What does Juggling Projects have to do with Paying Attention?

"I am unable to talk to anybody who doesn't appear to be paying attention, because I am unable to listen to someone I'm not paying attention to."
    - Steve Gibson, Episode 457 of "Security Now" podcast.

When I heard Steve Gibson utter those words I felt a great surge of affinity. Personally, I have never understood when someone I am talking to suddenly breaks away or turns away to pay attention to some other task or person momentarily, yet when questioned usually proclaims: "No, it's ok. I'm still listening". Like Steve I will usually find myself automatically pausing myself and waiting to see if and when that person will resume paying attention to me. When that pause becomes too great, I simply wander away and resume some other more interesting task.

To say I find it annoying... would be true.

However, like Steve, I usually just park that frustration and move on.

It's actually quite reassuring to see I'm not the only one who experiences this. If anything, one of the things I have learnt to recognise is that my tendency to think a certain way in no way means that everyone else thinks that way!

So, what does this have to do with juggling projects?

On said episode of Security Now, Steve was asked:

Listening to Episode 456 made me wonder, how do you juggle so many projects? Could you share your methodology on project management, Steve?

Short version of Steve's answer: he obsessively monotasks. Which dovetails with the idea mentioned above about being unable to talk to someone who appears not to be paying attention! Steve talks about how when a new task comes up before the old is completed, he can choose to completely switch to the new task and obsessively focus on that instead. The process may repeat over, again pushing the current task out of the way to make way for the new - presumably higher priority - task.

At this point, I found myself completely envious that he could "afford" to operate that way. I work in IT Technical Support and the one thing you can pretty much guarantee in a Support Role is that you will be interrupted regularly - either by people seeking help, or by computers and applications breaking down! Steve's "interruptions" are chosen by him, and in each case he is able to spend days or weeks on the newly selected task. My interruptions are such that my internal "stack" of interrupted tasked gets blown out each day and I consider myself lucky if I get even an hour of uninterrupted time to work on any single task.

Interestingly, Steve says:

"... I would argue that I juggle projects badly."

However a quick google on the topic reveals that Monotasking is the new Multitasking so I don't think Steve is doing too badly.

Finally lamenting Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (That's "Sorcerer's Stone" for you Americans) screened on TV this week. It's been a while so I decided to watch it, especially since it would be the first time watching episode one since having watched the final episode in the saga.

My love affair with the series had not always been smooth sailing. Originally I was non-plussed over The Philosopher's Stone. An attitude that only worsened with Chamber of Secret's - a movie that seemed to go nowhere quite slowly. For a while then, I struggled to keep up with the series, sometimes falling an episode or two behind. But finally I started to warm to it. You might say: started to understand it, and eventually fell in love. Repeated viewings only then improving it. In the end I did still wait over two and a half years (after it's release) before finally watching part two of the Deathly Hallows. I suppose by then I just couldn't bare to part with Harry and his crew.

So you could say I was pretty much a fanboy as I sat down to watch the movie again.

The Skeptic has awakened!

In more recent times, and without conscience volition, I have found myself decreasingly tolerant of films where events seem to happen for the convenience of the plot. Personally, I consider it a fair method of judging a film to ask whether a given event or situation was merited, and the plot reasonably plausible and to mark a film down if not. In other words, I ask myself: is it reasonable that such an event or sequence might occur, with some leeway given for the fact that we are talking about Hollywood here. But I give highest marks to a film where I consider that everything that happened in that film followed reasonably and logically from the precipitating events preceding it. That nothing seemed to occur just because it suited the plot/author/director.

Enter Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone. This is not the second or even third time I have seen this film, so I was a little surprised to find myself - this time around - quite annoyed by much of the film.

Some of the questions that began occurring to me:

• Why was the punishment for being caught "outside late at night", to serve detention outside late at night and in - of all places - the dark forest!?
• Why did the punishment for visiting Hagrid, include visiting Hagrid, rather than some real detention, with presumably Hagrid himself also chastised or punished?
• When Harry and his crew fought through the challenges protecting the philosopher's stone, how had they reset, since presumably Professor Quirrell had also fought through them recently? [edit: magically? :) ]
• For that matter, how did it reasonably come to be that having had all year to commit the crime - and Harry having had all year to figure it out - that Quirrell tries to steal the stone on the same night that Harry tries to stop him?
• Why *did* the magic harp stop playing when it did? Based on the events that followed, one would have surely have to assume they weren't exactly hot on Quirrell's heels, so why would the harp still have been playing, and given that it was still playing, it became awfully convenient (to the plot) for it to then stop when it did.
• Why didn't Professor McGonagall take Harry's warnings about someone stealing the Philosopher's stone seriously? Why didn't she ask for any evidence of their claim, rather than just dismissing them out-of-hand? Seems like a gross act of negligence that she sought niether to check their claims nor to even ensure that they did nothing silly.
• Why was no-one angry at Harry for risking the lives of himself and his friends to protect the stone, when the stone was always perfectly safe given Dumbledore's ingenious solution and so Harry actions only served to conveniently offer Quirrell the one thing he needed to recover the stone.
• How fair is it that Dumbledore allowed house Slytherin think they'd won the house cup, then conveniently gave house Gryffindor exactly the right number of points to leap them from last to first? Sure, it made for a timely drama-laden "win" for our heroes, but preyed on having the audience allow house Slytherin to be mistreated in being robbed of their victory in such a fashion. This time around I actually found myself feeling sorry for Malfoy and his house. It was an injustice convenient to the plot and on the premise that no-one minded kicking the bad guys down - as long as we conveniently assumed that all of house Slytherin was bad and that having the head Professor show obvious bias towards a particular house was ok. 

Prologue

What's my point?

Whilst I'd still agree it's a great film, it does have it's weaknesses, especially when it comes to plot conveniences. In retrospect, I was especially disappointed with Dumbledore's treatment of House Slytherin in the final scenes. I suppose we were supposed to feel schadenfraude, however I felt myself instead cringing at what I perceived to be an injustice. At the same time Harry's actions seemed unashamedly dangerous - surviving only on the dumb luck that his mother's love was somehow more special than any who had come before - and yet he faced zero consequences or criticisms.

Oh well. It was just a film.

Australia - The Lucky Country

Or as Donald Horne actually meant it:

Aus­tralia is a lucky coun­try, run by second-rate peo­ple who share its luck 

纸包不住火

Pinyin: zhǐ bāo bú zhù huǒ

Meaning: Lies cannot be concealed forever.

Phrases such as "the truth will shine forth" may be semantically similar, but the mandarin version of this phrase has a negative connotation that implies the recipient of this phrase is being deceptive and the deception will be exposed soon.

Translation & Pinyin

Let no one rule your mind or body...

Garrow, from the book: Eragon

"First, let no one rule your mind or body. Take special care that your thoughts remain unfettered. One may be a free man and yet be bound tighter than a slave. Give men your ear, but not your heart. Show respect for those in power, but don't follow them blindly. Judge with logic and reason, but comment not. Consider none your superior, whatever their rank or station in life. Treat all fairly or they will seek revenge. Be careful with your money. Hold fast to your beliefs and others will listen. Of affairs of the love... my only advice is to be honest. That's your most powerful tool to unlock a heart or gain forgiveness."

Josh Worth explains: If the moon was only a pixel

Pixel Space Solarsystem

"It seems like we are both pathetically insignificant, and miraculously important at the same time"

Who would dare criticize The Big Bang Theory

PZ Myers of course.

She’s an actor who plays Sheldon’s girlfriend on Big Bang Theory. Right there, as far as I’m concerned, we have a major strike against her: I detest that show. It’s the equivalent of a minstrel show for scientists, where scientists are portrayed as gross caricatures of the real thing — socially inept, egotistical jerks who think rattling off an equation is a sign of intelligence. I think it’s literally an anti-science communication show. Who in their right mind would want to be anything like Sheldon, the narcissistic nerd? Who would want to work with people like that? The message it’s sending instead is that if you are a superficial asshole, you should become a scientist, where you will be loved for personality traits that would get you shunned in civilized company. (We also see the same phenomenon in atheism, where so many people think it’s a great excuse to be the insensitive Vulcan.) But OK, that’s a matter of taste, I will admit, and maybe not enough of a reason to be appalled to think she is going to be speaking to science teachers (although it’s enough for me). And she does have a Ph.D. in neuroscience, you have to respect that.

I will admit to somewhat enjoying TBBT, but perhaps now it's more clear why so much of the rest of the world (who clearly AREN'T nerds and geeks) also like watching the show: They're laughing at us. And we foolishly think we are so clever as we chortle at the high-brow humour we are so sure those others only pretend to understand!