scrape_r_rational/data/cache/3mcdml.md

[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

Post:

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

Comments:

• u/AmeteurOpinions:

  There is some crazy interesting things happening all over the US right now. The Chinese head of state is visiting the west coast tech centers while the Pope is neck-deep in politics on the east. [The Republican Party is about to burst into flames](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3mc0hy/boehner_will_resign_from_congress/), and we're still **months** away from the first primaries!
  
  I wonder what went through some of those CEO's heads when Xi asked them to stop giving the NSA access to the information of Chinese citizens. Which world power do you obey?
  
  I wonder what the right thinks when the Pope is more liberal than they are.
  
  I wonder if Clinton can survive her past, and if Sanders' will be enough of an asset.
  
  And, worst (best?) of all, this is the first presidential election that millennials can vote in.
  
  Things are gonna get strange.
  
  Fortunately, *Twig* is still at the top of its game.
  

  • u/alexanderwales:

    It's easy enough for the right to turn on the Pope. The dominant Christian religious tradition among the right is Protestant, not Catholic, and [Catholics don't reliably vote for any particular party.](http://www.npr.org/2012/09/29/162001011/what-winning-the-catholic-vote-means-today) The only alignments of interest are abortion, gay marriage, and contraception, and that's only alignment of Catholicism and the Republican platform, not *Catholics* and the Republican platform (because most Catholics don't actually follow the Catholic church).
    
    Denouncing the Pope seems like good strategy, if you're a Republican candidate, especially since there's some perceived resistance among the conservative American bishops to the Pope (some of which you can read into [his speech to those bishops yesterday](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/pope-francis-speech-to-the-bishops-of-the-united-states-of-america.html)).
    
    The Clinton/Sanders thing ... I don't really think that Hillary's campaign has kicked into high gear yet. They're saving themselves for closer to the actual primaries, which is one of the advantages of being the assumed nominee. Every prediction market I've looked at has had her as the favorite, and I trust the prediction markets a lot more than I trust most other things. Because the prediction markets are also 60/40 on a Democratic win, I think Hillary is the most likely winner in 2016. But I'll wait on more data to come in before I place my own bets.
    

    • u/gbear605:

      I've heard that the prediction markets aren't working too well right now. They predicted Sanders couldn't possibly get above 5%, and that Trump wouldn't get above 10% either. That said, there's no use debating the legitimacy of the prediction market this early before the election.
      

  • u/None:

    > And, worst (best?) of all, this is the first presidential election that millennials can vote in.
    
    Define "Millenial".  I voted in 2008 and 2012, and I was born in 1989.
    

• u/alexanderwales:

  I've been trying to formalize what makes a good mystery for a few days now, mostly because there's a good chance that whatever I'm writing when I'm done with *Shadows of the Limelight* is going to be one of those.
  
  I watch a lot of (police) procedurals, partly because they're easy to watch while doing other things, and they seem to have creating an episode of television down to a science. Start with a dead body. Find some connection, like a likely suspect, or a piece of unique evidence, which drives toward the next scene. Some minor mystery is revealed which shows that they're on the wrong track, but leads them to the right track. Keep doing that until you've run out the clock, then in the last ten minutes get the *right* suspect along with sufficiently incriminating evidence that the audience will just assume that a conviction will follow (or kill the suspect in self-defense, or extract a confession).
  
  I just haven't been able to figure out why this formula sometimes works well and other times doesn't.
  

  • u/ArgentStonecutter:

    The real trick to doing a proper mystery is to give the audience enough clues that when you do the big reveal most of them go "oh, of course, that's why the guy in the coffee shop was talking about his allergy to mustard" but they didn't actually figure it out before then.
    

  • u/Sparkwitch:

    Mysteries aren't so different from other fiction. As Aristotle puts it:
    
    >"Of 'simple' plots and actions the worst are those which are 'episodic.' By this I mean a plot in which the episodes do not follow each other *probably* or *inevitably*. [...] But this is bad work, since tragedy represents not only a complete action but also incidents that cause fear and pity, and this happens most of all when the incidents are *unexpected* and yet one is a consequence of the other. For in that way the incidents will cause more amazement than if they happened mechanically and accidentally, since the most amazing accidental occurrences are those which seem to have been providential, for instance when the statue of Mitys at Argos killed the man who caused Mitys's death by falling on him at a festival. Such events do not seem to be mere accidents. So such plots as these must necessarily be the best."
    
    The mystery is just one amidst a whole class of stories with twist endings. If the twist is good - completely obvious and *necessary* in retrospect - then it won't matter whether the reader figures it out before the reveal. If they do, they'll congratulate themselves on being clever, but either way they'll congratulate *you*. If the ending is arbitrary, insufficiently foreshadowed, overly coincident, or inappropriate to established character traits, readers will be disappointed whether they guess how things are going to go or not.
    
    The bit you mention about nesting small mysteries in large ones is similarly general: Each twist and turn of a great story is, itself, frequently a smaller great story.
    
    I like to keep a miniature [Soap Wheel (warning: TVtropes)](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoapWheel) going, introducing a few of the puzzle pieces of upcoming twists before the old ones unravels. Momentum!
    

  • u/electrace:

    >I just haven't been able to figure out why this formula sometimes works well and other times doesn't.
    
    Do you mean why some shows work and other don't, or why some episodes of a show work, while other episodes of the same show don't?
    
    If the later, I'd ask, what is the quality spread on a good episode of, say, Law and Order, and a bad one? Personally, I don't think that there is much of a spread. To me, virtually all episodes fall under "decent enough to watch to kill boredom, but not something that I'd particularly miss."
    
    The former is a much more interesting question, but I won't even hazard a guess other than "how charismatic the actors are."
    

    • u/alexanderwales:

      I mean both, to some extent.
      
      Within a single show you're *mostly* removing the variables of characters and setting, along with other more amorphous things like lighting, setting, direction, etc., so that you're just down to looking at the actual mystery cases themselves. With all other variables remaining constant, you can just look at what's working on the level of the mystery itself. If the variance from episode to episode is small, then close examination should be able to find the source of that variance and hopefully increase overall quality. (IMDB allows you to [sort episodes by user rating](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203259/eprate); I agree that variance between episodes is not that high, but it does exist.)
      
      In other words, I know the basic structure used to make the plot work but haven't figured out all the variables that make it work *well*. And obviously when I'm writing, I'm doing prose instead of television scripts, usually longform instead of short episodes that maintain the status quo.
      

      • u/electrace:

        >(IMDB allows you to sort episodes by user rating ; I agree that variance between episodes is not that high, but it does exist.)
        
        Ok, just did some statistics, the variance is 0.2677 of a point.
        
        If you remove the top 10 and bottom 10 data points, variance falls to a measly 0.0082 of a point.
        
        Even if statistically relevant, (and the non-independent nature of voting makes that unlikely) I doubt that anyone would be able to do pattern matching to determine what makes an episode more highly rated.
        

  • u/TennisMaster2:

    For me, standard (police) procedurals are boring.  Others, like *Veronica Mars* or *House* are riveting.  I think it has to do with watching experts at work.  Veronica is excellent at finding clues, knows whom to ask for observations, and how to extract from them observations useful to her case.  House and his team practice lateral thinking, and House is Holmes - you know he'll wow you in the end.
    
    The other factor is believability.  Veronica gets so much screen time that the audience can come to see her as a real person, dealing with real issues, fairly quickly.  In *House*, the teams are small, but much of the episode's time is devoted to fleshing out the people suffering from the mystery malady.  The show did well in including the audience as another member of the team: at first, doctors on the team are colleagues, but still strangers; focus is on the case.  As we spend more time on more cases, working with our colleagues, we learn a bit more about who they are.  Eventually they become our friends.  And we learn our god of a boss is an incredibly flawed human being.
    
    Standard procedurals lack the above in subtle ways I can't describe in detail without watching a few, but as one example, take *Person of Interest*.  The first season, the bespectacled guy is the expert.  He somehow knows whom to help, and provides magic Batman technology as assistance.  However, we come to learn he's actually not the expert, but the expert's creator.  He's created his masterpiece, so he's not interesting any more.  And this new expert is unknowable; we can't learn how they do what they do, and they aren't personable, so they're not a Holmes, either.  
    
    At this point the show should have switched its focus to exploring the new expert, but it stayed a procedural.  I lost interest, since the show lost its expert, and the replacement had no storyline or personality driving each episode.
    

• u/Gcrein:

  Tinder is turning me into a bad person, and I'm not sure if that's a bad thing. (And yes, I do mean "Tinder" as in the dating/hookup app.)
  
  Ok so it's not turning me into a bad person exactly, but it's definitely causing me to be much more judgmental. I'm not going to sugarcoat it, the only reason I'm on Tinder is for casual encounters. I even make sure to say exactly that in my profile description. It's worked rather well thus far. Match with girl on Tinder, message for a little bit, get her phone number, text for a little bit, go on date, hopefully go back to one of our respective homes, rinse and repeat. As a whole I consider it a net positive for both parties because we both end up with what we want out of the interaction.
  
  But the problem is that I've done it more than a few times now and I've become unsettlelingly efficient with my method. I've started treating the women I'm interacting with more as pieces of data with a possible solution (sex), than I treat them as actual human beings. Basically Tinder is slowly draining away my humanity.
  
  I really don't want to stop though. I have little interest in a girlfriend at this point in my life, it's the easiest/most efficient method I've found for instigating casual encounters, and like I said earlier both parties (thus far) have always walked away happy.
  
  I suppose I'm just having a bit of an ethical dilemma with the whole thing.
  

  • u/FuguofAnotherWorld:

    This was a common problem in the pickup community years ago, so you might want to check to see if they've stumbled across any solutions in the meanwhile. After all, if others have done work why not use it?
    

  • u/ToaKraka:

    Maybe you could make an effort to separate people into minds and bodies when you think about them? Obviously, if you're looking only for intercourse, then you're currently thinking of them only as bodies--but it isn't as if you're totally forgetting that they're still humans with worthwhile minds. Even if you're seeking only to exploit their bodies in this *particular* endeavor, you can still switch gears to appreciate their minds, if you decide to get back into the romance-seeking business.
    
    (I speak from an utter lack of experience, though, in both romance and intercourse.)
    

  • u/notmy2ndopinion:

    Objectifying Tinder acquaintances is a risk of the process of having successive casual encounters.
    
    If you find yourself stepping out of the "hook-up" role with someone, PAY ATTENTION. Consider bringing up your thoughts with your partner if you think they may be receptive to it. Who knows, maybe you'll find yourself being more satisfied in disclosing genuine feelings even if you're not ready for a longer-term relationship.
    

• u/TaoGaming:

  OK, so here's an idea I've been toying around with, and it formed the part of my last chapter of DMPOR and provoked a rather ugly debate on r/hpmor. 
  
  "Systemic Assholes" or "Systemic Amorality"
  
  The idea that a system can be specifically designed to act in a counter-productive or immoral way while allowing all parties to be (in their mind) moral.
  
  My example was a low level bureaucrat following orders. He doesn't really have enough information to judge that his action is immoral, because "it's always been done that way" and his action isn't obviously immoral. (Visitors are not allowed here). 
  
  He's also deliberately (by the people who designed the system) unable to acquire the information that would allow him to determine that his actions are immoral and counterproductive.
  
  It seems to me quite plausable that the primary purpose of some (exact number open for debate) organizations is to allow systemic immorality. 
  
  Consider a relatively annoying example: the call center for a cable company. The people in it are good, but they lack the ability to help you. You get charged for equipment you can't return because the person on the call doesn't have the information on that. Signing up is one mouse click, but cancelling is a convoluted phone mess.
  
  That didn't just happen, but none of the people who you'd encounter in trying to cancel cable are trying to thwart you. But they can't lower your rates (etc) unless you say magic words and if they prompt you they may get fired. 
  
  Now, suppose that the original designers of this phone tree get fired for some reason. (Karma, poetic justice, or whatever). By the Peter Principle, the current people running the company are incompetent. And now you have a *systemic asshole* and who exactly is to blame? 
  
  You can apply this to many organizations. I don't really have any answers, its just a phenomenon I've noticed with increasing frequency over the last few years. THere's a tension of scale. Network effects want larger organizations, but then you have a diffusion of knowledge and a mismatch between authority and contact with end users, and another S.A. is born.
  
  Obviously this is just a gambit of the original inventors to get to Plausible deniability, but it can outlive the inventors and become societal.
  

  • u/Transfuturist:

    Every employee is a single cell composing the organizational asshole.
    

  • u/Anakiri:

    > Obviously this is just a gambit of the original inventors to get to Plausible deniability
    
    I don't think this is true. The vast majority of evil systems aren't designed by evil people, they're designed by good people to work with like ten guys. Then, as they grow, the system is constantly kludged and modified in little ways by people who don't have the full picture. Those people don't even realize they're making moral decisions, they're just trying to keep the system working at all under new conditions.
    
    After a few generations of that, you get a Frankenstein monster made of duct tape and twine that doesn't reflect the will of any of its creators. It exists for its own sake, with its own perverse incentives accidentally built-in and fed into positive feedback loops.
    
    The evil people swoop in afterwards, once there are subtle broken pieces they can use for profit. They might contribute to making the system even more amoral, but the initial cracks usually aren't anyone's fault. That's just what happens when you build a thing without specifically taking the effort to be good.
    
    For example, originally the cable company had technicians work directly on everything. Then when they bolted a call center onto their operation, coordinating everything was a mess. The complication was costing them sales, so someone streamlined the ordering process. Training the call center on anything is a complicated hassle, but it's not really needed. They can just have a simple front-end that handles things for them. Presto, sales go up, lost customers go down, and everything is perfect for everyone.
    

    • u/FuguofAnotherWorld:

      In some cases, but not all. I'll give an obviously intentional example I encountered when I was younger: XBox live subscription. Subscribing is easy, and the monthly fee automatically renews unless you specifically tell it not to. There is a button on a website, you press it and enter your account details and give them money and you are done. Theoretically, unsubscribing should be even easier, because you already have an account and don't need to give them your bank details. A small, simple button followed by an 'are you sure' notification would do it. Instead you have to ring a call centre. 
      
      First you talk to a robot, and unsubscribing is not an option that is listed, you have to press the 'other issues' button to talk to a person. Then you tell the person you want to unsubscribe, then you get transferred to what they tell you is the billing department but is technically called customer retention. There they will attempt to convince you not to leave. The whole process is riddled with long delays listening to waiting music. All in all, it takes 2-3 hours, and I had to call up a second time because I ran out of spare time listening to waiting music.
      
      I am pretty sure their goal was to make the process so inconvenient that some percentage of people put it off or didn't bother, allowing the monthly cost to continue to siphon from their account. I was young at the time, and 2 months of fees extra left my account as a result.
      
      The power of trivial inconvenience.
      

  • u/None:

    It's called the [Banality of Evil](http://www.iep.utm.edu/arendt/#H6).
    

  • u/MugaSofer:

    >Consider a relatively annoying example: the call center for a cable company.
    
    That's a really good example.
    
    >Obviously this is just a gambit of the original inventors to get to Plausible deniability, but it can outlive the inventors and become societal.
    
    I think this is wrong - it's a gambit of the original inventors to get *other people to work for them*, because they can't accomplish their goals alone. It's much like a non-evil organization, except worse, because this one is designed to get people to go along with something they might otherwise object to.
    
    That said, think of the organizations you're a part of; could you really do much if they turned evil, due to circumstances or evil management?
    

• u/None:

  Am I the only one who gets better at doing math when drunk?  Because I actually made some nice progress using a rediscovered proof technique on my real analysis studies last night after a good two drinks.
  

  • u/Sparkwitch:

    In addition to making it harder to think, the neurotoxicity of alcohol also makes it harder to *overthink*. Many writers enjoy drinking before writing because it takes the edge off of their internal editor and just lets the consciousness stream.
    
    I find I'm less likely to spin my wheels on useless distractions when I'm a bit buzzed... but I'm also less likely to spin my wheels in productive directions that just happen to take a bit of extra work. Be aware of the disadvantages, and drink responsibly.
    

    • u/None:

      Yeah, my proof last night did have one mistake in it.  But I spotted that while still drunk and fixed it.
      

  • u/Transfuturist:

    You have rediscovered Ballmer's Peak.
    

    • u/None:

      Oh yeah, that old thing!
      

  • u/xamueljones:

    Sorry if this sounds obvious or insulting, but did you go back and double-check your calculations when you were sober? You might have just thought you were writing something brilliant down, but later it'll have turned out that you wrote chicken scratches down.
    
    If this is actually true, then I suspect that you normally over-plan and doubt yourself whenever you do math and alcohol is just stopping you from second-guessing yourself.
    

    • u/None:

      >If this is actually true, then I suspect that you normally over-plan and doubt yourself whenever you do math and alcohol is just stopping you from second-guessing yourself.
      
      That's my guess, too.  I mean, really it shouldn't be hard to come up with the proof technique of treating real numbers as lazily-generated infinite streams of digits, and then creating bijections between uncountable sets (sets of infinite streams) by showing how to parse-and-compile one set into the other.
      
      But I tend to be inhibited by trying to do everything the Right Way instead of some clever way when I'm sober.
      
      And I suck at calculations, whenever.
      

• u/None:

  I'm reading David Brin's *Existence*, and I think it's heavily based on our bunch.  It's got:
  
  * Neo-reactionary aristocrats saying this whole Enlightenment thing is finally over and jolly good.
  
  * A whole dialogue that sounds like Robin Hanson and then gets credited to "Robin Hanson, emulation".
  
  * Speculations about the fear of AI and AI Singletons.
  
  * A seeming reference to Roko's Basilisk.
  
  * Passage-length quotations from a book on existential risks.
  
  * Speculation on the values of aliens.
  
  And I'm not even halfway through the book yet.
  

  • u/Transfuturist:

    > gets credited to "Robin Hanson, emulation"
    
    Seriously?!
    

    • u/None:

      My Kindle note on the matter says, "He finally got what was coming to him."
      

    • u/None:

      By the way, the aliens in this book are *fucking brilliant*.  READ THIS BOOK, and no I won't spoil the twists about the aliens because I'm not even sure I've seen the last of them.
      

• u/Sagebrysh:

  I'm trying to decide if first person perspective or third person perspective is better for the story I'm trying to write.
  
  I think the problem is that I'm trying to take a very huge story spanning an entire world over the course of centuries, and scale it down to a few characters trying to live their lives as the world is upended. The issue though is I feel like its not actually all that interesting to focus in on my main character that much. My novel is 143 pages and the main character never even manages to get out of her home town until the very end. I try to make it interesting and have the events unfold around her slowly to bring the character and reader into the world, but looking back now, I worry that all I really manage to do is tell psuedo slice of life story in a fantasy universe. 
  
  I could pull back the perspective to include more of the world, different characters, stuff going on at the same time, etc, but then I'd have to change off from first person perspective, and I rather like first person for the most part. It gives a great angle to understand the character and how she sees the world, but it limits what I can do in terms of scope. The character is just a girl from a small town on a small island, she's not a politician or military officer, so I can't draw her into the intrigue quickly without it feeling forced. I've got this huge story spanning a whole world, but I want to be able to focus in and tell stories about people. 
  
  I'm also really looking for a helper/brainstormer, someone who is willing to chat with me, shoot the shit, and help me pull the plot together. Maybe even a co-author, I'm pretty confident in my writing, but I could always use help. So yeah, if anyone has interest in helping create an interesting science fantasy steampunk space opera story, please get at me.
  

  • u/ArgentStonecutter:

    You could also have multiple first person characters.
    

• u/Kishoto:

  Paranoia. When are you being paranoid, and when are they really out to get you?
  
  Ok, so we've all seen movies and read books with both people who are too paranoid, not paranoid enough or just paranoid enough. What I ask is, in real life, which follows no overarching narrative (although, of course, there can be a variety of narrative-like structures IN life itself) when can you actually be certain there IS some bigger plot, as opposed to you just misinterpreting things and being "too paranoid"? When can you be sure that your mom asking about your new girlfriend isn't her way of subtly probing you because she found the condom you thought you'd lost last week? When do you know if your boss casually asking you to train someone isn't the preparatory steps towards you being fired, because he noticed you're tardy often but chooses to not address it and let it fester, so your firing is justified? 
  
  
  
  When can you know that someone is trying to play the long, manipulative game, even if every action they've taken so far seems fairly innocous? Is it possible at all?
  
  
  
  Note the answer to the above questions, along with any times you were too paranoid, just paranoid enough or NOT paranoid enough, if you feel so inclined. :)
  

  • u/None:

    > When can you know that someone is trying to play the long, manipulative game, even if every action they've taken so far seems fairly innocous? Is it possible at all?
    
    This depends how thoroughly the Someone is playing the game.
    
    But of course, if everything they've done so far appears fairly innocuous, they might think they're being innocuous.
    

• u/avret:

  Do people here have any useful tips and tricks for :  A)  college applications, B)  interviews, or C) writing essays about rationalfic?
  

  • u/blazinghand:

    I spent some time as a younger man working as a college admissions counselor. Wealthy families would hire me to help their children prepare for tests like the SAT and write their college applications. Here's what you need to know, generally:
    
    **0. Take classes that qualify you for admission to college**
    
    Most colleges will require a minimum number of years in mathematics, social sciences, natural sciences, and language arts/literature for admission. Some will also require a specific level be reached in mathematics-- say, pre-calculus. Ideally, you take 4 years in each of those 4 subjects.
    
    **1. Get good grades** 
    
    You need good grades to get into college. How good depends on the school. If you want to apply to an engineering school, you'll particularly want good grades in math and science courses. Ideally, you get mostly As, though Bs are fine. I got into the UCLA engineering school with 50% Bs, 50% As in my math/science courses, while taking honor roll courses 7 years ago. 
    
    **2. Do well on standardized tests**
    
    Most schools require you either take the SAT or ACT to get in, and your scores matter a lot, almost as much as your grades. You may also be required to take subject-matter tests. Taking tests isn't a test of knowledge or expertise, it is a test of your ability to take tests. Test-taking is a skill that can be trained, and learning how to perform well on standardized tests is something that children in wealthy communities learn in school starting from 2nd or 3rd grade. 
    
    If your test scores are low, you should lay out some cash and enroll in cram school. My initial score on the SAT was an average of 700 on each section. I spent a couple of months going to the Princeton Review cram school in the evenings and at the end got an average of 770 on each section. At the time, there were 3 sections on the SAT worth 800 points each, so I went from 2100 to 2310. 
    
    This cram school was very expensive-- I think in total it cost about 2 grand with materials, tuition, etc-- but it was worth it. I have the kind of mind and set of study habits that reacted well to cram school. All the lectures and homework and flashcards worked well, and because I wasn't stressed out by existing schoolwork, the extra work didn't overload me. Bear in mind that if you end up crushing yourself under extra work this could be counterproductive.
    
    Either way, though, buy a book and study for your standardized tests. The system is meant to be gamed, to be beaten by studying for these things. They're designed to be difficult to study for, but it can be done.
    
    **3. Apply to at least one school you are sure you will get into, and like**
    
    So, the most important school you apply to is the one you’re absolutely sure you’ll get into. This school WILL be an option for you, so pick it wisely. People call it a “safety” school because applying to it gives you a “safe” option. Many people end up attending their safety school, so pick it wisely! If your safety school is a place you don’t actually want to go, you’re putting yourself in a bad situation.
    
    **4. Do all of the above, and more, if you’re applying to a prestigious private school**
    
    All the stuff above will get you into a great school. Get good grades, do well on your tests, and apply to a school you’re sure you’ll get into. If you want to go to an impacted school with tons of applicants, like Pomona College in California, or any of the Ivy League schools on the East Coast, or other similarly hard-to-get-into schools, you need to do more than just excel. These schools probably have 2-3x the number of fully qualified applicants they need. They will look at other things.
    
    A friend of mine got into Pomona just based on his grades and SAT scores, but he had perfect grades in all honor roll classes, was fluent in three languages and didn’t miss a single point in all of AP Physics. Most people trying to get in, though, are just very smart, not prodigies in every subject \*shakes fist at Julien\* so they’ll need something else to distinguish themselves. Take part in extracurricular activities that push your boundaries. Sports are good— the people I keep in touch with today from high school aren’t the people I met through class, but the ones I met through athletics. You make new friends and have new experiences. But generally, just find something fun that lets you do something cool. It’ll give you something to write an essay about, I guess. 
    
    I got into a few prestigious private schools, but nothing like Yale or Harvard. My clients typically weren’t the sort who were aiming for this kind of thing, so I can just tell you what I saw success with. Ultimately, with this kind of thing, something that makes you stand out is good. They MUST throw away qualified applicants, so you’re trying to beat people who are just as smart, or smarter than you. You gotta play the game; you gotta sell it.
    
    
    
    **The Interviews and Essays**
    
    I am good at interviews so I can’t offer much knowledge. Whereas my companions trained themselves to talk to adults in positions of power, interviewing came naturally to me. I don’t know what holes you’ll have in this. “Be yourself” is shit advice unless “yourself” is someone who is comfortable with these things. In any case, these interviews, when conducted by alumni, are pretty low key and not about weeding people out. It’s a conversation about the school and about yourself. Bring some stories or some anecdotes. Think about the stories your parents tell when they have new friends over for dinner, the kind of stories they tell to create closeness and companionship. Fashion your own versions of these stories, drawn from your own life experiences. If you can make it so your interviewer had fun and likes you as a person at the end, it doesn’t matter.
    
    Essays: You can go anywhere with this. I wrote an essay that was a poem, I wrote an essay that was a short science fiction piece about a city dying (trains would come empty, and leave with people— the air is red in the sunset, beautiful and cancerous. The protagonist smokes, and why not? It’s not like the air is clean anyways). I wrote an essay about how I fixed a DDR stomp pad when applying to an engineering school. I wrote an essay about how I always wanted to attend Brown University and accidentally sent it to University of Maryland. They let me in anyways, and into the honor school at that. Hah. I wrote an essay about love lost, even though I hadn’t had my first breakup. I wrote an essay about a friend who died in a car accident, though he was more an acquaintance than a friend. 
    
    The essay should itself be beautiful, should be interesting to read. It should be anecdotal, and broad in scope only in what is revealed. Start as close to the end as possible, as my boy Kurt V would say. Want to talk about your obsession with viola? Don’t write about your freshman year, then your sophomore year, etc. No, write about your Junior year, when you audition for your state band— the previous years will be implied. Don’t talk about how you got the scars, just talk about pouring isopropyl alcohol over your calloused hands after a long practice in preparation for the audition. Don’t say you are afraid, say your heart is hammering in your chest. And don’t tell this is a culmination of your ideals and work, proof you can succeed: show it. Don’t tell them you bleed, bleed. Don’t tell them you suffer: suffer. And at the end, they will understand.
    
    The essay should be, on the surface, about a singular event. Anyone reading it should get the understanding of who you have been for the past years, and who you will be.
    

• u/ToaKraka:

  What are your favorite map projections?
  
  * Rectangular, elliptical, or in some other shape?
  
  * Conformal, equal-area, or compromise?
  
  I generally prefer [Mercator](http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjNav/projNav.html#Mercator) (rectangular conformal) and [Lagrange](http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjConf/projConf.html#classicConformal) (elliptical/irregular conformal). I'm also tickled by [the gnomonic projection](http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjAz/projAz.html#Gnomonic), especially when it's combined with a polyhedral layout so that it can actually cover the entire globe.
  

  • u/Transfuturist:

    For some reason, I was instantly reminded of [this incident,](https://www.reddit.com/r/8chan/comments/3fajrv/a_sociopath_visits_r9k/) and I went to your post history to check if you were the one who was doing that. I remain entertained.
    
    The only projection I have an opinion on is the plate carrée, or the lat/long equirectangular projection, because that's the projection NASA provides for [Earth](http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_cat.php?categoryID=1484) and the [Deep Star Map](https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3895), for simple uv-projection and rendering.
    
    I think I may like the near-side perspective view too, because space.
    

  • u/PeridexisErrant:

    I dislike Mercator just for the baggage it now carries and the inaccuracy of geographic intuition it promotes - the projection itself is actually very useful for some purposes.  For most of the maps I'm making it's not an issue, or I use equal-area cylindrical over the Australasian region.
    
    My favourite map projection is a digitally-displayed perspective of the geoid, with interactive data layers.  If I could just work out how to embed a pointcloud in Google Earth, I would be *so happy*.
    

---