Stritar's chronolog

One of the most important things ever written

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:51:28 GMT

Every once in a while your read something that takes you to another level. Something that can change the way you've been thinking and doing things for years already. Which means looking for ways to optimize everything, drilling yourself, studying every day of the year, gathering knowledge, battling procrastination and low energy, looking for new ways to grow. Lifehacks whenever possible, fixes and improvements that come on a daily basis. And then one day your find out that you've perhaps been doing it all wrong. Not possible? Let me tell you a story about a great idea.

tl;dr: The article.

You've probably heard about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where people need to fulfill their primitive requirements, like food and intimacy, to reach higher needs like self-actualization. Classic psychology. Which is perhaps also doable the other way around.

A few days ago Salim Virani wrote a great post about the perceived causality between self-improvement and self-confidence. We usually think we need to improve ourselves first, to make it to the next step. Well, he made me believe it's rather the opposite. The problem these days is, at least in the technology startup environments, that we are all hyper pumped up do crazy shit everybody drools over, while the competition is fierce and global, tight schedules and stress are everywhere, most clients expect you to overdeliver things, better, cheaper, faster. A never-ending story, sucking every bit of blood you have, leaving you empty. Which makes you not evolve as much as you would like to, both professionally and spiritually.

But wait, what if we try to self-actualize first, could that help us find the energy for self-improvement?

Read the article now! Yes, forget about how to do this and how to improve that, you've been doing it all wrong! You've read tons of shit like that, just like me, and what happened - nothing. You are still the same. No matter the technique, you can't change how things are, you can't be happy at work if you're not, you can't force yourself to do things you don't want to do.

From this day on, I'm doing it the other way around. Focusing on the things that make me happy first, believing other things will magically become more pleasant. Because this guy is right, I can see the way self-confidence can help me towards self-improvement. I will do all the things I really want to do besides my job, and those things I hate about my job will become a piece of cake, since they will be downgraded to just another activity required to reach the higher goal of finding my self-confidence and self-actualization.

Now that I think about it, I feel I've been intuitively going into that direction already, but now that I'm fully aware about the science behind it, I'm going all-in. Which means more fun, more blogging, more crazy prototypes, I've also decided to start working on this idea I have for a boardgame. Just because. Not really giving a fuck if these things actually make sense or if they will be financially feasible. I need to start enjoying life, I need to satisfy my urge to create, and confidence and growth will come. Thank you Salim, for discovering and pointing out this amazing perspective on life.

Is it even possible to create original content in this age?

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:52:13 GMT

I've been blogging for more than three years now. And I love doing it, hell, I think my blog is pretty fucking awesome. But there's a problem I've been noticing lately. Every single piece of content I write has probably been written hundred times before. By mainstream media, by authors, by bloggers, by you. There's no way around it, and it bugs me to infinity. Take this specific post for instance, I won't even google it, but I can guess plenty of others writers have faced these thoughts and wrote about them from their own viewpoints. The irony of the situation is fantastic.

The amount of information on the internet is overwhelming. Thousands of blogposts created every day, hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, infinite tweets (check out this cool infographic). And only so many things you can tell. Which pretty much means that no matter what you write, someone else surely wrote it before you. All the topics have been covered so many times it's silly. You feel you're stealing other people's ideas even if you aren't. Or are you?

I'm one of those people who tries to absorb as much information as possible. I want to learn every day, synthesizing the gathered knowledge for various reasons, such as my work or this blog. From this perspective, I'm inevitably copying other people's ideas, rewriting content that's already been written many times before. Stealing Lego blocks and using them to build new sculptures. Is there even such a thing as an original idea? There probably really aren't that many.

Writers and bloggers are just a bunch of monkeys who are trying to write Shakespeare anyways. Curators, who are striving to separate the sheep from the goats, blending extraordinary ideas into somethings even greater. And that's what matters, that's where the value is added. Even though most of the content is not original, if any. But I guess that's ok, I just needed to think and write about it, which helped me understand this is the very essence of blogging.

Do you think we are slowly reaching the end (of science)?

Sat, 07 Jul 2012 09:59:15 GMT

This was great week for science. The scientists from CERN Large Hadron Collider finally proved with great probability that the Higgs boson particle exists. Not that any of us mortals truly understand what it means for the future of mankind, but it's supposed to be quite significant, so I won't argue with that. Science has come a long way, and while we take into account a few other interesting and revolutionary fields, such as Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnolooy, Nuclear Fission, Stem Cells, Genetics, etc., we must also consider the timeframe in which these discoveries did or will take place, in relation to the history of our planet and humanity.

Imagine this: if history of Earth would be represented by one standard year, first cells would appear by the end of February, life would move to dry land around December 1st, dinosaurs would appear on December 13th, modern mammals on December 27th. On the evening on December 31st, first hominids would evolve in Africa, and 10 minutes before midnight, Neanderthals would spread throughout Europe. Around minute to midnight, agriculture would be invented, the Roman Empire would collapse 10 seconds before new year's, and the last 2 seconds would be marked by the industrial era. (source)

Makes you think about our insignificance in the history of Earth (not even the whole universe). But we've come a long way in these few minutes. The steam engine was invented 250 years ago, and look at us now. All in two seconds of Earth's history!

I think it was Isaac Asimov who said modern computerization represents the fourth big revolution in communication, after speech, writing and printing. Speech was invented tens of thousands of years ago, writing thousands of years ago, printing hundreds of years ago, and information technologies decades ago. Yes, it goes exponentially faster with each iteration, because every new generation of communication allows information to travel faster and reach more people, besides the fact that each time, global population is a few times greater than before. This enables science and knowledge to evolve even on a faster pace. Thousands of universities and scientist are already taking into account what CERN had discovered and announced, developing theories even further, making experiments of their own.

If all goes well, I think there is only one possible scenario: we will soon come to the end. Find that particle, understand that impulse, define that force. And by soon I don't mean tomorrow, or even in our generation, but in no time compared to History. Hundred, even thousand years? Why not. Ten, hundred thousand years? Sure, we have time, what are a few "minutes" more. Imagine everything we'll discover if we don't fuck it up on a major scale and our society evolves in a similar fashion as it did before.

But what is waiting for us at the end? Well, I think we are all pretty much aware of that. "Why are we here?", "What do we have to do?", "Is this real life?" and that sort of shit that brought us here in the first place. I think science has a good chance of clearing these things up one day, and then we will find the ultimate answer (or question). And Science will become one with Religion and the whole situation will be quite ironic, concerning the traditionally opposed stance they have. The only question that remains is, will we live happily ever after then, or will we just find another, greater and even more complex system, where we will have to help our Gods find their Gods?

The Silicon Valley tour, part 3: The magnificent Stanford University

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 03:21:33 GMT

There probably aren't many institutions associated with Silicon Valley the way Stanford University is. Its affiliates and graduates played a major role in the development of the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area, which would later on become known as the Silicon Valley. The spirit of entrepreneurship, technology, science and research is felt everywhere, and Stanford University will surely be one of the most fascinating stops on my Silicon Valley trip.

Stanford University can only be described as the American educational dream. At least the way Europeans imagine it, thanks of pop culture and television shows such as Beverly Hills 90210. The perfect mixture of easiness and seriousness is manifested in the campus itself, which is filled with amazing parks and glorious squares and buildings. It's beautiful, but also tempting for a person like me, who is still playing around with the idea of being a student for a few more years.

We managed to spend some time with Jure Leskovec from Slovenia, who is an assistant professor there. His research is focused mostly on data mining and network analysis, very fascinating fields that I'm very interested in too. He gave as a tour of the campus and took us to the Institute of Design, an inspiring place where all sort of crazy things are researched and developed. Later on he proudly presented his lab, which was sponsored by Google. A great-looking place indeed, I hope he didn't notice me drooling all over it.

Stanford University - the mother of all knowledge, located right in the heart of Silicon Valley. Seeing it helps you understand why this region is miles ahead of anyone else in technology, and definitely makes you want to study there. It's simply magnificent.

The Oval: a beautiful park, located in front of the main entrance from Palo Alto

The view on the campus from the Hoover tower

One of the beautiful streets

Arches are practically everywhere

The Institute of design: some students programming robots

The Institute of design: results from a few intense brainstorming sessions

Jure Leskovec's lab, where he and his students do their magic

Check out the complete The Silicon Valley tour series.

The great aquarium cleaning dilemma: should you be removing or replacing water?

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:44:18 GMT

Everybody that owns an aquarium probably came across this decision at one point. The water is filthy and needs to be replaced. All you have is a jar. And you ask yourself: should you be emptying the aquarium first, adding new water later on, or should you be replacing filthy water with clean water? The first choice seems more rational, but sometimes you can't fully empty the aquarium (e.g. you have fish), and you need to do more runs since you're not taking water both ways. The other option seems interesting since you're efficient both ways, but at the same time you're taking back fresh water mixed in the aquarium. So, what should you do?

The situation

In reality, you do have other options. A water pump, a larger intermediate basin or other things that can make this task easier. But believe me, sometimes you don't have the time to do it properly and you just want to clean the water a bit. And that's when you'll wonder what to do. It happened to me, and that's why I've made myself a model that would answer this question, a model that would determine the breaking point (where both options are equally effective) between the two techniques.

The model described contains the following parameters:

the aquarium volume (V - volume)
the jar volume (d - change)
number of two-way runs (x)

And it looks something like this:

The aquarium cleaning situation

The initial model

The original view I made in Excel is based on simple mathematics, where each one-way run is represented by one line in the table. Adding and removing water both-ways constantly reduces filthiness, but makes each additional run less effective. On the other hand, removing water first and adding fresh water later takes more runs (since your jar is empty in one direction, you require four one-way runs to replace an additional unit), but you're not removing clean water. Here's a preview of how this looks:

The basic calculation

The advanced model

The basic model is more understandable, but not appropriate to make a full mathematical equation. That's why I made a second model, which is based on two-way runs and exponential functions. Here's what I got:

The advanced calculation

The results

The results show that if you don't have much time, it's better if you're replacing water, taking it both ways. This accounts for faster cleaning, which is slowing down in the long run. But the point is that no matter what the parameters are (aquarium and jar size), the breaking point happens more to the end of the cleaning. So, if you're not prepared to fully empty the aquarium, it's generally better if you use the the first option, removing and adding water at the same time.

The graphical results displaying water filthiness based on number of two-way runs for different jar and aquarium sizes

The breaking point equation

The results are there, and I managed to make the following equation which would calculate where both ways are the equally effective:

This makes calculating the number of runs so complex it can't be calculated in basic Excel (because of the Lambert W or product log function).

But luckily, you can use Wolfram Alpha to calculate the breaking point of two-way runs by entering the aquarium and jar size in the boxes below. If you're prepared to make less two-way runs than the result, take water both-ways, otherwise, one-way.

Aquarium: Jar:

If you want to play around a bit, you can even download the complete model in Excel format.

Conclusion

Perhaps there's an easier way to calculate the great aquarium cleaning dilemma, which speaks in favor of water replacement (taking water both ways). There's also a chance I've made an error somewhere (please let me know!). But the results seem correct, and I hope you find all of this amusing and / or helpful when you need to update your water. Aquarium cleaning will never be the same again.

Update (26.11.2011): While this may have been a fun experiment, I've just read it's not that smart to fully remove water in the aquarium, since it disrupts the balance of bacteria.

Can you believe Watson got the question about Slovenia wrong on Jeopardy?

Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:33:12 GMT

Slovenia made it to the spotlight again, for the first time after the soccer world cup (when Slovenia was trending topic on Twitter and top search on Google). This time, it happened because IBM's supercomputer Watson competed against human champions in the famous TV show Jeopardy. IBM's computers are known to destroy people in various challenges, Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in a chess tournament in 1997. But chess is simple for computers to play, because it is pure logic and mathematics – the capability of a player is determined by the number of operations and actions it can calculate in advance. But a quiz is a totally different story, where the biggest challenge is semantics – understanding the meaning of words.

In 1950, Alan Turing, one of the greatest pioneers of computing introduced the Turing test, a methodology that could separate humans from computers using a set of questions, some of them formed in such a way computer wouldn't be able to understand and answer them. There are many questions which can't be answered with pure logic, the one I remember from high school goes something like this:

"Jack attended Sally's party, bring a doll. What was the present?"

The catch is in the connection between party – (birthday) – present – doll, which can't be noticed without abstract thinking humans are capable of. And today's computers still face the same problem - even though Watson dominated Jeopardy, it failed miserably on the following question about Slovenia:

"As of 2010, Croatia & Macedonia are candidates but this is the only former Yugoslav republic in the EU"

Watson's computing capabilities and knowledge banks are huge, but a question and an answer so obvious to humans presented a huge problem. Watson surely knows which countries are EU members, but it obviously didn't understand the question, thinking it was asked about which country would be next to start negotiating for EU membership, answering Serbia. The right answer was, of course, Slovenia.

The video is also fascinating from the cultural point of view – and extremely creepy. Those who have watched (or read) "2001: A Space Odyssey" may have experienced a slight shiver and carefully waited if Watson would say it: "Hello Dave". Others might have enjoyed this science fiction presentation, but besides Watson's obvious advantage in being the fastest to answer the question, it's clear that computers are still far away from being intelligent. And hopefully they will stay that way.

Why Web 2.0 is so important

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:10:53 GMT

The influence the Internet is having on our every day lives is reaching almost unimaginable levels. The extent of the information revolution can only be compared to inventions of speaking, writing and printing in the past, which are all major achievements that allowed new ways of sharing thoughts and ideas between people. Web 2.0 is the next step of this information (r)evolution, and to understand why it's so important, we have to observe all the significant applications it represents (according to Wikipedia). This will hopefully give us a better insight into the potential they bring to our personal and professional lives, besides their impact on the whole humanity which we still perhaps don't fully comprehend.

Social networking

Social networking sites enabled probably the greatest migration of people to the virtual world. People have a new opportunity to interact not only in real life, but also in cyberspace, where geographical and other physical barriers don't exists. I'm not saying this is a promising thing overall, some people are obviously overdoing it, but it's still useful for keeping in touch with people. Together with the implementation of feeds and streams which enable dynamic information, social networking could represent the biggest and most important component of Web 2.0, reshaping business, marketing, politics and just being plain amazing.

Video sharing

Yesterday we read the newspaper, listened to the radio and watched television. Today, we have a super-medium that supports all of it at once. Video, as the most complex form of multimedia, is something that you can record with your telephone and publish online in minutes, from where it can go anywhere. If distributing a video is easy, anything else surely has to be a piece of cake. This fact obviously holds massive potential for science and arts in general.

Wikis and folksonomies

Wikis and folksonomies are tools which harness the amazing effect of participation and collaboration of millions of people to create information and knowledge. Wikipedia is the biggest encyclopedia in the world, holding knowledge whole mankind can benefit from. Folksonomies, such as tools for collaborative tagging and social indexing enable structured knowledge, while recommendation engines help us get information from massive quantity of data available online. Today, if something important is discovered, everybody knows it in minutes.

Blogs

Most people have the need to express themselves, and blogs (and microblogs) are the perfect tool for that. Plain and simple: anybody can be a journalist and if you have something smart to say, people will listen. Those who are influential enough can even break out of anonymity and become opinion leaders.

Web services and mashups

Web services and mashups enable and use open flows of data from one online service to another, from one online platform to another. System integration used to be one of the most complex things in IT, but thanks to new standards, protocols and technology, data can freely travel from and to different sources. This provides a perfect ground for exchanging information and enables evolution from software services to software platforms.

Perhaps we should also mention cloud computing, which makes hardware requirements irrelevant – the processing power and memory is around in plenty – but computer grids with shared resources have already been around for decades. All the better to understand that Web 2.0 is more about concept than it is about technology.

Web 2.0 is important and revolutionary, both in a good and a bad way. It brings a new perspective and new opportunities to different arts and sciences, such as business, education, sociology, psychology, literature, politics and many other. My professional and academic work focuses mainly on it's influence on information science and technologies, but it's clear that this new paradigm has a huge global effect, whose scale we still can't fully estimate. Now we just have to hope younger generations don't get too overwhelmed because of it and will be able to adjust to this new reality without abusing it too much.

How mini-feed and other streams revolutionized IT

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:59:20 GMT

Web 2.0 brought us a lot of interesting things, approaches and solutions, so it's hard to imagine how we ever managed without it. Most of us are half addicted to floating around in cyberspace, looking at what people are doing and talking to everybody at once. It is a little social revolution that we are witnessing, and it doesn't seem it will end soon. Web 2.0 changed our everyday lives, but for an IT expert such as myself, these new concepts also have a big influence on other sciences and in our case, they will change management, organization and corporate IT forever.

Besides the whole social networking concept, one feature of Web 2.0 stands our as one of the main building blocks of this new paradigm. Call it the news stream, mini feed, activity log or whatever, it is the little information report that makes you come back every hour to see what other people are doing and if something new happened. Without it, Web 2.0 portals and services would be boring and useless, and they definitely wouldn't be as attractive interactive as they are.

Besides being cool and addictive, the mini feed is also a major shift in the presentation of data and information. Until it came around, data was static, but now, we can notice that data has the ability to become dynamic. In Web 2.0, this feature was "invented" to amuse users, but this approach is also fully applicable to business oriented software. Imagine a corporate solution that is intended for project management, where projects are consisted of tasks that have people working on them. The simplified dashboard for a project would probably look something like the table below.

Two weeks ago	Today
Write the documentation (John - Completed)	Write the documentation (John – Completed)
Delegate tasks (John – Active)	Delegate tasks (Mary – Complete)
Design wireframes (Mary – Active)	Design wireframes (Mary – Active)
Enter data (Unassigned)	Enter data (Simon – Active)
Make HTML (Simon – Active)	Make HTML (Simon – Complete)

The two dashboards, even though they represent the same project two weeks apart, look quite similar, and they actually don't give those, who are not directly connected with the project and people working on it a lot of information about the flow of activities, data and work. This data represented is static. But if we add another layer of mini feed / activity report on the same case, things start looking more interesting and give a lot more information about the project. The data becomes dynamic. When we look at the dashboard above, we don't really know that this is what actually happened with our project.

12 days ago – John changed the status of the task Write the documentation to Active.
10 days ago – John added a new note to the task Write the documentation.
10 days ago – John changes the status of the task Write the documentation to Completed.
8 days ago – John made Mary responsible for the task Delegate tasks.
8 days ago – Mary made Simon responsible for the task Enter data.
6 days ago – Mary added a new task Contact client.
5 days ago – Simon changed the status of the task Make HTML to complete.
3 days ago – Mary deleted the task Contact client.
2 days ago – John added a new file to the task Make HTML.
2 days ago – Mary changed the status of the task Make HTML to Incomplete.
1 day ago – Simon added a new note to the task Make HTML.
Today – Simon changed the status of the task Make HTML to Complete.

This dynamic component wasn’t available in business oriented software until now, except in the most sophisticated analytical systems, where data mining and other high level approaches provided dynamic information. Using Web 2.0 approaches such as the mini feed, operational and transactional information systems finally got the dynamic component too. Not to amuse, but to inform.

These are the approaches we use and things we think about when developing our software solutions. There are actually more useful applications of the mini feed we already noticed, but some mystery must remain. If you are interested, say hi to Neolab, one of the first companies in the world to offer fully integrated Web 2.0 features in business oriented software, all part of the IT 2.0 concept we are developing, for which already got an award for. Made in Slovenia, shipping worldwide.

An approach to statistics and data analysis

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:32:06 GMT

When information systems evolve, they become greedier for both operational and advanced strategic statistics and data analysis. This need is a part of a natural evolution. The more data you have, the higher potential for extracting information you have. Looking at business environments using IT platforms, that's what analytics are actually all about - getting useful information from usually bad data. It turns out the task of analytical reporting is not so complex as it seems, but you definitely need a set of different skills / people to make it work.

There are tons of different statistical approaches, methods and theories, but it turns out that for average business needs you only need basic mathematics, where the most complex operations are sometimes logarithms. So, if it's so simple, where does the problem lay? Why do information systems often lack analytical support, which can be used for decision making?

In my opinion there are three main steps to consider when trying to make useful statistics and data analysis, and ignoring or underestimating any one of them will make your reports suck.

Data

Data is the king. If you don't have the data, you might as well give it up. If your data is bad or weak, you might consider rebuilding it. But you should know one thing - the better the structure of your data is, the better your analysis will be. Using a flat database such as a text file or an Excel spreadsheet gives you few analytical opportunities. Relational databases, such as Access, MySQL or SQL offer cross-data querying and advanced reporting, but huge and complex calculations can take a lot of time. For those, a multidimensional OLAP database designed strictly for analysis becomes the only option.

Challenges in this step: Technical

Information

The data discussed above defines the scope of potential information you can deliver. In this step, the main goal is simple - you need to know what you want to know. Business needs, process flow, strategic goals or just plain simple amusement are the main factors that need to be addressed. Having someone who is able to recognize these opportunities is crucial, because data is just numbers, but aggregated data - information - is knowledge. It's quite clear you won't be able to get something if you don't know what you want to get.

Challenges in this step: Analytical

Visualization

A picture can tell a thousand words and this goes a long way for data visualization. Even if you can't use charts, you can color information and use measures such as font size to represent another dimension of information or trends. Besides, always keep in mind that less is more, so you should put irrelevant information in the background and punchlines in the spotlight. Check out different chart types, they're useful for different representations and experimenting with them can display things that don't seem there at first sight. Observe patterns. Try to imagine a playground, where information can satisfy your curiosity and while doing it, it also brings useful and valuable results.

Challenges in this step: Creative

If you have the will, you can do all sorts of crazy stuff with statistics and data analysis, but you should know they sometimes take a lot of time. I'm proud my chronolog already has two nice looking children of these activities. The first one is a simple recommendation engine used for content ranking and the other one a set of reports which offer insight into activity and interactions of the chronolog. What can I say, I like to play around, and it may as well be any information system I can get my hands on. Give me the data and I'll give you information.

At least we have the Discovery channel

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:14:05 GMT

I think television is bad. Besides making you a brainless zombie, watching without thinking, it channels all the bad things on this world into the little box in the living room. Of course, there are also positive broadcasts, but they are still heavily overwhelmed by the negative. The news brings mostly bad news, making mass paranoia and hysteria. Reality shows are making the youth confused and are building a wannabe society. Sure, there are a few interesting series going on, a few good movies, but otherwise, it sucks. Thank god for the Discovery channel.

The Discovery channel is one of the most interesting channels we get. The way I see it, the whole watchability stands on two different concepts of shows, clothed into numerous different versions. The real-work reality shows (not to be confused with "reality" reality shows, such as Big brother) and the pop-science shows. We have the Discovery channel (probably) East Europe, so this post may not be up-to-date with the US or European versions, but here are the shows that are cool.

The real-work reality shows are actually reality show in the most literal meaning of the word. They cover real people, doing real jobs, without (m)any scripts or scenarios. Those that are worth mentioning are American Chopper (a dad an two sons building motorbikes and having a spicy relationship and vocabulary), The Deadliest Catch (Alaska fisherman hunting crabs in hellish environment), Ultimate Survival (someone named Bear going through different uninhabited regions and eating bugs) and Dirty Jobs (a guy trying out how hard and dirty some jobs are).

The pop-science shows bring an interesting overview on how things are made, how they work and what they are. The Mythbusters are the best in this category (two geeky guys making weird experiments), their English almost copy Brainiac, Time Warp (recordings of things using a high-speed camera), a few different shows on how things are constructed (How It's Made, How Things Work, etc.), and a ton of documentary shows on construction, cars and technology (Mega Builders, Built From Disaster, etc.).

In some cases there's a thin line between the categories, and I think the best ones are actually those that are able to combine the concepts of both. These shows are at the same time working well on our curiosity, but still keep a contact with our social senses and humanity.

There's an honorable mention, a show that we don't get anymore, which is a bit sad, because it was really cool. Scrapheap challenge, or in it's worse US edition, The junkyard wars. It's about two teams, who have one day to build something using just materials from a junkyard.

There you have it. A solid proof that Discovery channel is one of the best TV channels around. It's fun and it educates at the same time. So kids, don't watch MTV, it just makes you feel bad.