March 2008

Why Women Should Just Accept That Nice Guy Who Has Been Chasing Them…

Interesting article by Lori Gottlieb arguing the case for settling for Mr Good Enough. The interview with her is also filled with perspectives that I can relate to.

I think the trajectory of my romantic life took on a similar path - desire to find the one to accepting that there isn’t always THE ONE and realizing that the best one is different from the right one if she even exists.

An interesting discussion I had with my former boss at the Indian company concerned arranged marriages. He defended it saying that the notion of marrying for love was all nice and good but that it didn’t ensure a marriage would work or last. Of course, arranged marriages don’t necessarily guarantee a successful marriage but he argued that people entering an arranged marriage might have an advantage in finding long term happiness because they do it with a different mindset. I’m quoting Lori Gottlieb who touches on this issue:

I think the people who go in with these very high expectations about what kind of fulfillment they’re going to get from the marriage and the partner are kind of set up for disappointment.

They have vivid memories of a shared romantic history, and when that wanes or even disappears, there’s a certain amount of sadness or grief that can morph into outright resentment as the years go on. Because the we is redefined so drastically from the we they were before marriage and kids and mortgages and all that emotional water under the bridge.

Well, they don’t go into marriage with those grand romantic illusions. They go into it, I think, with much more realistic expectations. The starting point is “OK, this is your teammate or your partner. Go work out your differences,” as opposed to “This is the person who’s going to fulfill you on all of these very profound levels.”

I do not support arranged marriages - I feel people have a right to choose how they want to live their lives. The key thing to note is about entering a marriage, or for that matter any relationship, with realistic, albeit what might seem lower, expectations.

Passion does not always lead to happiness or fulfillment.

Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.

I guess, the question is then what one considers important? A passionate romantic relationship or a stable happy relationship. Both types of relationships aren’t mutually exclusive and blessed is the person who finds a relationship that is high on both counts. Every relationship probably has both elements in varying degrees, so back to the question, which one would you like to have more of?

My sentiments exactly:

What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime

Best description for our search for love:

It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?

A classic Catch-22:

“If I’d settled at 39,” she said, “I always would have had the fantasy that something better exists out there. Now I know better. Either way, I was screwed.”

Even if you find THE ONE, if that person is so awesome, what makes you think that you are good enough for that person to desire you or accept you? The conceit we have is that we feel we deserve better.

Are you willing to risk what you have in order to hold out for what either may not exist or, equally important, may not be attainable to you, even if it did exist? It’s nice to have high ideals, but the reality is, you may not be attractive to what you consider the best.

A while back, during Chinese New Year, I had an interesting discussion with a friend about finding THE ONE. My friend argued that God wouldn’t have setup a system where there was one perfect partner for each of us because such a system couldn’t possible end up in a state of equilibrium where everyone had the ideal partner because all it took was one person to make the wrong choice and there will be a cascade leading to everyone being attached to the wrong guy or girl.

Musing about Life

| |

Comments (0)

Permalink

Why Online Piracy Of Books Is A Good Thing

Arthur C. Clarke has passed away.

While searching online for short stories by him, I stumbled across the Baen Free Library.

The introduction to the library contains insightful thoughts on the state of online piracy of books and why authors shouldn’t worry about it. While the introduction was written in the context of books, I think it is still relevant for other types of content that have been digitized. I’m surprised that this was written in 2000 and how after 8 years, the worry still exists and the embracing of free online is only beginning.

I have reproduced the introduction below.

Baen Books is now making available — for free — a number of its titles in electronic format. We’re calling it the Baen Free Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online — no conditions, no strings attached. (Later we may ask for an extremely simple, name & email only, registration. ) Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one of several formats. Again, with no conditions or strings attached. (URLs to sites which offer the readers for these format are also listed. )

Why are we doing this? Well, for two reasons.

The first is what you might call a “matter of principle.” This all started as a byproduct of an online “virtual brawl” I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.

There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!

Alles in ordnung!

I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:

1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We’re talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.

2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.

3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The “regulation-enforcement-more regulation” strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.

In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors — how about you, Eric? — were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.

The minute he made the proposal, I realized he was right. After all, Dave Weber’s On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a “loss leader” for Baen’s for-pay experiment “Webscriptions” for months now. And — hey, whaddaya know? — over that time it’s become Baen’s most popular backlist title in paper!

And so I volunteered my first novel, Mother of Demons, to prove the case. And the next day Mother of Demons went up online, offered to the public for free.

Sure enough, within a day, I received at least half a dozen messages (some posted in public forums, others by private email) from people who told me that, based on hearing about the episode and checking out Mother of Demons, they either had or intended to buy the book. In one or two cases, this was a “gesture of solidarity. “But in most instances, it was because people preferred to read something they liked in a print version and weren’t worried about the small cost — once they saw, through sampling it online, that it was a novel they enjoyed. (Mother of Demons is a $5.99 paperback, available in most bookstores. Yes, that a plug. )

Then, after thinking the whole issue through a bit more, I realized that by posting Mother of Demons I was just making a gesture. Gestures are fine, but policies are better.

So, the next day, I discussed the matter with Jim again and it turned out he felt exactly the same way. So I proposed turning the Mother of Demons tour-de-force into an ongoing project. Immediately, David Drake was brought into the discussion and the three of us refined the idea and modified it here and there. And then Dave Weber heard about it, and Dave Freer, and. . . voila.

The Baen Free Library was born.

This will be a place where any author can, at their own personal discretion, put up online for free any book published by Baen that they so desire. There is absolutely no “pressure” involved. The choice is entirely up to the authors, and that is true on all levels:

— participate, or not, as they choose;

— put up whatever book they choose;

— for as long as they choose.

The only “restrictions” we’ll be placing is simply that we will encourage authors to put up the first novel or novels in an ongoing popular series, where possible. And we will ask authors who are interested not to volunteer more than, at most, five or six novels or collections at any one time.

The reason for the first provision is obvious — to generate more public interest in an ongoing series. I’ll have more to say about that in a moment. The reason for the second provision is that one of the things we hope the Baen Free Library will do is make it easier for a broader audience to become familiar with less well known authors. Burying the one or two novels which a new or midlist author might have under a mountain of Big Name backlist titles would work against that. And there’s no reason to do so, anyway, because anyone can get a pretty good idea of whether they like a given author after reading a few of his or her books.

Jim has asked me to co-ordinate the project and I have agreed. After a humorous exchange on my appropriate title — I tried to hold out for. . . never mind — we settled on “Eric Flint, First Librarian. “That will allow me to give the periodic “newsletter and remarks” which I will toss into the hopper the splendid title of “Prime Palaver,” a pun which is just too good to pass up. (I’d apologize to the ghost of Isaac Asimov, except I think he’d get a chuckle out of it. )

Earlier, I mentioned “two reasons” we were doing this, and stated that the first was what you might call a demonstration of principle. What’s the second?

Common sense, applied to the practical reality of commercial publishing. Or, if you prefer, the care and feeding of authors and publishers. Or, if you insist on a single word, profit.

I will make no bones about it (and Jim, were he writing this, would be gleefully sucking out the marrow). We expect this Baen Free Library to make us money by selling books.

How? As I said above, for the same reason that any kind of book distribution which provides free copies to people has always, throughout the history of publishing, eventually rebounded to the benefit of the author.

Take, for instance, the phenomenon of people lending books to their friends — a phenomenon which absolutely dwarfs, by several orders of magnitude, online piracy of copyrighted books.

What’s happened here? Has the author “lost a sale?”

Well. . . yeah, in the short run — assuming, of course, that said person would have bought the book if he couldn’t borrow it. Sure. Instead of buying a copy of the author’s book, the Wretched Scoundrel Borrower (with the Lender as his Accomplice) has “cheated” the author. Read his work for free! Without paying for it!

The same thing happens when someone checks a book out of a public library — a “transaction” which, again, dwarfs by several orders of magnitude all forms of online piracy. The author only collects royalties once, when the library purchases a copy. Thereafter. . .

Robbed again! And again, and again!

Yet. . . yet. . .

I don’t know any author, other than a few who are — to speak bluntly — cretins, who hears about people lending his or her books to their friends, or checking them out of a library, with anything other than pleasure. Because they understand full well that, in the long run, what maintains and (especially) expands a writer’s audience base is that mysterious magic we call: word of mouth.

Word of mouth, unlike paid advertising, comes free to the author — and it’s ten times more effective than any kind of paid advertising, because it’s the one form of promotion which people usually trust.

That being so, an author can hardly complain — since the author paid nothing for it either. And it is that word of mouth, percolating through the reading public down a million little channels, which is what really puts the food on an author’s table. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

Think about it. How many people lend a book to a friend with the words: “You ought a read this! It’s really terrible!”

How many people who read a book they like which they obtained from a public library never mention it to anyone? As a rule, in my experience, people who frequently borrow books from libraries are bibliophiles. And bibliophiles, in my experience, usually can’t refrain from talking about books they like.

And, just as important — perhaps most important of all — free books are the way an audience is built in the first place. How many people who are low on cash and for that reason depend on libraries or personal loans later rise on the economic ladder and then buy books by the very authors they came to love when they were borrowing books?

Practically every reader, that’s who. Most readers of science fiction and fantasy develop that interest as teenagers, mainly from libraries. That was certainly true of me. As a teenager, I couldn’t afford to buy the dozen or so Robert Heinlein novels I read in libraries. Nor could I afford the six-volume Lensmen series by “Doc” Smith. Nor could I afford any of the authors I became familiar with in those days: Arthur Clarke, James H. Schmitz, you name it.

Did they “lose sales?” In the long run, not hardly. Because in the decades which followed, I bought all of their books — and usually, in fact, bought them over and over again to replace old copies which had gotten too worn and frayed. I just bought another copy of Robert Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters, in fact, because the one I had was getting too long in the tooth. I think that’s the third copy of that novel I’ve purchased, over the course of my life. I’m not sure. Might be the fourth. I first read that book when I was fourteen years old — forty years ago, now — checked out from my high school library.

In short, rather than worrying about online piracy — much less tying ourselves and society into knots trying to shackle everything — it just makes more sense, from a commercial as well as principled point of view — to “steal from the stealers. ”

Don’t bother robbing me, twit. I will cheerfully put up the stuff for free myself. Because I am quite confident that any “losses” I sustain will be more than made up for by the expansion in the size of my audience.

For me to worry about piracy would be like a singer in a piano bar worrying that someone might be taping the performance in order to produce a pirate recording. Just like they did to Maria Callas!

Sheesh. Best thing that could happen to me. . .

That assumes, of course, that the writer in question is producing good books. “Good,” at least, in the opinion of enough readers. That is not always true, of course. But, frankly, a mediocre writer really doesn’t have to worry about piracy anyway.

What about the future? people ask. Even if reading off a screen is not today as competitive as reading paper, what about the future when it will be? By which time advances in technology might make piracy so easy and ubiquitous that the income of authors really gets jeopardized?

My answer is:

Who knows?

I’m not worried about it, however, basically for two reasons.

The first is a simple truth which Jim Baen is fond of pointing out: most people would rather be honest than dishonest.

He’s absolutely right about that. One of the things about the online debate over e-piracy that particularly galled me was the blithe assumption by some of my opponents that the human race is a pack of slavering would-be thieves held (barely) in check by the fear of prison sentences.

Oh, hogwash.

Sure, sure — if presented with a real “Devil’s bargain,” most people will at least be tempted. Eternal life. . . a million dollars found lying in the woods. . .

Heh. Many fine stories have been written on the subject!But how many people, in the real world, are going to be tempted to steal a few bucks?

Some, yes — precious few of whom, I suspect, read much of anything. But the truth is that most people are no more tempted to steal a few dollars than they are to spend their lunch hour panhandling for money on the streets. Partly because they don’t need to, but mostly because it’s beneath their dignity and self-respect.

The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the “gap” between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product.

Jim Baen is quite confident that, as technology changes the way books are produced and sold, he can figure out ways to keep that “gap” reasonable — and thus make money for himself and his authors in the process, by using the new technology rather than screaming about it. Certainly Baen’s Webscriptions, where you can buy a month’s offerings “bundled” at a price per title of around two bucks has demonstrated his sincerity in this.

(But he’s just a publisher, of course, so what does he know?On the other hand. . . I’m generally inclined to have confidence in someone who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. Instead of demanding that the taxpayers’ money be put into building more prisons. )

The reason I’m not worried about the future is because of another simple truth. One which is even simpler, in fact — and yet seems to get constantly overlooked in the ruckus over online piracy and what (if anything) to do about it. To wit:

Nobody has yet come up with any technology — nor is it on the horizon — which could possibly replace authors as the producers of fiction. Nor has anyone suggested that there is any likelihood of the market for that product drying up.

The only issue, therefore, is simply the means by which authors get paid for their work.

That’s a different kettle of fish entirely from a “threat” to the livelihood of authors. Some writers out there, imitating Chicken Little, seem to think they are on the verge of suffering the fate of buggy whip makers. But that analogy is ridiculous. Buggy whip makers went out of business because someone else invented something which eliminated the demand for buggy whips — not because Henry Ford figured out a way to steal the payroll of the buggy whip factory.

Is anyone eliminating the demand for fiction?Nope.

Has anyone invented a gadget which can write fiction?Nope.

All that is happening, as the technological conditions under which commercial fiction writing takes place continue to change, is that everyone is wrestling with the impact that might have on the way in which writers get paid. That’s it. So why all the panic? Especially, why the hysterical calls for draconian regulation of new technology — which, leaving aside the damage to society itself, is far more likely to hurt writers than to help them?

The future can’t be foretold. But, whatever happens, so long as writers are essential to the process of producing fiction — along with editors, publishers, proofreaders (if you think a computer can proofread, you’re nuts) and all the other people whose work is needed for it — they will get paid. Because they have, as a class if not as individuals, a monopoly on the product. Far easier to figure out new ways of generating income — as we hope to do with the Baen Free Library — than to tie ourselves and society as a whole into knots. Which are likely to be Gordian Knots, to boot.

Okay. I will climb down from the soapbox. Herewith, the Baen Free Library. Enjoy yourselves!

Eric Flint
First Librarian
October 11, 2000

Links Watch
Tangled Web We Weave

|

Comments (2)

Permalink

There Is Something Rotten In The Finance Industry

I’m not a banker, economist or in any profession directly related to the finance industry so I might not understand everything that is going on and my interpretation of events might be way off-base, but it would seem to me that something is really rotten in the finance industry.

Firstly, we know that people working in the finance industry earn a relatively, if not absurdly ridiculously, high compensation compared to professionals in other industries.

When a certain bank like Bear Stearns is doing badly, what happens? A government body steps in to bail it out. Now, I understand why they say they need to do it - to prevent the whole system from collapsing.

Bush Supports Fed’s Actions, but Critics Quickly Find Fault

Officials says that people involved with Bear Stearns didn’t get away easy - shareholder value was wiped out. Yet, that is a rather inaccurate picture - some people involved with Bear Stearns did get away with something in terms of salary and bonus compensation. These are the bankers. Unless they used their compensation to buy shares in the company, what they earned was pretty much safe when shareholder value got wiped out. Funny thing is, they get to keep their compensation for the work that got the bank in the position to experience a collapse.

Who bears the cost?

From: Rescue Puts Credibility of the Fed on the Line

And no one knows how much the Fed could lose if the borrowers fail to repay their loans or whether hundreds of billions of dollars will ultimately have to come from taxpayers to shield the nation’s financial system from ruin.

If the rescue effort fails, taxpayers could indirectly wind up having to assume part of the cost. Tax revenue does not pay for the Federal Reserve’s operations, including the rescue effort, because the Fed earns income from its trading operations.

But the Fed does pay the Treasury a regular stream of money every year out of its trading profits, lowering the amount it needs to borrow from outsiders. If the new borrowers on Wall Street are unable to repay, and if the market value of the securities they pledge as collateral continues to drop, the losses will come out of the Fed’s payments to the Treasury.

Why is the Fed doing what it is doing?

From: Plunge Averted, Markets Look Ahead Uneasily

“They stand committed to protect the system,” said Richard S. Fuld Jr., the chairman and chief executive of Lehman Brothers

Which system is being protected? Is it the one where people can be reckless with other people’s money to earn high compensation for themselves without worrying about any consequences when things go south?

From: When a Safety Net Can Lead to Risky Behavior

It describes the possibility that people will take foolish risks when they believe that they will be protected from the consequences of their decisions. In this case, the critics are worried that investment firms will repeat their recent run of reckless investments, based on a belief that the government will bail them out again.

The classic examples of moral hazard involve insurance. When people can insure themselves against a bad event, like a car accident, they may become more willing to engage in dangerous behavior that could lead to that event.

Seems like it to me.

Links Watch

|

Comments (0)

Permalink

People Who Complain About Others Playing The Game Are Losers

or so says thegreatsze.

In another humorous post that uncomfortably holds the mirror in front of us (which we probably do not notice because we are looking over it and beyond), thegreatsze has once again, in his words, helped us reach Nirvana, Enlightenment and John 3:16 all rolled into one.

Some might condemn this ostensibly reprehensible behaviour. “Is this what we have evolved to become?” they cry. “Socially maximizing robots with nary a thought for the socially awkward man?”

Well. This is hardly true sympathy. Quite simply, this is Loserspeak at its most unadulterated - your usual grasping brand of “If You Can’t Beat Them, Complain About Them”. If these whiners were just a whit better looking or talented, they’d be screwing your girlfriend behind your back in a heartbeat. But they aren’t, so they won’t, or rather can’t. So they complain.

Do not be fooled by them; or worse yet, succumb to joining them. Stick to your guns. Talk to the most important, most happening people at parties. The rest are wallpaper. Once in a while, however, take time out to talk to the weird ones that nobody ever talks to. People will think you have depth. But not for too long. People are shallow.

Links Watch

Comments (0)

Permalink

A New Perspective On The TV Show ‘Will & Grace’

I’m going to watch episodes of ‘Will & Grace‘ again through the lens of this post by thegreatsze.

Will - determination, effort, perseverance. A blunt instrument.

Grace - style, effortlessness, ease. A pointed tool.

The former value is Hobbesian. With only Will, devoid of Grace, we are exposed for the maximizing animals that we really are. A graceless Mage (cloth-wearer, wands and staves only) loots on every drop, including plate, polearms and mail; a graceless clubber requests a full list of what his free drink coupon entitles him; a graceless diner leaves no tip and runs through a gamut of credit cards hoping for a discount; a graceless mother speaks of her SAP-school enrolled son with no hint of awareness.

Much of charisma, popularity and magnetism, then, come from the fountainhead of Grace. In the dog-eat-dog world of Will, nobody wants to win the approval of a fellow dog. No; if we are to worship, we must worship higher. The quality of Grace cleaves to our imaginations, our rose-tinted idealizations. We see it in LeBron and Federer on court, and Denny Crane in court; it seeps unconsciously into us through the behaviour of top-flight politicians, celebrities and business-class citizens.

We are the plodding, the grasping, the heathen, willing ourselves forward day after tiresome day; they are Gods on earth, gracing us with their presence.

Links Watch
TV

Comments (0)

Permalink

Bao Jia Wei Guo, Jing Zhong Bao Guo

I wrote another post for the blog ‘Male By Birth, Man By Choice’. It has to do with National Service and how it played a part in the creation of the blog.

Why is it that in National Service, the ones who ‘eat snake’ (a Singaporean phrase for slacking) seems to be the ones who strut around camp with the biggest balls but the ones who do their best are made to feel dirty by their peers? Why is it that generally people ‘admire’ those who can get away with stuff in National Service instead of aspiring to be like those ‘on’ guys? There must be something wrong with this situation.

More importantly, there must be something wrong when guys do not have the courage to live by the principles and ideals they profess to value.

On Singapore

|

Comments (0)

Permalink

I Need Help With A New Project I Am Doing

I just started a new blog ‘Male By Birth, Man By Choice’ over at http://mbbmbc.blogspot.com/. I have reproduced the introduction of the blog below.

The name of this blog comes from a longer phrase that I learned while I was serving my National Service - Male By Birth, Man By Choice. Until that time, I didn’t really make a distinction between being a male and a man but I have come to learn that being a male is an accidental matter of biology but being a man is a conscious choice to live life by certain principles.

As males, we are more than just what magazines like FHM, Maxim, GQ or Playboy would like us to believe - more than just the sum of our interests in women, nice threads, cars, games, sports and gadgets. We are more than sex-crazed animals interested in just getting more action which is what the magazines see us as when they publish those regular articles like ‘20 Steps To Land That Hot Babe’.There are many other things we are interested in and many more that we should be. We are not just males, but sons, husbands and fathers. We can do so much more when we move beyond the stereotypes culture has given us, move beyond the altars we have placed the idealized individualistic alpha male upon.

So, this blog was then started for me to talk about such stuff. But more than that, I hope for people to write in to share the stories about their life as a man with all the struggles, triumphs, joy, responsibilities and challenges it entails. It is my hope that through the sharing, we encourage each other, teach each other, are forced to reflect and learn more about ourselves.

Of course, to live life with what is probably an idealized core set of values isn’t easy. It isn’t always easy to accept and fulfill one’s responsibilities. That is why we aren’t just male, but we are man by choice. For if it was easy to be a man, what worth would it be?

The new blog isn’t supposed to be a place for me to write but a place for me to curate stories, opinions and thoughts shared by others. I do hope that males of all ages will share their stories and be part of the project. The reason why I started this project because there is a dearth of sites, content and blogs online which do not portray man as anything beyond sex-crazed and sex-starved beings. If everything online is a snapshot of our times, what does it say about us as males?

There is only one blog from Singapore that I know of which I enjoy reading that I know which focuses on family and a man’s love for his family - Mr Brown. He doesn’t talk about being a man - he shows how he lives his life like one.

By now, you might have a vague notion of what I mean when I say ‘man’. I can’t describe exactly what I mean when I say he is a ‘man’ versus ‘a male’ (and its arguably worse subset ‘the alpha male’) - it is something I’ll know when I see it and I hope to be about to share the experiences of more such man like Mr Brown, especially those who do not have their own blogs.

So, please do share by emailing share[.]manbychoice[@]gmail[.]com.

Oh, another blogger who shows what it is to be a man - kottke.org.

Ignore This

Comments (0)

Permalink

Two People Fighting In An Office

There are many ways people can fight. There are many kinds of adversarial relationships. I discovered this new HBO series ‘In Treatment’ via YouTube. The battle between the two individuals in each episode, fought with words, gestures, expressions and the eyes, is more brutal than a lot of the fist fights I have seen online. It is amazing how with good writing, a story can be told just with the conversation between two people in one setting.

Links Watch
TV

|

Comments (0)

Permalink

Why Do Hot Ah Lians Go Out With Ugly and Stupid Ah Bengs?

Firstly, not all Ah Bengs are stupid and ugly. Ah Lians however, are by definition hot, sexy and everything nice. Now, back to my question. I don’t know the answer but it has been a reason for many nights with my friends Jack, Johnny, Jim and Stella.

via buzzfeed, I discovered this site that explores the depths of this perplexing phenomenon in an American context. The pictures on the site proves once again that God is unfair if he exists.

Links Watch

Comments (0)

Permalink

Who Is Sarah Lacy? Hint - She Is Smoking Hot…

Top story on Techmeme now is about how the interviewer Sarah Lacy did such a terrible job with Mark Zuckerberg founder of Facebook. The most important thing about this breaking story - Who is Sarah Lacy? Actually, the most important thing is - Is She Hot?

Yes, she is.

Anyway, following the common trajectory of most online, and to a certain degree all Silicon Valley related stories, let the backlash against Sarah Lacy backlash begin.

Michael Arrington defends Sarah on Twitter here and here.

What Really Went Wrong with the Zuckerberg Keynote at SXSW — Hint: Sarah Lacy isn’t the Problem

And showing that she isn’t just hot but sassy - her twitter response.

Links Watch
Tangled Web We Weave

| |

Comments (1)

Permalink