luis is a co-founder and social software architect at SyndeoLabs, and a director at Exist Global. he likes building small web toys a whole lot. More ...

quick links to the good stuff

  • 25 First Dates 25 May 2009
  • True Crime: Confessions of a Criminal Mastermind 17 Feb 2009
  • Finding Your Soul Mate: A Statistical Analysis 27 Jan 2009
  • Sex and Schrodinger's Cat 07 January 2009
  • An Extended Rant on Heroes 26 September 2008
  • Zero Barrier 05 May 2008
  • Sweatshop Blogging Economics 08 April 2008
  • The Doomsday Singularity 25 February 2008
  • Piracy and Its Impact on Philippine Music 21 January 2008
  • The Manila Pen-etration by the Hotelier Antonio Trillanes 29 November 2007
  • Journey of a Thousand Heroes 17 December 2006
  • Shake, Rattle & LOL 30 December 2005

    elsewhere online

    • Last.FM
    • Del.icio.us
    • Flickr
    • Plurk
    • Multiply
    • Stumbleupon

    guttervomit

    • 67

      Finding Your Soul Mate: A Statistical Analysis

      27 Jan 2009

      I’ve been thinking recently about soul mates and the chances of finding that soul mate. Why have I been thinking about this? Because I drink too much every night and wake up every morning with a dry throat and a dull headache, and thus cannot bring myself to start working until after several hours of staring blankly into space. But I digress. This piece is an attempt at quantifying the odds of finding that special somone, and contains some thoughts regarding how to increase those odds further.

      Now, the first step is of course believing that your soul mate exists. I know a lot of people don’t believe that everyone has a soul mate, but for the purposes of this article, let’s just ignore them.

      The tricky thing about this whole discussion is that the cosmos never bothered to lay down any ground rules regarding soul mates, so we’re unfortunately stuck making a bunch of assumptions. Here are the ones that I’m basing my calculations on:

      1. Your soul mate exists, and is currently alive somewhere in the world. I’m not going to waste time calculating the odds of meeting a soul mate who was alive B.C., or will be born around the time the flying car goes mainstream. We’re going to assume that the cosmos was considerate enough to give you a fighting chance after all.

      2. Your soul mate is of the preferred sexual orientation. This whole discussion would be pointless otherwise.

      3. Your soul mate speaks at least one of the languages that you do. Again, it would be otherwise impossible to connect with your soul mate if you can’t speak a common language.

      (Nota Bene: If you disagree with any of the items above, tough luck. I’m not doing your math for you.)

      Given those three assumptions, you can compute the maximum number of potential soul mate candidates simply by multiplying the population of your chosen language by the percentage of your preferred sexual orientation. Let’s call this your Personal Soul Mate Index.

      For example, my chosen language is English (1.5 billion native and non-native speakers) and my preferred sexual orientation is straight female. The global gender ratio is about 51:49 in favor of men, so I multiply 1.5 billion by 0.49, which would be roughly 735,000,000. I would then reduce that number further by 2% to get my PSMI (which is the alleged gay ratio), leaving me with 720,300,000 straight English-speaking females. If you were a gay male, you would multiply 1.5 billion by 0.51 and then again by 0.02, giving you a much smaller PSMI, at only 15.3 million.

      (Note that you could also choose to totally ignore the language part of the equation and simply multiply your sexual orientation by the total global population, which is at 6.7 billion at the time of this writing.)

      I’ll give you a moment to compute your own PSMIs.

      All good? Great, let’s move on to the fun stuff.

      So, the likelihood of me meeting my soulmate is roughly 1 in 720,000,000, and what we’re going to do over the next few paragraphs is work out just how “likely” that is. I’m a 27-year-old Filipino, and have a life expectancy of 71 years. That means I’ve got a potential for 44 more years of searching for that darned soul mate of mine. Let’s be more granular, and calculate how many days that is:

      (365 days * 33 common years) + (366 days * 11 leap years) = 16,071 days to go

      Let’s tack on the past 9 years of my life as well, or since I turned 18, i.e., legally capable of having sex with my soul mate should I meet her. (And if that sounds a little crass, I apologize. I’m sure you would simply lose yourself in your soul mate’s eyes forever.)

      16071 + ((365 * 7) + (366 * 2)) = 19,358 days in total

      We can express all of this very simply by saying that if I want to meet my soul mate and I am unlucky enough to have had to meet every single person in my entire PSMI before I finally meet her, I would have to see 720,300,000 people over 19,358 days starting when I turned 18. (37,209 people per day, or about half of the people who went to the Eraserheads concert last year.)

      Does that sound discouraging? Let’s do some quick math to work out the problem.

      I’m sitting at a Starbucks as I write this, and there are easily 30 other people in and around this place with me. I’ll walk back to the office and there are another 60 people there. Later tonight I’ll have dinner at the Fort, and will come into indirect contact with about 100 or so different people. If I were commuting, I’d get on to a train car with 50 other people all mashed up against each other.

      Depending on how much you move around, you come in to indirect contact with about 150-200 unique people every day. Possibly even more than that if you really pound the pavement. That means that without drastically changing my lifestyle, I will see about 3,871,600 people over the course of my life or about 0.5% of my PSMI. Expressed in more practical terms, my chances of finding my soul mate at any point in my post-18 life is about 1 in 200. If you play Texas Hold ‘Em, this is roughly the same odds as being dealt pocket aces (220:1). (Interestingly enough, I’ve been dealt pocket aces about half a dozen times at Hold ‘Em that I can remember.)

      Is that depressing? Yeah, a little bit. 20 years ago, that would be pretty much all she wrote too. But these days we’re fortunate enough to have a way to connect with thousands more at any given moment, i.e., the internets. I’ve got about , about and have built a handful of little web toys that thousands of people use every day. Your own numbers will be drastically different of course, but the point is that we’re able to cheat the odds by making ourselves really visible online. In fact, if I assume that my soul mate is a straight female who speaks English and has Internet access, my PSMI is reduced even further. There are 1.4 billion people on the Internet, 430.8 million of which speak English, and 206.8 million of which are probably straight females. Now my chances are about 58:1, which in Hold ‘Em terms is roughly the odds that you would get a pair of aces, kings, queens or jacks in your pocket (54.3:1). If all that sounds a little fanciful, it’s really not. I mean seriously, what kind of cosmos would give me a soul mate that didn’t use the Internet? That would just be cruel. (Or for that matter, didn’t subscribe to poker hand probabilities.)

      One way to look at the 58:1 ratio is thusly: if I had 58 times to relive my life, I would cross paths with my soul mate once. That sounds incredibly sad, so here’s another way to look at it: if you took 58 other guys with similar soul-mate indices as me, only one of us would find our soul mate. I like the sound of that a little bit more, but I’m not entirely sure it’s the right way to look at the numbers. Anyway.

      The trick here really is to make yourself as visible as possible online so as to reach as many people as possible. Joining social networks and generating online content is the new-school equivalent of taking yoga classes or joining photography clubs in order to meet new people, and it’s a lot more cost-effective too. The idea of course is not to stop looking. Just because the odds seem stacked against you, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. After all, according to the Drake equation, the number of other currently-existing civilizations in our entire galaxy could be as little as 2, and yet we still train our telescopes at the sky every night, waiting.

      Posted in Uncategorized | 67 Comments »

    • 3

      January Tweets and Pics

      26 Jan 2009

      Quick update post, because it’s midnight and I’ve got a long week ahead of me:

      2009’s kick-off month has seen me spending every moment of free time on exactly two things 1) Flickr and 2) . The amount of work I’ve put in to the latter has doubled my follower count since late December, and I hope to hit the big 1k before the end of the first quarter. Why, exactly? Coz it’s good to have goals, that’s why.

      The other social media site I’ve been fussing about, Flickr, has proven to be a lot more involved. I’ve bought two cameras in the past 3 weeks — the compact, consumer-friendly Canon PowerShot G10 and the semi-professional Canon EOS 50D — in a kind of psychotic shopping frenzy that had many a friend asking me if I had some kind of aversion to having cash in the bank.

      Let’s backtrack a little: The original plan (hatched roundabouts New Year’s Eve) was really to just have a good compact, and the G10 was a great playmate for the first three weeks of use. I joined Project365, faithfully uploading one photo a day to document my year. Additionally, I’ve been , which gives me something to tweet regularly about. The plan for that it is to collect everything into a book when I have all 365 photo and haikus, and publish it via Lulu. (Just so I have something physical to park coffee mugs and sticky notes on.)

      ** My favorite haiku, written during the Sinulog festival in Cebu goes like this: **

      A painted bald man
      Cackles at the human sea.
      “No more room!” he says.

      The problem with the G10 I suppose was that it turned out that I wanted to do a whole bunch of things that it just couldn’t pull off. That’s not to say it’s a bad camera; it’s Canon’s current flagship compact after all and I still heartily recommend it to anyone who needs a point-and-shoot that takes strong photos and has a decent set of manual controls. That said, it just wasn’t really meant to do creative photography, which is what I was most interested in. And so I got the 50D, which was to be very honest sitting at the upper limits of what I was willing to spend to be “creative,” but what the hell, we only live once. (Also, given the , it’s not as if I could really go any higher.)

      At the time of this writing, I’ve spent less than 72 hours with the 50, and I can very honestly say that I’m a ways away from mastering it. I’ve taken about 5 gbs worth of photos already (about 90% of them were utter crap), and have uploaded the halfway-decent ones here. Forty-six reasonable photos out of about a thousand is not really what one would refer to a “tremendously encouraging,” but one has to start somewhere. I can feel that I’m really just scratching the surface of what this camera is capable of, and I’m excited about the fact that I will one day be able to take a photo and not have to look at the display to reassure myself that I got the exposure right. (Because Kin says the real pros don’t.)

      Of the two to three thousand photos I’ve taken over the past 22 days, these are my favorites:

      8/365 Haikus: Space
      Kin
      13/365 Haikus: Sinulog
      15/365 Haikus: Tanks
      Helga

      Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

    • 7

      Everything I Need to Know About Bootstrapping, I Learned from My Waveboard

      12 Jan 2009

      6/365 Haikus: Inline

      I bought a on a whim yesterday (also known as or or in other countries), after seeing some very excited looking children using them at one of our parks. (If you don’t know what a waveboard is, any of the video links above should give you an idea of how it works. Suffice to say that it is to skateboards as inline skates are to rollerskates.)

      After purchasing the board, my friends and I brought it to a relatively empty space in the middle of Eastwood, where I proceeded to stumble, stagger and curse loudly for the rest of the afternoon. (Minor disclaimer: my past experiences relating to skating of any kind are as follows: one afternoon in the late 90s at a skating park, and 45 minutes at an ice skating rink two years ago. In other words: none.) It occurred to me afterwards – or more accurately, after I had taken my umpteenth tumble – how the whole experience was roughly analogous to bootstrapping a business, something which I’ve been in the process of doing for 4 years now. Specifically:

      1. Theoreticals are overrated. There is only so much you can learn from following , or subscribing to Seth Godin, or watching RailsConf videos, or reading a badly translated scrap of paper explaining how to “launch forward with new board.” At most, these veterans and experts are making broad generalizations that will hopefully make sense to the largest section of their respective audiences as possible. The specifics though are completely up to you, and from what I’ve learned thus far, it’s these minute details that can really kill you. The other danger in relying on your references is that you may delude yourself into believing that you actually know this stuff just because you’ve read every single book and blog entry on the subject. Brother, unless you’ve actually tried it, you don’t.

      2. Embarrassing yourself thoroughly is part of the process. The only people who don’t make mistakes on their first ventures are those that lied on their resumes. A lot of key business decisions are counter-intuitive, just as trying to learn how to balance while standing still is the worst way to learn how to waveboard. Office space, external funding and picking your team are all areas I’ve totally screwed up on in the past, and it’s only now that I realize how silly those early, amusingly naive judgement calls really were. You will make mistakes, and people will make fun of you for it. You may as well accept that now. Too many people are so paralyzingly afraid of being laughed at or ridiculed that it prevents them from even giving it a try, and this goes for both waveboarding and bootstrapping.

      3. Sometimes you just have to let go and hope. There is a veritable boatload of things that you cannot control. These include imperfections on the road surface, presence of small children and animals, lack of railings separating solid and liquid sections of the park, and (later) partial insobriety. These things threaten your progress but there is very little you can do to mitigate them, except perhaps for the last example. Either that or you leave the park and go somewhere else. You can do as many SWOT analyses as you want – those external factors will still be outside of your sphere of influence at close of business. Accept that they’re there, and just move on.

      4. Not everything can be evaluated and analyzed. Some things work even when we don’t understand how they work, and indeed had nothing to do with making them happen. To properly ride a waveboard, you get your left foot on the front platform, push off hard with your right foot and somehow, the skater gods imbue the board with enough stability for you to balance for a second or two with only one foot on it. Then you rest your right foot on the back platform, and start making twisting motions with your feet to keep the momentum up. If you do this properly, you can keep going forever. Similar things happen in the business realm, and the example I like most has to do with the people you work with. You don’t necessarily know what their motivations (beyond the economic) are, and your visibility into their lives outside of the office is limited at best. And yet even with shitty startup pay and crappy working conditions, sometimes you get real superstars working with you. People who work their asses off for you, just because. There’s an intangibility there that you’re not supposed to measure, just acknowledge.

      5. Keep at it. I woke up this morning and noticed the parking lot at my building was unusually quiet. So I took the board out and rode around the lot a few times without taking a spill. (A first!) By the end of my second round I was getting pretty happy with myself, so I decided to up the ante a little and pick up speed. Knees bent, arms at my sides, I was gonna break some barriers today. Turns out though I didn’t really know how to do that properly yet. The board flew out from under me and I ended up sprawled on the pavement. No broken bones, but I don’t think my right knee really enjoyed the impact. I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and proceeded to do one more (slightly more cautious) round before putting the board away.

      There’s no trick to bootstrapping a business, just as there’s no trick to learning to waveboard. If you keep at it long enough, you’ll just get it.

      The Blur

      (Photo by Marco The Site Guy)

      Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

    • 24

      Sex and Schrodinger’s Cat

      7 Jan 2009

      Sit down, this is a good one:

      One of my lady friends – let’s call her C – was recently having an issue with a close friend of hers, let’s call him D. C and D had been best buds for some time. They were part of a larger group of friends who did all sorts of fun, barkada-type things together. Then one night, alone in D’s house, they happened to share an unexpected kiss. Or seven.

      Now C is stressed because they have over-stepped boundaries. Or at least, she feels that they have. She pings me and asks for advice, and I sagely tell her to “have sex with D and see if there’s anything there.” She says it would be weird, because they’ve been friends for so long.

      This was about a week ago. Fast forward to today, and I’m sick and alone at home watching The Big Bang Theory. Specifically the final episode of the first season, wherein they quaintly use Schrodinger’s Cat as an analogy for a situation that was pretty similar to C and D’s. At least, similar enough that I felt compelled to write about it.

      In case you’ve forgotten:

      Schrodinger’s Cat is a thought experiment meant to illustrate the counter-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics. In the experiment, we place a cat inside a box along with a vial of poison. The vial of poison is set to open at an undefined point in the future. The poison will obviously kill the cat if this happens. We close the box, and are unable to determine by external means whether the cat is alive or dead.

      Now, under the rules set by quantum mechanics, for as long as that box is sealed, that cat is both alive and dead. Why? Because we are unable to observe for ourselves which state the cat is in. However, this is counter-intuitive (and quite frankly, makes little sense) because the cat cannot, in reality, be both alive and dead. It is one or the other.

      How does this relate to the story of C and D? It’s simple, really. At this point in time, their relationship is both platonic and romantic. They maintain that they are friends and yet that kiss (or series of kisses, I should say) have incontrovertibly changed things. But a relationship cannot be both platonic and romantic, in the same way as Schrodinger’s Cat cannot be both dead and alive. It doesn’t make sense in the thought experiment, and it doesn’t make sense in real life either.

      So how do we know which one it is? Why, by opening the box, of course :)

      Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments »

    • 23

      The Death of Plurk

      5 Jan 2009

      I was musing today about and Plurk, and how strongly people seem to feel about one or the other. I’m going to try to avoid all the obvious talking points here (i.e., Twitter has no threaded conversations, Plurk encourages nonsense posts, Twitter is always down, Plurk is always down, etc., etc.) and concentrate instead on market adoption. Twitter is growing its population and visitors rapidly every month (Compete pegged it at 3.4m uniques last November), and some people have said that it will become as big as Facebook this year. Meanwhile, Plurk numbers are relatively stagnant, hovering between 200k and 300k uniques. Even Friendfeed seems to be doing better (a little over 500k/month), although the difference between that and the market leader is so huge as to be almost laughable.

      Let’s take a moment to think about this data. In the last half of 2008, Twitter numbers almost doubled from 1.8m to 3.4m, which is a jawdropping feat in and of itself. Plurk hasn’t budged since it hit its tipping point in May, and Friendfeed has grown by only about 15%. (I’m not the only one who noticed this either.)

      However, remember that Compete only tracks website visits, and a significant portion of Twitter’s users come to it via desktop or mobile clients. How “significant” is significant, you ask? Try 73%. Yes, roughly 3 out of 4 Twitter users access the service via a third-party client. The Compete numbers are just the tip of the iceberg then, because they don’t take a huge portion of Twitter’s actual usage into account. (Note that I’m not implying that Twitter.com is getting 10m uniques a month; it’s highly likely that mobile/desktop numbers have some overlap with the web numbers.)

      What do these figures mean to us? Well, it either means everything, or it means nothing. I try to use Plurk whenever I can because a lot of my IRL friends love it. Of course, my Plurk account is just a mirror of my . (Some time ago, Syndeo built a Twitter/Plurk mirroring application to port our tweets over so our timelines would have more activity.) But I cannot shake the feeling that Plurk has started to fade into obscurity - popular only in the Philippines in much the same way as Friendster is, or Orkut is in Brazil, or Fotolog in Argentina. One wonders if perhaps Friendster should buy Plurk, and then resell the whole kit and caboodle to Globe Telecom?

      Incendiary comments aside though, my experience with Twitter is hugely different from that of Plurk. Plugging into Twitter is almost like plugging into the Internet itself. Nearly everything that’s going on in the world (and ) can be viewed or subscribed to in real-time. When Twoogie got featured on Techcrunch last week, I watched for hours as hundreds of people started (or via the absolutely brilliant Tweetdeck). And I realized that the reason this was possible was because tweets are so granular and portable. This kind of Internet-wire-tapping wouldn’t make any sense using the Plurk approach because the timeline view is too unwieldy for anything but leisure reading. (And please don’t tell me to use the mobile version instead. In my mind, Plurk divorced of its signature interface is just Pownce, and we all know how that story ended.)

      It’s hard to predict where Plurk will go over the next 12 months. It’s in a dangerous state right now; just enough users to be challenging to manage, but not enough to be a serious contender. And most depressingly, it’s not growing. It’s very likely that it’ll be rolled into a bigger company the way Pownce was rolled into Vox, although I have a feeling that the only reason that deal happened at all was due to incestuous nature of the Valley. (The Plurk guys, conversely, are based in Ontario.)

      Twitter on the other hand is on the way to hitting the mainstream, in much the same way as blogs did at the turn of the century. It’s like a basic utility now, and we’ll see more and more people integrate or build on top of it for a long while to come. It’s difficult to peg exactly what is causing Plurk’s stagnation, although there are a couple of theories out there. My own theory is that Plurk’s unconventional layout is preventing it from being seen as anything other than a fancy website, when it needs to be so much more than that if it wants to compete at this level.

      If you haven’t already, please … or Plurk, whichever of the two you like more.

      [ UPDATE: Ia wrote a nice response here. ]

      Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

     

    categories

    • Home
    • No categories

    archives

    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • August 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • November 2005
    • October 2005
    • September 2005
    • August 2005
    • July 2005
    • June 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • March 2005
    • February 2005
    • January 2005
    • December 2004
    • November 2004
    • October 2004
    • September 2004
    • August 2004
    • July 2004
    • June 2004
    • May 2004
    • April 2004
    • March 2004
    • February 2004
    • January 2004
    • December 2003
    • November 2003
    • October 2003
    • September 2003
    • August 2003
    • July 2003
    • June 2003
    • May 2003
    • April 2003
    • March 2003
    • February 2003
    • January 2003
    • December 2002
    • November 2002
    • October 2002
    • September 2002
    • July 2002
    • May 2002
    • April 2002
    • February 2002
    • January 2002
    • December 2001
    • November 2001
    • October 2001

    friends

    • Dementia
    • Gabby
    • Gail
    • Gibbs
    • Helga
    • Ia
    • Ina
    • Jason
    • Kaye
    • Lauren
    • Lizz
    • Luna
    • Mae
    • Migs
    • Mike
    • Ryan
    • Sacha
    • Vicky
    • Vida
    • Yuga

    search

    notes

    Guttervomit v3 went online in January, 2008. It uses Wordpress for publishing, and was built largely with Adobe Illustrator and Textmate. Logotype and navigation is set with Interstate.