Turning capslock into a ctrl key

April 7th, 2010 by Charles Ma 1 comment »

As I learn more and more keyboard short cuts, the ctrl key has become more and more useful. Unfortunately, it’s located in the most awkward place on the keyboard.

The capslock key on the other hand is the most useless key on the keyboard (for someone who doesn’t like shouting on the Internet), yet it’s located at one of the most convenient places.

Wouldn’t it be nice to make the capslock key act like another ctrl key?

Here’s how to do it on linux running X

/usr/bin/setxkbmap -option “ctrl:nocaps”

You can do this almost as easily on windows as well, and I’ll post up how when I next use windows.

Another way is using xmodmap

Make a file (call it caps2ctrl) with the following:

clear lock
add control = Caps_Lock

run

xmodmap caps2ctrl

Meaningful work

April 7th, 2010 by Charles Ma No comments »

In the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell identified three key properties of meaningful and fulfilling work:

Autonomy, complexity, and a strong connection between effort and achievement

Autonomy gives you independence–it gives you the ability to make meaningful choices and the freedom to make mistakes and learn. Complexity gives you a sense of challenge and keeps you interested. A connection between effort and achievement gives you an incentive to work harder to achieve greater.

It’s a succinct set of properties to remember that can be applied to any work you do whether it’s paid or volunteering, working for someone else or for yourself.

Interview with RocketBoots

April 4th, 2010 by Charles Ma No comments »

I interviewed CEO Robin Hilliard from RocketBoots a little while ago, the full audio for the interview is up:

http://beta.csesoc.unsw.edu.au/2010/04/interview-with-rocketboots/

Robin is a very knowledgeable and interesting person, and I bet you can really learn a lot from working for, or even just talking to him.

Comparative Advantage

March 10th, 2010 by Charles Ma 1 comment »

In economics, having comparative advantage is “having the the ability to produce a product most efficiently given all the other products that could be produce”. However, just because Andy can make 10 kilos of play dough a minute while Benny can only make 4 kilos, doesn’t necessarily mean that Andy has a comparative advantage at making play dough when they could also make other things.

Let me explain. Suppose that Andy and Benny can also make clay. Andy makes 8 kilos of clay per minute and Benny can make 6 kilos per minute. We say that Andy dominates Benny in the production of clay and play dough. If Andy needed both play dough and clay, the intuitive thing for him to do is to produce both products himself since he can produce both more “efficiently”.

That’s not so. The theory of comparative advantage says that “given all other goods”, in this case, clay, Benny is actually comparatively more efficient at producing clay than Andy. Hence, there’s a benefit for Andy to produce only play dough and trade with Benny for clay. This is because when Andy produces 8 kilos of clay, he could have produced 10 kilos of play dough in that minute. So his opportunity cost of producing one kilo of clay is 1.25 kilos of play dough. However, when Benny makes 1 kilo of clay, his opportunity cost is only 0.67 kilos of play dough, so it’s cheaper for Benny to produce play dough than it is for Andy.

Benny’s ability to produce clay at a lower opportunity cost than Andy means that he has a comparative advantage at producing clay. Assuming of course that in our imaginary economy, play dough and clay sell for the same amount of money, then it is better for Benny to make the clay because his opportunity cost is lower. Similarly, Andy should keep producing play dough.

You could apply this to life and say that everyone should do exactly what they’re good at: if maths is your best subject in school, you should become a mathematician, and if you were better at sports than anything else then you should become an athlete. On the face of it, this sounds like a good rule of thumb to follow, “do what you do best”, especially now that there seems to be an economic theory that proves you should. However, it makes the naive assumption as I did in the Andy and Benny example that everything that anyone does has the same value. That’s never the case. Instead of saying “do what you do best”, the theory of comparative advantage applied to life should say “do what makes you produce the most value”.

It doesn’t sound nearly as catchy as the naive rule of thumb, and value is subjective and can mean anything from economic value, to personal value, to social value, but it is something to think about when making decisions. Life is a series of decisions after all, but I’ll leave that thought for another post.

Are successful people happy?

March 7th, 2010 by Charles Ma No comments »

The question came up in conversation the other day and got me thinking. It seems like a lot of highly successful people are depressed. We asked ourselves why that might be and here are our hypotheses. When we were talking about successful we were talking about the outliers kind of successful people, the CEOs of major banks, best selling authors, etc.

  • Getting to where they are is stressful. Your work can become your life.
  • If success means having influence, people are going to criticize you for decisions you make, especially if those decisions affect them.
  • People tend to congregate with others who have similar interests and social statuses, but not many people get to be best selling authors, so it might be harder to find real friends.
  • No one else is doing what they’re doing, their future is more uncertain and there’s more pressure on them to make the right choices

However, most extremely successful people seem pretty happy, and the group as a whole are probably a lot happier than those working 80 a week in an investment bank, so it makes me wonder, why did we get that impression in the first place. The suicide rate is highest among high stress professions like dentistry and law, if there was a quantifiable measure of depression that could be applied to those professions and if we grouped the highly “successful” people in a group and measured them, I suspect that they won’t be any more unhappy than the most stressful professions out there.

Speed dating with the wrong recruiters

March 5th, 2010 by Charles Ma 4 comments »

Today I was [un]fortunate enough to be invited to a recruitment event for engineers. Never mind how it happened. I’m a computer science student, what can I do in an engineering company? Turns out not a lot.

One of the main events of the evening was speed dating with employers where each student got to spend five minutes with each employer. So what does a computer science student say to an employer who is looking to hire photo voltaic or mechanical engineers? What do they say to me?

The conversations were varied. I’ll make up some fake names, not to protect the innocent, but I honestly can’t remember all of their names.

John and Steve didn’t know what a computer science students did, so I tried to explain. That is when I realized that my degree is so broad that even I wasn’t sure exactly what computer science is all about. A computer science student will rarely continue to pursue the maths and science behind computing, many won’t even study much of it. Some of us focus on low level software such as operating systems, while others are interested in abstract subjects such as artificial intelligence and formal verification. A large number of us will end up working 9-5 in the IT department of a multinational corporation, a few of us will go into R&D, many more will change careers completely. It was like describing an arts degree.

One of the first things that Bill said to me was “I’ll be honest with you, we don’t really hire any computer science people”. Direct and honest, I liked that. It’s something that we both knew from the beginning, and getting that out of the way let us move into a more interesting conversation. Others like Jeff tried unsuccessfully to see where I might fit in, “well, we have an IT department, we have about 12 IT people [out of a company of hundreds of engineers] working to help our engineers.” It was nice of him, but unnecessary. I mean, we both know that there’s a 0% chance that I’ll be asking for a graduate job there, so why beat around the bush? It’s social courtesy to try and be nice and leave a sense of hope, but in this case, doing so only made it awkward.

It was clear early on that I was not a match for any of these companies, and knowing that was the chance to turn the conversation around the other direction and ask the employers a lot of questions rather than talking about myself. It was much more interesting to hear about their experiences, especially in managing engineers and other technical people. Since all of them have engineering backgrounds they could go into a lot more detail about what their companies did than an HR or worse a recruitment firm person who will only give a superficial talk about how they encourage creative thinking and foster young minds in a global professional environment, and other jargon from their mission statement.

I had mentioned that I prefer to work for smaller startup companies rather than large multinationals to Glenn. Take some risks while I’m young, and be an entrepreneur. Glenn advised me otherwise. “Work for a big company first and learn how it works,” he advised, “it’s very hard to go from small company to big company, but very easy the other way around”. He has a good point, working in a large company can give me a much broader view of how businesses work, I’ll probably have a much bigger and powerful network to be able to bootstrap a startup company. However, I don’t necessary agree given the likely circumstances. It’s too easy to get too comfortable living on a stable salary. By the time I have enough experience and big enough network to bootstrap a new venture, it might be too late, I probably wouldn’t give up a stable job and take that kind of risk if I’m say, 30 or over.

Startup Camp Sydney 3

March 2nd, 2010 by Charles Ma No comments »

I went to startup camp Sydney the week before as a part of the team who built platefeed.com. Seeing a group of strangers getting together and building something useful in 30 hours was an eye opening experience.

I wrote an article about it on Beta, check it out.

Experience is the thing you get after you needed it

February 26th, 2010 by Charles Ma No comments »

I heard this definition of experience while at startup camp 3 over the weekend and it’s pretty much spot on.

Experience is the thing you get after you needed it

This quote stuck in my mind because it somehow ringed “true”, like I’ve experienced it

The dictionary define experience as

a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event

Which is a mundane and objective definition, but if you think about it, the two definitions are quite similar. The first one is a little more restricted in that it requires you to have “needed” the experience where as the latter applies more generally to all experience.

The second quote would have never stuck in my mind. It’s distant,  emotionless, and contains no personal pronouns. Understanding the definition requires you to imagine an arbitrary “thing” or “event” and then imagine ones involvement. The first one stuck because it used “you” which immediately draws up first hand personal memories, and those memories are more readily available. It requires less thinking to understand, and a brain like mine likes simple things.