FML dude

wtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtf

My Own Paradox of Choice

I thought I had the paradox of choice all figured out. The main reason why I thought choosing makes people suffer is that 1) they don't realize that there is a transaction cost to choosing, namely in the time and effort invested in gathering information to make the decision; and 2) they focus too much on opportunity costs and the differences in utility amongst the options as opposed to the total utility of the chosen option versus doing nothing.

What I didn't realize is that there is also another pitfall in making choices. Actually the problem is not with making choices per se, but with creating the choices themselves. Good oppportunities almost never come for free. One must almost always invest significant personal resources to gain the options before one can make a choice amongst them.

A problem arises however, if one faces uncertainty. Suppose a certain option is expected to generate a utility value of r and there's some estimation error around this expectation e. So the utility of this option is
u = r - k * e^2,
where k is the risk aversion parameter.

Now in order to gain this option, an individual must be willing to put in a certain amount of effort. In general the more effort one is willing to put in, the higher chance that he/she has of obtaining the option. So the probability distribution of gaining the option p is then a Bernoulli trial whose parameter p is a function of the effort expended:

f ( x | c ) = p ( c ) ^ k * ( 1 - p ( c ) ) ^ ( 1 - k )

There is also a relationship going the other way. Namely, an "appropriate" amount of effort an individual will put in to obtain this option must also be a function of the option's utility as well as the probability for obtaining that option:

c_app = g(f, u),

Now assuming some sense of rational behavior and fairly accurate estimation of utility, the maximum amount of effort that will actually be spent must not be greater than the present value of the option's utility:

c_max = min(u, c_app)

So far so good. But what if there is some uncertainty? What if there is a set of n mutually exclusive options that look attractive and each one takes some effort to obtain? The total utility one gains from the options is the maximum utility of the options, but the total cost of gaining the options is the sum of the costs:

sum(c_max_i) = min(u_max, sum(c_app_i))

This is problematic in two ways:

First, it reduces the surplus utility leftover after the choice is made. So lesson number 1 is to try and limit yourself to a small number of options before you set about trying to obtain these options to maximize your surplus utility.

Secondly, if the sum(c_app_i) > u_max, then it could easily result in an under-application of effort to each single option such that one spends a lot of total effort but obtains fewer options. So lesson number 2 here is to never bite off more than you can chew just to get more options.

Why did I formalize a bunch of these things in mathematical notation? I have no idea other than I'm a pedantic asshole. Hopefully there's some insight in here somewhere, but I don't have any more time today to do any derivations. Maybe tomorrow!

Running

So I'm training for the San Francisco marathon in July. The goal is to complete it in 4h20m. Which means that at the latest I have to be able to run 23 miles by June 25th. If I am able to run 15mi by the end of March, 18mi by the end of April, 21mi by the end of May, then I should be able to reach the goal of 23 mi by the end of June. I will then run 23 mi once in July and taper before the race, trying to recover.

I think the main goals here are making sure I don't get injured and to develop higher tolerances for pain. Instead of running several days a week, I will try to do 1-2 conditioning workouts, 1 strength workout, and 1 shorter run per week in addition to the long run during the weekend.

I'll have to also plan things around the various 9+1 races I have signed up for, which hopefully won't be that bad. I may just include those races as part of the long runs.

Competition and Markets

Jon Stewart is a smart man. He is funny and generally witty. So it makes me especially angry when he completely misses the point on the recent national controversy over public employee unions in Wisconsin. His most recent guest states that the focus should be on poverty and not about finding bad teachers. Jon Stewart concurred, saying that there are bad fast food restaurants and bad everything yet those other industries are all doing fine.

Sadly that is a perfect illustration of why we need competition. The fast food restaurant industry does fine because consumers are not forced to go to the bad ones thus forcing the bad ones to go out of business. There's no such competition in the education system. Bad schools and bad teachers don't "go out of business". Occasionally a really really bad teacher gets let go, but it's almost always for immoral conduct rather than nonperformance of his/her students.

Jon Stewart is totally oblivious to this distinction between the education system and other industries. Furthermore it seems when something is said in a sarcastic tone, the audience is also expected to suspend their logic and rational judgment. I hope that somewhere in the cacophony of condescending laughter and cheers coming from his usual audience, at least a few people realized the stupidity of his argument.

悼词

当一件重要的事情发生时，人总是会习惯性地在脑海里回放和事件相关的回忆。我收到婆婆病
危的消息后，就不停地也不由自主地想起我小时候的种种。

我小时候贪玩。我记得我很小的时
候经常和婆婆在家里踢小皮球踢得不亦乐乎。大了一点我放学不回家在外面和同学野。而婆婆
总是早早就烧好了饭站在阳台上等我回来。有一次我和同学玩弹珠跌破了嘴唇，哭哭啼啼不敢
见婆婆，过了好几个小时才回家，让她焦急万分。现在嘴上还有个疤。

我小时候贪吃。记得我
经常赖着婆婆要她给我买北京西路大圆盘那里的小混沌，烤山芋，原电校门口在铁炉子里转悠
着的爆米花，教院院子里被那敲着梆子推着车子的小贩卖出的酒粮，但是最好吃的永远是婆婆
亲手下厨烹饪的冰糖蹄膀。

这些是我童年最清晰的记忆。当我想起这些很平常的事情，我心里
总是觉得异常的温馨。婆婆用她的爱给我创造了一个如此美好的童年。后来我十岁要和父母离
开家乡，而婆婆为了我的未来，无私的没有一句怨言。长大了以后，我听长辈们说过很多关于
婆婆的往事，知道她不但对我好，她一生对身边所有的人都非常乐施好善。

在对婆婆感激的同时，我也深深地感到惭愧。我走了这么多年，一直没有能够在她身边，也没
有能够为她做任何事。唯一让我欣慰的是她身边的人给她带来了许多关怀，让她得以安度晚年。
借此机会，我要特别感谢我的大姨和大姨夫；你们 18 年如一日的在我婆婆身旁照顾她，里面的
辛苦不为人知。三姨、三姨夫 在医疗上为婆婆排忧解难, 给了她莫大的帮助。我要谢谢李(香
蕉)李婆婆，每到节日坚持自己走上三层楼送去亲手做的吃的。最后我还要感谢吴梦莲阿姨顾枫
阿姨，你们对婆婆的关心，一直让她感到很温馨。其实不管是家人朋友，我要谢的实在是太多了，在此只能向对我婆婆关心的每个人一起说一
声谢谢。我婆婆在天有灵，看到大家为她做的一切一定会觉得很欣慰的。

中国！中国！

通货膨胀太厉害，一百块花的真他妈的快
南京的空气质量比以前差了好多。不过秦淮河修的真好，不臭了，沿着河堤跑步也很舒服。
上海基本上和国际接轨了。房价快要赶上扭腰，一杯manhattan也要9美刀了，老外更是一窝儿一窝儿的，连中文都说的溜溜的了。反而是中国很多牌子商标闹出英文笑话来： 1）Beauty product brand: Chlitina (sound it out...) 2）Electronics brand: Deepoo
但是呢感觉中国确实比美国更有朝气。文化传统和生存压力让中国人比美国人勤劳多了。而且中国人的创造力其实一点都不差。觉得机会还是挺多的。

主要问题是这个鸟国进民退。。。国营企业整合垄断，政府整天变着法儿从老百姓手里捞钱。我他妈做个公证被收了5000RMB。。。日~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
再，听人说马上要开始征收车船税了，说是为了改善环境减少废气，结果政策出来说不收公家车的钱。还真是当了官儿连屁都是香的，连车尾排出的废气都不是污染。日~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

没能给老同学雪中送炭，心里有点过意不去

国内没什么人做quant，郁闷ing

一党独裁，遍地是灾

　　打开我国的地图，睁开眼睛一看，国民党一党专政下的地区，哪里没有灾荒?单就报纸上发表的材料来看，可以看出灾荒是异常严重的。如湖南、河南、安徽、广东、广西、江苏、湖北、江西、四川，以及陕、甘、青、滇等省，真是遍地是灾，尤其是湖南等地，实在是惨不忍闻。
　　固然，大部分灾区是经过敌伪占领的地区，但有许多地区都是从来没有沦陷过的。现在的严重现象，是耕地荒芫，副业雕落，耕牛尽失，农具俱毁，疾病蔓 延，难民流离失所。总之一句话，农村的生产几乎已完全破产，农民的生活已陷于绝境。举例来说，湖南本是产米之区，现在却以草根树皮为食；衡阳附近，每家饿 死三分之二。豫西廿三县，遭敌伪破坏，至今损失粮食八百多万担，房屋三百多万间，牲畜三十多万头，农具七千多万件。养蚕本为副业，但是饲养用具损失了一半 以上。安徽全省六十余县中，受灾县份竟达五十多，损失耕牛近百万头，农具三百多万件。江西、广西、广东等省，情形相似。至于各省因疾病而死亡的，难民流浪 在外的，更是没有统计，也无法统计。即以广西一省而言，难民就有三百十四万四千人，伤病的，就有一百六十八万余人。江西伤病的三百五十万，流离失所的达一 百六十多万。至于川、陕、甘、青、滇等省的旱、水、风、蝗、雹等灾，更是国民党一党专政之下的人民所熟知的了。“以农立国”的中国，立在这样的农村大破产 当中，还说中国没有经济危机，简直是骗人，那只是国民党一党领导毫无办法解决的自欺欺人的手法!
　　怎么会有这样严重的灾荒呢?敌伪破坏固是一个重大原因；然而，为什么抗战期中，没有能够阻遏敌寇的前进；这不是国民党一党专政的政府应该负责的 吗?敌寇投降以后，至今已有七个多月，灾荒却还在扩大和严重化起来，这又是谁负责呢?比如：湖南老百姓在吃树皮草根，却还有十一万日本俘虏“却吃着从老百 姓那里‘征’来的米”，这种情形又何止湖南?现在待遣的日俘，不是都在吃着老百姓的米，而且还在受“优待”吗?而且像山西阎锡山那里，不是还有收编了的日 军在吃老百姓辛苦耕耘而自己吃不到的米麦吗?此外，不是还有待遣返的日侨三百万人，也在吃米，迟迟不遣送日俘日侨回国，好好供奉着他们的，不也是国民党一 党专政的政府?其次，抗战结束后，国民党一党专政的政府并没有立即真正进行整军复员，还继续保存许多正规部队和各种名目的队伍，不久以前，且有在重庆取缔 “衣冠不整，拉去当兵”的事情发生。这些也都是只有消费民粮，丝毫也不从事生产的。由于上述原因，更由于日寇投降以后，内战再起，至今反动派的内战阴谋仍 炽；内战的进行，以东北为尤烈，所以征军粮始终未减未停。以已经破产之农村，负无法负担的军粮；加之原有苛杂，原封未动，而物价高涨，竟达无法捉摸的速 度，怎能不造成遍地灾荒呢?叫人民怎能不奔走呼号，到处求救呢?湖南人士提出“迅予有效赈济，并豁免摊派，缓征军粮二百八十万袋”，提出“应停止摊派军粮，并速调撤别动队及遣派俘虏”。湖北人士呼吁：“军粮俘粮负担太重，县乡两级人员随意建立名目，苛扰人民，望当局赶快解救”，安徽代表跪请减免军粮等， 都是身受其苦而发出的衷心呼吁。这也证明灾荒之原因，实在是国民党一党专政的政府人为的原因，而不是其它。　　　　
　　国民党一党专政的政府，一面否认经济危机之存在；一面对救灾则完全依靠外国，本身却什么也不做，这种不负责任的态度，是不可饶恕的罪恶。人民没有事实证明政府是真能为人民的，救灾如救火，决不是拖延敷衍所能混过。现在，应该赶快从治标治本两方面入手。赶快进行赈济，免征军粮俘粮，抑制物价等，以稍纾民困；同时，却须用大力迅速遣送日俘日侨，整编军队，并用一切办法使灾区灾民能够开始从事生产，安定生活。老实说，国民党内反动派的内战及维持一党专政的政策是建立在制造饥饿和灾荒上的，所以这些救灾的治本办法，只有国民党确定的和各党派一道走上和平、民主的道路时，才能完满解决。

-《新华日报》社论1946年3月30日