A Personal Writing Challenge 2

Last year, I challenged myself to write a hundred words a day.

I succeeded, though with no assurances on quality. In 2011, I wrote 40239 words for the challenge over the span of 11 months. Averaged over the year, that's 110 words a day, though there were 3 months where I wrote less than 100 words a day.

This year, I aim to write more than the last.

Gifting

If I recall correctly, gifting is a practice that has negative overall utility. Prior experiments found that recipients of gifts tended to discount the value of the gift; for example, if a gift had cost $10, they deemed the gift to be worth less than $10. Perhaps unsurprising, given that gifts have a poor record of being exactly what people want. In the optimal case, gifts are exactly what you want, in which case nothing is gained over the case where you spend the money to acquire the item directly. In the worst case, you receive rubbish (from your point-of-view) and are worse off.

My analysis suffers from an assumption, which may be untrue. It assumes that the costs of gifts are equal for all people, i.e. you can't get the same gift at a lower cost than I can. However, sometimes this assumption is untrue. If one is able to obtain items at a discounted cost, then gifting makes sense. For example, if I were an artist, it is preferable to give people my artwork, since it does not cost me as much to 'buy' it as it does others. An alternative possibility is to gift others with items that you value poorly with respect to their generally perceived value; for instance if you hate bananas and happen to have some bananas, giving others the bananas is likely to improve the overall utility of the gifting scheme.

To summarize:

1. Gifting is generally bad for everyone, unless,
2. You give people something that you have a competitive advantage in procuring, or
3. You give people stuff you hate.

 I find the third conclusion particularly interesting. I believe it should be combined with the conclusions from my previous article on "Free Gifts".

Thoughts on the MRT Breakdowns

The MRT system suffered two breakdowns in as many days. This has sparked a significant negative outcry from the public, and not entirely unwarranted. 

My first thought is on the nature of the criticisms of SMRT. It is indeed true that SMRT should be censured, but not for the breakdowns. Unless given evidence that the breakdowns were caused by SMRT, whether through neglect or incompetence, it is unfair to fault SMRT for what is essentially beyond their control. Accidents and failures happen even given the best of engineering and maintenance. It makes no more sense to punish them on this basis than to fine an employee for falling sick. 

What SMRT is culpable for is a flagrant and utter failure in crisis management. Few steps were taken to inform or redirect commuters from stations after the lines were down, and even that response was sluggish; stations should have refused passengers if no trains were to come. On the stuck trains, passengers were forced to smash windows for ventilation, which suggests that staff were unable to either calm or tend to passengers on the stopped trains. Furthermore, it highlights the lack of emergency supplies, be it torchlights or simple rations, on the train. The poor crisis response is damning as a whole on SMRT. It is not sufficient for any transport operator to only be concerned with its daily operations. I contrast SMRT's performance with my experiences on the London Underground. In terms of sheer number of breakdowns and scheduled line closures for maintenance, the Tube far far outnumbers the MRT. There, it's not unusual for some line to be down or closed. Yet the line information is always clearly displayed, whether on electronic or marker boards, at prominent points of entry and on the station platforms. Status updates of each line (whether a line is delayed, or whether service is good) are displayed by default. We should learn from this, especially since our lines and rolling stock is aging, and breakdowns are only going to get more frequent.

Apart from the breakdown itself, there was also some outrage over the perhaps insensitive wording of a taxi operator, who sent a message advising cabbies to seize the opportunity to ferry stranded passengers. Myself, I find there to be little reason for such a reaction. Those who are claiming that this is exploitation or profiteering are making an absurd statement. They're not demanding extra fares or anything, merely optimizing their chances of picking-up passengers. What's wrong with rerouting taxis to points where there is high demand? Surely, the situation is superior to one where all the cabbies are roaming around the island with empty cabs and stranded commuters are left waiting? The sole fault is a poor wording "Income Opportunity", which though possibly callous in a deontological sense, does not really strike me as being particularly offensive.

UPDATE:
As of Saturday the MRT has broken down yet once more. Thrice in a week hints at systemic problems in maintenance. It will be difficult to put this down as a series of random occurrences.

Battleships in the Terran Era

The earliest battleships were designed to meet the very specific needs of their time, which was not ship-to-ship combat, as fleet planners did not expect the outer colonies to possess any sizable naval resistance. Rather, battleships were purpose-built to destroy orbital and planetary defences, and to partake in planetary bombardment roles. Fleets of battleships had little purpose except to bring unruly planets into line with the threat of annihilation from orbit. Since vessels only expected resistance in the form of satellite-based weapons platforms or (more rarely) planet-side weapons, early naval designs emphasized heavy frontal armor and forward-facing heavy lasers, with corresponding penalties to propulsion. Such designs enabled battleships to dish out the largest amount of damage to largely-immobile defence platforms, while being relatively unscathed by the return fire. 

Such design philosophies were sufficient in the early Terran era, when space was the sole domain of a single power. But the galaxy was too large for a single watchful eye, and eventually, whether through neglect or exhaustion, other powers rose. Though these nascent nations stood united in opposition to Terra, their actions towards the less developed worlds was far from benevolent. With fleets of their own, they too spread to stake their claim over the various worlds. The tools of war were unchanged, and only the flags flown were different.

The first purely naval battle was fought between two fleets of much different size. Even with the advantage of numbers, the Terran fleet was unable to inflict a total defeat on the enemy forces. Though at the time much blame was placed on the commanding admiral, the modern consensus is that early battleship design was far too ill-suited for fleet-to-fleet combat. Forward-facing heavy lasers directed a devastating beam, but only in a extremely narrow firing arc. Against a mobile target, one that could maneuver in any direction in 3D space, this was a severe handicap. The problem was compounded by the comparatively slow charge times for the weapon and the poor maneuverability of the battleships, especially in performing spatial rotations. Taken together, the battleships could not track and hit moving targets with much reliability. 

The end of the late Terran era was marked with several major fleet battles, none of which had any conclusive victor. Very rarely was the balance of powers changed in any significant way purely though the use of naval force. Despite the failure of battleships as decisive weapons, the concept of naval power retained its place in popular imagination as symbols of national power. Later technological advancements would vindicate the importance of the battleship as mighty weapons of interstellar war.

---

Part II: The Age of Contention

Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio

I'm currently reading "Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio", which is a classical Chinese work ("Liao Zhai"), translated by the famed sinologist Herbert Giles.

Now, there are usually uppity people who refuse to read translated stories of any sort, with claims that the content is necessarily distorted, or that the original flavor is lost. I don't agree with such ideas, because a work is a work, however distinct it is from the source material. It's acceptable as a form of entertainment.

I really like "Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio", for a few reasons. First is the distant familiarity of the material, which has been presented in various refracted forms in movies (A Chinese Ghost Story, Painted Skin). It's certainly interesting to see how the original tales and ideas have been fleshed out, or more often, dramatized. The second reason is that the stories, in themselves, quite entertaining tales- in fact they are more akin to Chinese fairy tales.

"Strange Tales" is also quite an intriguing study, for two meta-reasons. The first is that the stories, being written in the 18th century, necessarily provides a look into Chinese society of that time. In fact, several customs and behaviors unique to that time are described within the book, which contributes much color to the stories. 

The second reason is the prevalence of footnotes, provided by the translator Herbert Giles, in the text. These footnotes give an explanation of Chinese behaviors or customs, in a Westerner's context. Sometimes these footnotes are quite quaint in nature, such as one where he commented on a named Chinese dish as being especially tasty. At other times the footnotes describe a decidedly Orientalist interpretation of traditional Chinese customs, which I (ironically) read with a sort of Occidentalist delight ("I find it amusing that this Englishman finds this Chinese tradition amusing!").

I have yet to finish the book, but I'm enjoying it very much now.

Time-Differentiated Public Transport Fares

The frequency of public transport during non-peak hours is typically lower than that during peak hours. This can result in extremely poor service quality during non-peak hours, with long waits for buses or trains.

It is possible to increase the frequency of public transport for off-peak hours, but that typically requires additional resources. This could mean a general rise in public transport fares. However, I am wondering if a time-differentiated fare structure would be a superior option. Such a fare structure would charge different fares, dependent on the time of boarding/arrival.

A first thought is to increase off-peak transport charges, to pay for the additional services deployed. This helps to make off-peak transport less of a loss-making venture, or even marginally profitable. However, increasing charges on non-peak rides would change public transport usage patterns, as some riders may instead seek to leave earlier or later to use the cheaper peak-hour transport. This increases  the peak-hour burden, and simultaneously decreases the ridership (and profitability) of off-peak public transport. Therefore it is not a good option to charge more for off-peak fares.

The reverse fare structure seems to be a better idea. Charging more for peak-hour fares reshapes transport-usage patterns in a beneficial way, reducing the rush-hour load and increasing the ridership for off-peak transport. Furthermore, the additional charges ought to go a far way in subsidizing buses or trains running during less-profitable hours.

Evidence for Hub and Spoke Model of Public Transit

It seems to me that during rush hours, more passengers alight from the front entrance of the bus rather than from the rear entrance. This could mean one of several things:

1)That passengers who board earlier take longer trips.

2) That passengers who board later drop earlier.

Taken together, there is some evidence that people use buses for one of two modes, trunk or short trips. It is correspondingly less efficient if a service caters to both types of passengers; much of the vehicle capacity is taken by trunk passengers, whereas the frequent alighting and boarding reduces the overall speed of the route.