Tuesday, May 25, 2010
I recommend trying it out sometime. It's especially easy for me since I wear sandals when possible, and it's much easier to take those off than shoes. It felt sort of strange the first time I tried it (I was 16 or so), but since then it's always felt natural and "right." (Some people I've talked to thought that it was illegal for some bizarre reason, but it is perfectly legal everywhere in the US and Canada.)
Monday, May 24, 2010
I spent a while evaluating Windows Azure from Microsoft, and I concluded that while it's a really cool service, it's not priced with me in mind. It's pretty sweet that with a few clicks you can upload a package of files and a server somewhere will create a virtual machine, deploy your changes, and start serving up your content with basically no effort on your part. When you feel like making a new version, it'll start up a second virtual machine, and once you're done verifying that everything works, you click a button and it magically swaps out the servers for you. If your service starts to slow down under heavy load and you want another server, you click another button and a few minutes later you've got a server farm hosting for you and storage distributed across the world. Unfortunately the lowest tiers of service come out to like a hundred bucks a month if you want to just host a simple website, four or five times what I'm paying this new company. I don't need that level of power or flexibility or reliability. Maybe if one of my websites made money, but that is certainly not the case right now.
Even ignoring services on a higher price tier like Azure, it's tough trying the find the right balance between cost and convenience—I could easily have just paid the same company more money each month and avoided spending a weekend working on this stuff, but the difference would have come out to, say, $15 or $20 a month, and that can add up pretty quickly, especially given that I've been hosting these sites for more than a decade. ($20 monthly for a decade comes out to $2,400, if you're not in a mathy mood.) I'll definitely spend a weekend poking at things to save that much, especially if I can turn the experience into something mildly educational. It's a one-time time cost to avoid a monthly dollar cost.
I always have such a hard time putting a dollar value on my time. I've gotten a much better understanding since starting full-time work that my time is a precious, limited resource. When you're young, you have all the time in the world, and especially when you're poor, it's easy to trade time for money. Preciousness and scarcity of money is something that was drilled into my head constantly throughout my life, and now that my financial situation is very different from my family's when I was growing up, I often wonder if I'm making the "right" time and money tradeoffs. I try to strike a balance and use the lessons I learned in frugality while still spending and saving my money in a way that makes me happy.
I've met my teammates twice, and they seem like fun people. I think it's going to work out well. In the meantime, I don't mind taking it easy for a few days one bit.
Friday, May 7, 2010
I wonder if I'm forever conditioned to hate those sorts of things by Magic: The Gathering. I find the idea distasteful, and I never really knew why; it seems like it disrupts the "purity" of the game, but I wasn't really sure. In Magic, people who spend the most money at the game have the most power. It's not clear-cut; certainly a player with less expensive cards can defeat a player with more expensive cards, but money can directly replace or complement skill. (I guess, similarly, in pro sports, money can buy you skill.) It's messed-up, and strangely addicting. It's only ten bucks, or twenty bucks, and you get yourself a rare, powerful card or a few packs of cards that might suck or might be great. Over time, this becomes very expensive, but you stay focused on the individual cards you want—the small picture—and ignore the big picture that holy crap, you've spent a thousand bucks on this game.
It might not even be the power aspect. Some free-to-play games offer things for sale that are no more powerful than what you would otherwise get without money, but the items that cost money are easier to get, or take less time to get, or are still clearly better than the free items in some way not relating to game mechanics. That's still obnoxious.
To play World of Warcraft I pay Blizzard about $12 a month, and I'm perfectly fine with that. That $12 gets me as much WoW as I feel like playing. It's probably sort of a ripoff because I play way less than some people and waste fewer of Blizzard's expensive human resources as other players who are constantly contacting game masters for assistance and I'm paying the same price as those people, but I think I might actually prefer that to having to worry too much about how much time I spend logged in. (This model probably works best for them because now I have this tiny feeling that I should play more to get more use out of my subscription, and the more you play, the more you have emotionally invested in the game, and the more likely you are to continue to play for long periods of time.) Really, I'm fine with paying that monthly fee because I can easily see that for that money I am getting regular (though quite slow) content updates like new dungeons and quests and game features, and it just seems logical. If the game were financed through small transactions, I think I would overanalyze things, and either be disgusted by the commercialization, or spend way too much money, then realize that I spent too much money, and then quit in anger.
Every time I play some game that tries to finance itself through "optional" purchases, I find myself annoyed by the practice. I place a high value on the quality of my gaming experiences, and I'm very much willing to pay for them (often fairly absurd amounts of money), but I guess what I really want is for real-life finances to be completely and utterly separated from my games. Intrusion of money into the experience ruins the immersion for me.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
This position was really competitive, and I have a small fear in the back of my mind that it's going to be hard to stand out on a team of superstars, but I do good work, and it'll be easier to do good work when it's something I'm excited to be working on. Should be fun.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
I picked up Goldfrapp's latest CD, Head First. It's a notable departure from her earlier work, and yet still old and familiar. If you have her prior albums you can still immediately tell who's making this music, but you'd wonder who's been lacing her Nalgene with Prozac—the "happy and perky" dial on her synthesizer has been turned way up, and though it sounds cheesy, it's admittedly kinda fun. The tracks are a bit more "normal" than before: no more harsh electronica, and only one track of bizarre, sparse soundscapes. I like Rocket (weird video, yet not nearly as weird as her others), Alive, and Hunt, and if you've liked her other CDs you're going to like this one too, but I was still hoping for something a little better.
I also had anxiously ordered E.S. Posthumus' newest, Makara, and as soon as you start the first track you're going to be overwhelmed. The first track, Kalki, is like the massive crescendo of an hour-long symphony that was already over-the-top to begin with. In terms of quality it doesn't quite match their first CD—it sounds more artificial and forced—but it's certainly better than their second. It's good overall, but it's less an album and more a collection of 15 eXtreme action movie trailers strung together, and that makes it hard to listen to all at once. One of the more eXtreme tracks is Unstoppable, featured in the Sherlock Holmes trailers, and even hiding behind the explosions, it still sounds like it's going to punch you in the face. Only half of the disc is like that, though, and there are several understated gems like Lavanya in there, and some of the over-the-top ones like Kuvera still sound excellent.
It stands in contrast to Love 2 by Air, an album that just sort of alternates between sleepy and annoying. Eat My Beat is upbeat and pretty decent, and then the best of the rest are the tracks that just sort of avoid getting in your way, like Sing Sang Sung and African Velvet. I'm not averse to slow and understated music, but most of this CD is just uninteresting and mediocre.
After great success with her newest CD, I picked up P!nk's first one, M!ssundaztood, and it's a letdown to hear them in that order. Funhouse is far more evolved and, er, fun than this one. Well, that's not entirely fair. It's an old CD with some radio-friendly singles, and I've heard Don't Let Me Get Me and Get the Party Started way too many times already. If I were just hearing them now I'd be much more impressed. There are a few songs on here that are just painful to listen to. Surprisingly, my favorite on here is one I hadn't heard before—18 Wheeler. Besides that and those two great singles, I don't care too much for the rest.
And then going way farther back in time to nearly forty years ago (1971), I decided to check out Who's Next by The Who, mainly because of how much I like the song Behind Blue Eyes. I only know about the song from the terrible Halle Berry movie Gothika, featuring a cover that I like better than the original, by (ugh) Limp Bizkit. I'm sure that more of this record would be recognizable to me if I were more schooled in classic rock, but the only other songs I recognized were Baba O'Riley and Won't Get Fooled Again, both pretty decent. And the rest... was probably pretty popular four decades ago, but it's not my style, and I don't have the context to see what's particularly special about it.