpose software packages”

P: When someone wants to sell things on the Web, how will they do it

E: “Either go an MCI or set up your own server”

P: if selling things online were like other software applications, the future of the market would be general-purpose software packages

E: “You would eventually be able to buy a copy of Microsoft Catalog, and use that to put your catalog online.”

P: an online catalog is not just something that happens on your computer

E: “like word processing”

P: it needs other things

E: web server, encrypted transactions

P: Setting up a server is expensive

E: “On the east coast, the network connection alone costs about $2000/mo”

P: difficult

E: No idea

So the next best solution is to have a (general-purpose catalog generator)[1], but have someone else handle the server part. And that’s exactly what Webgen is. Webgen is Microsoft Catalog, or as close as anything’s going to get. Don’t be led astray by the fact that the software is going to run on our machines. (With networks, it no longer matters whether the program you’re using is running on your own computer or not)[2]. Using Webgen will be just like using any off-the- shelf software package, except that users won’t have to install anything.

P: general purpose generator [1]

E: like Microsoft catalog

P: With networks, it no longer matters whether the program you’re using is running on your own computer or not [2]

E: “like using any off-the-shelf software package, except that users won’t have to install anything”

What’s more, our software will “run” on everyone’s machine, updates will be free and instant, and (the interface will be one the users already know)[1], Netscape.

P: interface will be one the users already know [1]

E: Netscape

(The idea behind Webgen)[1] is a lot like the one that made Kodak. Before Kodak came along, (if you took a photo, you had to develop it)[2]. If an ordinary person wanted to have his photo taken, he went to a photographer’s studio, (just as you might go to MCI to put your catalog online today)[3].

P: idea behind Webgen

E: a lot like Kodak

P: if you made you catalog, you had to serve it

E: if you took a photo, you had to develop it

P: just as you might go to MCI to put your catalog online

E: “if an ordinary person wanted to have his photo taken, he went to a studio”

Eastman sold a camera everyone could use, plus the promise to handle the messy, (capital-intensive part)[1]—developing the film.

We sell a catalog generator everyone can use, plus the promise to handle the messy, capital-intensive part—serving the pages.

P: capital intensive part

E: “developing the film, serving the pages”

Of course, (really high-end customers will want to set up their own servers)[1], just as high-end photography customers develop their own photos. We would not rule out setting up clones of Webgen for them. But we believe that we will be more successful if we think of ourselves as (selling a product)[2] rather than (a service)[3]. Webgen could be the Kodak of online commerce. Someone will be.

P: really high-end customers will want to setup their own servers

E: “just as high end photography customers will develop their own photos”

P: selling a product

E: like Kodak cameras

P: selling a service

E: like MCI

Article by Paul graham on Schleps Blindness (24)

There are ((great startup ideas)[1] lying around unexploited right under our noses)[2]. One reason we don’t see them is a phenomenon I call (schlep blindness)[3]. Schlep was originally a Yiddish word but has passed into general use in the US. It means a (tedious, unpleasant task)[4].

No one likes schleps, but hackers especially (dislike them)[5]. Most hackers who start startups wish they could do it by just writing some clever software, putting it on a server somewhere, and watching the money roll in—without ever having to talk to users, or negotiate with other companies, or deal with other people’s broken code. Maybe that’s possible, but I haven’t seen it.

P: great startup ideas

E: Dropbox, ASML, Paypal, Tesla (greatness measured by success)

P: great startup ideas lying around unexploited right under our noses

E: perhaps an NGO that works with the government to provide free or dirt cheap extensive health care for all in need

P: tedious, unpleasant task

E: I am discouraged to pursue starting up as there is so much unpleasant uncertainty, it will probably not happen within my lifetime; you have to penetrate your vision into the government SOMEHOW; you need to make deals; you need to followup; there will be power changes; I need to have the right skill before I take it up etc…

E2: I worked in a company where there were 40 designers sharing one license for part of software. Not many people used it often but when I needed it I always had to beg around and ask for it and waste quite some time. To fix it I would need to talk to a few people who have the problem, escalate it to the VP of the company and keep following it up for months before I see any follow up. So, I didn’t. I just left it as I was somehow able to finish my work. Then it happened again. I escalated it. This time I didn’t follow it up though. #schleps

P: people dislike schleps

E: I guess the one thing that is stopping me from pursuing starting or joining an NGO to support healthcare for the poor, is all the work that I need to do, right from my education, to handling uncertainty of such an initiative (mainly coming from schleps?)

One of the many things we do at Y Combinator is teach hackers about (the inevitability of schleps)[6]. No, you can’t start a startup by just writing code. I remember going through this realization myself. There was a point in 1995 when I was still trying to convince myself I could start a company by just writing code. But I soon learned from experience that schleps are not merely inevitable, but pretty much what business consists of. A company is defined by the schleps it will undertake. And schleps should be dealt with the same way you’d deal with a cold swimming pool: just jump in. Which is not to say you should seek out unpleasant work per se, but that you should (never shrink from it if it’s on the path to something great.)[7]

P: the inevitability of schleps

E: Buying groceries has schleps (you need to go there, stand in que), buying groceries online has schleps (you freaking need to be home for 2 hrs to collect it),

I want to be able to clock hours after hours in the silent room in the library. But guess what, I need to cook, I need to pack my work in bags, unfreeze the food for the next day, clean plates, buy the missing ingredients from stores that close before 10pm. Schleps is everywhere.

You want to find another house where the roof doesn’t creek and is in the same city of your work? #Schleps. You need to find someone for your current place, you need to find a new place within the Budget, you need to spend hours on the website.

Schleps got to be done.

P: never shrink from it if it’s on the path to something great

E: You still need to eat, live in a space of mental peace. So you need to put in the work of cooking, storing the food and finding a roof above your head that allows you to sleep on time etc…

The most dangerous thing about our dislike of schleps is that much of it is unconscious. (Your unconscious won’t even let you see ideas that involve painful schleps)[8]. That’s schlep blindness.

The phenomenon isn’t limited to startups. Most people don’t consciously decide not to be in as good physical shape as Olympic athletes, for example. Their unconscious mind decides for them, shrinking from the work involved.

P: Your unconscious won’t even let you see ideas that involve painful schleps

E: “Most people don’t consciously decide not to be in as good physical shape as Olympic athletes, for example. Their unconscious mind decides for them, shrinking from the work involved.”

E2: I freaking don’t go to a phisio but complain to myself for the last 3-5 months everytime I go to the gym because of #schleps. Wow. The Schleps though is that I keep a schedule and I hate it if it gets disturbed, I have to call the phisio during the schedule (“I don’t have time you see”)

E3: Fat caliper allows to calculate the muscle mass and fat%, my unconscious has decided not to give me this feedback as it is a schlep that I have to do every Monday night for about 10-15 mins

E4: It helps to stretch leg muscles before and after strenuous cardio. It is a schlep, and I have schlep blindness.

E5: I suspect not many people donate and it’s schlep blindness. Once a year we have the opportunity to donate 10$ from the company or get gifts for it instead. A large number of people chose gifts. It appears that their unconscious has decided for them shrinking from the schlep (aka, having to forgo a bag of gifts).

The (most striking example)[9] I know of schlep blindness is Stripe, or rather Stripe’s idea. For over a decade, every hacker who’d ever had to process payments online knew how painful the experience was. Thousands of people must have known about this problem. And yet when they started startups, they decided to build recipe sites, or aggregators for local events. Why? Why work on problems few care much about and no one will pay for, when you could fix one of the most important components of the world’s infrastructure? Because schlep blindness prevented people from even considering the idea of fixing payments.

P: most striking example

E: Stripe took the hardest problem (considering schleps), and solved it despite so many people having the same problem

Probably no one who applied to Y Combinator to work on a recipe site began by asking “should we fix payments, or build a recipe site?” and chose the recipe site. (Though the idea of fixing payments was right there in plain sight, they never saw it, because their unconscious mind shrank from the complications involved)[10]. You’d have to make deals with banks. How do you do that? Plus you’re moving money, so you’re going to have to deal with fraud, and people trying to break into your servers. Plus there are probably all sorts of regulations to comply with. It’s a lot more intimidating to start a startup like this than a recipe site.

P: Though the idea of fixing payments was right there in plain sight, they never saw it, because their unconscious mind shrank from the complications involved.

E: “You’d have to make deals with banks. How do you do that? Plus you’re moving money, so you’re going to have to deal with fraud, and people trying to break into your servers. Plus there are probably all sorts of regulations to comply with. It’s a lot more intimidating to start a startup like this than a recipe site.”

(That scariness makes ambitious ideas doubly valuable)[11]. In addition to (their intrinsic value)[12], (they’re like undervalued stocks)[13] in the sense that there’s less demand for them among founders. If you (pick an ambitious idea, you’ll have less competition)[14], because everyone else will have been frightened off by the challenges involved. (This is also true of starting a startup generally)[15].

P: That scariness makes ambitious ideas doubly valuable

E: No one made Stripe before and once Stripe came in they had the whole market to themselves, unlike other startups making recipe sites at Y combinator, which everyone has already made.

P: their intrinsic value

E: ??

P: their undervalued stocks

E: “there is less demand for them from founders”, but they are cash cows

P: if you pick up an ambitious idea, you’ll have less competition; this is also true of starting a startup generally

E: Stripe had 0 competitors when they started.

SpaceX’s by far extremely ambitious with its plans to go to Mars, and guess what 0 competition.

Tesla is pioneering the way of the future and has only one other serious competitor

How do you (overcome schlep blindness)[1]? Frankly, (the most valuable antidote to schlep blindness is probably ignorance)[2]. Most successful founders would probably say that if they’d known when they were starting their company about the obstacles they’d have to overcome, they might never have started it. Maybe that’s one reason the most successful startups of all so often have young founders.

P: overcome schlep blindness

E: Starting Tesla, Starting Space X, Starting Stripe irrespective of the schleps

P: the most valuable antidote to schlep blindness is probably ignorance

E: If Elon Musk knew the type of problems he would face such as constant backlash with investors, the uncertainty of the company existing every single day, constantly being scrutinized by the public and having to stay at work 24x7 while accelerating the progress of humanity, he probably wouldn’t have started it.(bold claim, please read with caution)

2 people from Indian Institute of Technology started Ather Energy, which is similar in concept to Tesla but for India and they are for bikes, not cars. When the two founders started they didn’t have a strong idea of what all they needed to tackle; how to handle the problem of charging the vehicles; how to sell the product; are people going to even buy it; is there a market for it; who is going to fund such an idea; What about competing with other vehicles etc… Atleast they were not too concerned with it. All they wanted to do was build electric vehicles. The city needed a better class of electric vehicles and they were going to give it. Period.

Initially they wanted to come up with battery swap. The logistical nightmare it would be, was ridiculous. He had some ideas of tackling it, like running pilot tests, but was not really worried about it. Ignorance? I think so. They had no vision of the hurdles they had to cross to put an e-bike on the market.

In practice the (founders grow with the problems)[1]. But no one seems able to foresee that, not even older, more experienced founders. So the reason younger founders have an advantage is that (they make two mistakes that cancel each other out)[2]. They don’t know how much they can grow, but they also don’t know how much they’ll need to. Older founders only make the first mistake.

P: founders grow with problems

E: The founders have no previous history of managing anything. Both were extremely technical people. Today Ather Energy is killing it, having been backed by some of the biggest giants in the industry, attempting to revolutionize e-bikes in a country like India. Every single problem I talked about, they seem to have grown to handle it. For example, if people need to charge their bikes, they decided to give them charging stations with quick charging in several locations. They introduced a bunch of features using smart phones to locate them and check if the stations are free. They have started this already in Banglore and are trying to expand to other cities.

P: They (young founders) make two mistakes that cancel each other out

E: They don’t know how much they can grow, but they also don’t know how much they’ll need to.

(Ignorance can’t solve everything though)[1]. (Some ideas so obviously entail alarming schleps that anyone can see them)[2]. How do you see ideas like that? The trick I recommend is to (take yourself out of the picture)[3]. Instead of asking (“what problem should I solve?” ask “what problem do I wish someone else would solve for me?”)[4] If someone who had to process payments before Stripe had tried asking that, Stripe would have been one of the first things they wished for.

It’s too late now to be Stripe, (but there’s plenty still broken in the world, if you know how to see it)[5].

P: ignorance can’t solve everything though; Some ideas so obviously entail alarming schleps that anyone can see them; take yourself out of the picture; what problem do I wish someone else would solve for me

E: After the company matured a bit, Ather Energy knew that no one would come forward to providing charging stations. Without Charging stations infrastructure, their product was going to fail. It was a chicken and egg problem. The infrastructure companies would have to see enough demand to provide charging stations, and only if there are enough charging stations, the company making e-bikes could survive. So they decided to take that on as well. Ather Grid.

Ask not what I should solve, ask what problem do I wish someone else would solve for me! This way you see without the schleps.

P: but there’s plenty still broken in the world

E: For some of the hottest problems look no further than here

Reflection

I am happy about most of the work, except the technical writing. I constantly felt it was really bad. For example…

P: modeling the loads accurately when they vary with time

E: If the loads vary with time you have to make atleast another 360 to 720 calculations for the case of the IC engine.

P: it is customary to come up with a design based on the available knowledge of load

E: We set the inertial terms to 0 and this makes computation faster and straight-forward to get closed form solutions and design the parts.

P: over-compensation of the loads

E: To account for unknown variations, we take the static loads on a table, say due to a man sitting on it, and then assume the maximum load is going to be 3 times the static load and design the table for that.

P: detailed analysis of the mass distribution, strength and loading of components

E: for example using Finite Element Methods

I know in all these cases atleast there needs some more work from my side, as I do not explain the connection between the phrase and the example at all.

P: modeling the loads accurately when they vary with time

E: If the loads vary with time you have to make atleast another 360 to 720 calculations for the case of the IC engine.

P: it is customary to come up with a design based on the available knowledge of load

E: We set the inertial terms to 0 and this makes computation faster and straight-forward to get closed form solutions and design the parts.

I like what I did for schlep blindness, particularly here where I attempt imho some decent examples:

P: ignorance can’t solve everything though; Some ideas so obviously entail alarming schleps that anyone can see them; take yourself out of the picture; what problem do I wish someone else would solve for me

E: After the company matured a bit, Ather Energy knew that no one would come forward to providing charging stations. Without Charging stations infrastructure, their product was going to fail. It was a chicken and egg problem. The infrastructure companies would have to see enough demand to provide charging stations, and only if there are enough charging stations, the company making e-bikes could survive. So they decided to take that on as well. Ather Grid.

P: Your unconscious won’t even let you see ideas that involve painful schleps

E: “Most people don’t consciously decide not to be in as good physical shape as Olympic athletes, for example. Their unconscious mind decides for them, shrinking from the work involved.”

E2: I freaking don’t go to a phisio but complain to myself for the last 3-5 months everytime I go to the gym because of #schleps. Wow. The Schleps though is that I keep a schedule and I hate it if it gets disturbed, I have to call the phisio during the schedule (“I don’t have time you see”)

E3: Fat caliper allows to calculate the muscle mass and fat%, my unconscious has decided not to give me this feedback as it is a schlep that I have to do every Monday night for about 10-15 mins

E4: It helps to stretch leg muscles before and after strenuous cardio. It is a schlep, and I have schlep blindness.

E5: I suspect not many people donate and it’s schlep blindness. Once a year we have the opportunity to donate 10$ from the company or get gifts for it instead. A large number of people chose gifts. It appears that their unconscious has decided for them shrinking from the schlep (aka, having to forgo a bag of gifts).

Statistics

Words: ~5-6k words not including quotations or other files inserted

Total: 29 hrs

DP: ~20 hrs Re-writing & editing: 9 hours

Day 1: 3 hrs work and 1.2 hrs break in between

Lot of yawning, trying to figure out which articles to pick. If I keep typing then I tend to get bored less. The last one hr was hard. I roughly did about 10 examples an hour.

Day 2: 5 hrs work and 2 hrs break in between

I understood the real task at hand and how overwhelming it was going to be to do 200 phrases. I realize I am trying to eat more than I can chew. I come back after basketball (very rare event) to clock another hour. I feel more serious. I am saying to myself, this is how it should be, grinding at top speed and not anything slower. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PAINFUL! ONLY THEN YOU ARE MAXING OUT. IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO FEEL GOOD. Inshallah! #Indha-vali-puduchurku!

38 phrases done by day 2.

Day 3: 6 hrs work and 1.2 hrs break in between

Feeling frustrated that I am unable to come up with examples in some cases. This is hard bro!

Wanted to go all the way till 150 somehow but couldn’t, got stuck at 100 phrases.

Day 4: 7 hrs work and 2 hrs break in between

Went all the way till 150 phrases.

Day 5: 8.5 hrs work and 2.5 hrs of break

As for my last day, I am tired as fuck, I don’t have much energy in me. I know I didn’t do all the 200, but I did 170-175. I tried my best. I am sorry! Cheers!

Situation: I had most of the time in the day to work on this as I don’t have to work now. I went to the gym or did cardio in the evenings on most days. Usually started work by 10:30 am and went on till the night with other activities such as rest, gym and eating food.

On all days I slept for half hour after lunch! Like hand on the table and closing my eyes and waking up naturally.