Dacă știți despre „Efectul fluture”/„Butterfly effect”, e greu să nu vedeți legătura între COVID-19 și posibilul efect fluture.
Ca justificare, dacă o persoană X are sau nu COVID și infectează sau nu o altă persoană poate avea un impact major asupra vieților multor oameni.
E un efect de domino masiv, în care un gest simplu de protecție (mască, săpun, izolare) poate preveni o reacție în lanț.
I follow Seth Godin.
From time to time, he writes about an extraordinary book, something which impressed him, a special project.
But rarely, if ever, does he mention average books, not-so-great-projects, and so on.
And I think there are two or three reasons for which I, unlike him, should write about less-than-great things:
All these are specific to things that can’t be offended if I write poorly about them. I will generally refrain to write something negative about a real-life, can-be-offended, person.
When you play most computer games, you need to beat the computer 100%. If you play a strategy game, you must destroy all the buildings/units your opponent has. If you play chess, it’s a checkmate or a draw. In a fighting game, you need to go to 0%.
The thing is, it’s unlikely for a computer to still beat you, when he’s at 3%, and you’re at 100%. But he never gives up. And I wish it would. There’s a huge probability you’ll win. But in order to do so, you need to do some boring stuff, which makes you feel in power „Oh, how good I am, with this much advantage I can win. Oh, I’m so good, look at me!”. In order for you not to lose this feeling of power, I think, game creators don’t create an algorithm for abandoning games by the computer. „Let him enjoy his winnings!”.
I just think it brings no real value, other than the pleasure of winning when you pretty much can’t lose anymore.
The AI from StarCraft I doesn’t abandon games, but in StarCraft II it does. :)
There was a debate recently on how do games influence learning and development. My thoughts, below.
I once heard a person saying that during the first years of his career he worked a lot, „like a dog”. Probably what he meant by this was that he put long hours and work intensely, at the same time. Well, I have a slight problem with that notion.
I don’t think that you can work very long days and still be efficient, in a lot of types of work.
If you do non-creative work, very repetitive tasks, sure, you can work long hours. But I don’t consider these types of hours to also be efficient. I don’t think you’ll get lots of value at the job by sleeping little, never relaxing, always being tired.
You can jeopardize your health, that’s for sure. But get results? I’m not buying this.
There’s a quote I like: „There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” – by Beverly Sills.
I’ve seen people going to conferences, pieces of training, trying to get in a short time a lot of knowledge. Also, networking, and getting new ideas.
I think it’s a worthwhile process. I do think people should attend conferences, do training, and so on.
But I also think that they should work hard and read books, some blogs perhaps.
Conferences are not enough.
Yes, they’re a hack, but it’s not enough.
I’ve read „12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” – by Jordan Peterson. Thoughts (with spoilers!)?
Let’s say you want to do the visual identity for a brand.
I do SEO, not brand design, but as far as I know, you’ll need to start from the brand values.
First, establish what the brand values are, and what are some brand characteristics, create some general principles for design, and only at the end try to make a nice logo.
If you make a cool-looking logo, it might not reflect your brand.
I think the WordPress logo reflects their brand identity.
