No letter back from Santa. Since I dropped it in my work outbox, I'm guessing it was probably even stamped. What a crock!
Dear North Pole, Alaska (and the surrounding regions):
You suck in comparison to your classmates of yesteryear.
Dear Santa:
Why do you no longer exist?
I hate Xmas,
Oliver
1/27/09
1/2/09
Efficiency Things to Death
Thinking about and acting upon efficiency is probably my nerdiest of hobbies. I dabble in efficiency so much that I tend to "efficiency things to death." Although I plan to change the world with it someday, until that day, I never said that I was good at it yet...
I have eaten oatmeal every morning for 10+ years and counting. After entering "1:00" minute on the microwave for the thousandth time, I wondered how long the zero button would last until I wore it out. From then on I entered "60" seconds - same result with 1/2 the amount of wear on the zero button. This also led me to wonder how much time I would save over a lifetime of eating my morning oats by pushing one less button. One-stop shop for efficiency!
Why stop there? Knowing that everyone else in the household used the zero button more than their fair share, I decided to eliminate zero from my microwave routine altogether. I would enter "61" seconds. This was more efficient yet, right?
Later, upping the ante even more to entering "66." I could double-tap the "6" button faster than hitting "6" then "1" (not drastically affecting my meal's consistency). So I was saving optimal button pushing time and wearing an underutilized button.
The problem was that I unknowingly shifted my focus to a specific goal. Although I thought I was maintaining the initial goal to create efficiency, what actually happened is that each time I got more and more specific, my goal also got more and more specific. Instead of my goal continuing to reduce overall time, it ended up being to reduce button pushing time. In conclusion, when working toward efficiency, often take a step back to look at the big picture. It's all too easy to get caught up in one aspect of efficiency without taking in to account its affects.
Other examples:
*Inspired by: http://adventuresinmissingthepoint.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/what-about-the-remaining-20-from-the-other-80/
Reflecting on my past efficient acts, I've noticed that more often than not I cause more harm than good. Efficiency is measured by the ratio of an output (job, product, result) to the amount energy (calories, time, money, heat) put in to create that output. Thus, the higher the ratio the more efficient the process:
- higher output with same input
- same output with lower input
- higher output with lower input
I have eaten oatmeal every morning for 10+ years and counting. After entering "1:00" minute on the microwave for the thousandth time, I wondered how long the zero button would last until I wore it out. From then on I entered "60" seconds - same result with 1/2 the amount of wear on the zero button. This also led me to wonder how much time I would save over a lifetime of eating my morning oats by pushing one less button. One-stop shop for efficiency!
Why stop there? Knowing that everyone else in the household used the zero button more than their fair share, I decided to eliminate zero from my microwave routine altogether. I would enter "61" seconds. This was more efficient yet, right?
Later, upping the ante even more to entering "66." I could double-tap the "6" button faster than hitting "6" then "1" (not drastically affecting my meal's consistency). So I was saving optimal button pushing time and wearing an underutilized button.
And then my parents remodeled the kitchen and replaced the microwave... All of my long-term button-wear planning had been lost. This caused me to contemplate my earlier mission. I still had contributed to efficiency..., or had I? While on the surface I had saved a billionth of a second with the new double-tap method, I was actually wasting much more than I had imagined. The waste:
- 6 additional seconds (minus a billionth of a second) awaiting plump oats
- 6 seconds of additional microwave power that was no value added (oatmeal has equal nutritional value whether hot or cold)
- 6 more seconds of microwave "drying" (I prefer it on the softer side)
- The brain power (calories) used contemplating this idea, which inevitably wasted more
The problem was that I unknowingly shifted my focus to a specific goal. Although I thought I was maintaining the initial goal to create efficiency, what actually happened is that each time I got more and more specific, my goal also got more and more specific. Instead of my goal continuing to reduce overall time, it ended up being to reduce button pushing time. In conclusion, when working toward efficiency, often take a step back to look at the big picture. It's all too easy to get caught up in one aspect of efficiency without taking in to account its affects.
Other examples:
- Not braking on the highway as much, in order to save gas, will not allow other motorists to be warned that you are slowing. Thus causing an accordion effect that ultimately wastes more gas among all involved parties.
- Wearing a fuel belt in a race, in order to save time at a water stop, will save time in respect to changing course to get water, but will waste more time overall since it's extra weight being carried the entire race, which slows one's pace.
*Inspired by: http://adventuresinmissingthepoint.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/what-about-the-remaining-20-from-the-other-80/
12/9/08
Dear Santa
My brother-in-law is from Fairbanks, Alaska. Yes, ALASKA Alaska. He swears that in high school, he and his classmates would respond to letters to Santa. Supposedly, any letter (with or without stamp) labeled "Santa Clause" or "North Pole" will be delivered to North Pole, Alaska (near Fairbanks) and responded to by local high schoolers.
I'm testing to see if this is still true. I labeled an envelope "Santa Clause, North Pole" (without stamp). I included the below letter that I wrote with my left hand. I'll let you know if I get "a Sponge Bob."
Merry Xmas, Oliver
Admit it, I'm getting pretty fancy with this whole blogging/internet thing.
Updates:
12/29/08 - no response (does Santa exist?)
I'm testing to see if this is still true. I labeled an envelope "Santa Clause, North Pole" (without stamp). I included the below letter that I wrote with my left hand. I'll let you know if I get "a Sponge Bob."
Merry Xmas, Oliver
Admit it, I'm getting pretty fancy with this whole blogging/internet thing.Updates:
12/29/08 - no response (does Santa exist?)
11/26/08
'Tis the Season
I got online to buy concert tickets today. $15 apiece for a small band at an old venue. Deal, right? Check out the itemization below:
Full Price Ticket $15.00 x 4
Total Building Facility Charge(s) $1.00 x 4
Total Convenience Charge(s) $6.50 x 4
Additional Taxes $1.04
Other Processing Charge(s) $5.30
TOTAL CHARGES $96.34
60%+ increase in the ticket price due to all of this hogwash? Seriously!? Am I that out of touch, or is the SOB who came up with this crap in dire need of a groin shot, or five?
Shouldn't 'Building Facility' be factored in as venue overhead? Isn't it equally as convenient for the seller to automate ticket sales rather than pay someone to work in a sales booth? Could 'Other Processing' be more vague?
Having taxes as the least expensive aspect of this itemization (in Chicago of all places) really does me in. I wish good luck upon all the dumbasses buying in to this crap, as well as the d-bag who came up with these add-ons (not sure which party is worse).
Godspeed..., idiots.
Full Price Ticket $15.00 x 4
Total Building Facility Charge(s) $1.00 x 4
Total Convenience Charge(s) $6.50 x 4
Additional Taxes $1.04
Other Processing Charge(s) $5.30
TOTAL CHARGES $96.34
60%+ increase in the ticket price due to all of this hogwash? Seriously!? Am I that out of touch, or is the SOB who came up with this crap in dire need of a groin shot, or five?
Shouldn't 'Building Facility' be factored in as venue overhead? Isn't it equally as convenient for the seller to automate ticket sales rather than pay someone to work in a sales booth? Could 'Other Processing' be more vague?
Having taxes as the least expensive aspect of this itemization (in Chicago of all places) really does me in. I wish good luck upon all the dumbasses buying in to this crap, as well as the d-bag who came up with these add-ons (not sure which party is worse).
Godspeed..., idiots.
11/17/08
Stole'd Ringtone: My Struggle
When cell phones began their boom, I hated them. I rebelled for roughly 5 years until giving in. I had come to the unfortunate realization that not having one made it incredibly inconvenient for me to not have one. For everyone else's sake, I made a sacrifice.
When polyphonic ringtones began to popularize, I hated them. I stuck with the standard-issued ring for nearly 2 years. Once the boredom overtook me, I obtained 'Somebody's Watching Me' (by Rockwell). Needless to say, the "cellular road," I've been traveling for almost a decade, continues to roughen. And the saga continues...
Currently, there's a guy who sits near me at work who has my same ringtone. Whenever his ringtone goes off, I reach for my pocket to be left with nothing but the feelings of rejection. It has begun to cause quite a large amount of a mental uproar to one of my typically mundane days. Despite him being older than me, I have been in my location for longer than he's been around. So I ask...
Is it not common courtesy to change your ringtone if someone else, who you spend the majority of your days with/near, had it first? Am I not grandfathered in? Is Rockwell ('Someboy's Watching Me') the sole, shining beacon of hope that no one else dares assign their ringtone?
Until this gentleman's ringtone changes, I'm staging a sit-in. Whenever I'm at work my phone on my desk, with ringer volume up, allowing all unidentified calls to ring freely. If you would like to contribute, please call me at work (M-F: ~8am to 5pm Central) at 309-648-1603. If you know your number is in my phone, please call on an unidentified phone, unless you want to chat.
When polyphonic ringtones began to popularize, I hated them. I stuck with the standard-issued ring for nearly 2 years. Once the boredom overtook me, I obtained 'Somebody's Watching Me' (by Rockwell). Needless to say, the "cellular road," I've been traveling for almost a decade, continues to roughen. And the saga continues...
Currently, there's a guy who sits near me at work who has my same ringtone. Whenever his ringtone goes off, I reach for my pocket to be left with nothing but the feelings of rejection. It has begun to cause quite a large amount of a mental uproar to one of my typically mundane days. Despite him being older than me, I have been in my location for longer than he's been around. So I ask...
Is it not common courtesy to change your ringtone if someone else, who you spend the majority of your days with/near, had it first? Am I not grandfathered in? Is Rockwell ('Someboy's Watching Me') the sole, shining beacon of hope that no one else dares assign their ringtone?
Until this gentleman's ringtone changes, I'm staging a sit-in. Whenever I'm at work my phone on my desk, with ringer volume up, allowing all unidentified calls to ring freely. If you would like to contribute, please call me at work (M-F: ~8am to 5pm Central) at 309-648-1603. If you know your number is in my phone, please call on an unidentified phone, unless you want to chat.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)