Archive for category Day In Day Out

2018.07.18 佳园肉骨茶

每天一车车的韩国日本中国旅行团被大巴拉到文东记排队吃鸡饭,但隔壁的佳园的肉骨茶却少有游客问津。

其实这里的东西才是真正意义上的古早味,不仅味道正,环境也是扑面而来的南洋风。唯一的缺点,恐怕就是价钱略微贵了一点,但肯定还是比文东记划算得多。

Advertisements

,

Leave a comment

2018.07.15 Metal Gear Solid 4 Revisited

五年前的七月,我第一次完整通关了MGS4,那是我接触的第一个MGS正作,现在想起来,从四代入手应该是体验这个系列最不推荐的方式。当时对其背景,故事,系统,完全陌生,20小时一路下来整个人莫名其妙的,除了觉得画质配乐还属上乘,其他的根本欣赏不来,给了一个4分就草草封盘了。

后来的五年内慢慢把MGS补完,二代感受最好,三代通了两次,五代刷了140个小时,连Raiden外传MGR也过了两次,是时候重温四代了。(一代由于操控的缘故,还是不强迫自己了。话说从二代到五代,每作在操纵上都有质的提升,五代可以算是动作游戏的巅峰之作。)

这次有了之前几作的铺垫,操作起来不仅更觉得心应手,和游戏人物之间的距离也像是老朋友一样,可以更自然的融入到故事的情节中,感受两个时代人物之间的恩怨纠葛。剧情和演出还是一如既往的中二,操作别扭的硬伤不管熟悉多少次也还是客观存在,但完美主义的小岛完成的MGS系列就是有这个魅力,让玩家放下自己的偏好,慢慢的听他讲这个花了30年还没有编完的庞大故事。

17小时内四代二次通关,评分从4分调整到满分5分。

, , ,

Leave a comment

2018.07.07 贸易战的帐

班上有这样一个同学,体格虽大但基本算是虚胖,平时习惯于用体格上的优势欺凌别人,小同学们只能低声下气,壮一点的为了维护班级和谐也能忍则忍。

然而突然一天班上最壮的班长突然想通了,不忍了,啪的一耳光打在虚胖生脸上,“妈的规矩点!想还手?还手再来二耳光!”

虚胖生骂道:“你怎么能破坏班级团结!”,并找姓欧的副班长联合声讨班长。

欧副班长摸摸自己头上的伤疤,对虚胖生说:“这你是昨天打的,这个是前天打的。”,然后默默走开了。

这是我能想到中美贸易帐最简单的比喻了。

img_2251

贸易战正式开打后,人民日报写到:“强买强卖,使诈利诱,恐吓威胁,都是对自由贸易的扭曲。” 那我们就来摆摆事实:

* 强买强卖:操纵汇率;常年对进口产品施加高关税;提供高额的出口补贴,用倾销的方式搞乱市场。

* 使诈利诱:著名的用技术换市场政策;窃取知识产权。

* 恐吓威胁:不服从的企业被迫退出市场;用阻挠私有公司合并的方式达到政治报复的目的。

这些事儿可都不是美国干的。

短视的键盘小将们又开口了,“这些都是为了国家的利益,民族的复兴,无可厚非。” 只需收官放火不许百姓点灯的道理这里就不说了,毕竟人都是自私的。但道理是,要长期稳定高效的发展,靠贸易保护主义,靠巧取豪夺,靠用市场抢技术等抄近道的手段是无法持续的。那些以为靠大豆就可以把美国弄趴下的,且不谈多收的关税最后会有谁来买单(是的,就是你们),抵制美国大豆造成的原材料上的漏洞你觉得地球上还有哪个贸易伙伴能便宜的帮你补上?

两个星期前我在 “OK Enough is Not Enough Any More” 中就已经提到,一个习惯于赚快钱而无视质量和技术底蕴的社会,会慢慢丧失其竞争和自我提高的能力。希望这次仅限于中美的局部贸易战,能成为中国坚决进行产业和行业升级的契机,尽快走上一条可持续发展之路。

,

Leave a comment

2018.06.15 OK Enough Is Not Enough Any More

I remember reading an HBR article back in 2010, the then-seemingly robust Chinese economy was hailed by the media across the world while most of the developed countries struggled to climb out of the financial crisis. The article pointed out that the Chinese way of doing businese, particularly in the manufacturing sector, in a “OK-enough” standard enabled the country to position itself better in the world economy than the developed countries, who tend to emphasise on higher quality and good services.

I am never a fan of OK-enough concept myself. Products are more prone to be massively produced than what is actually necessary, they are required to be replaced more often than should, and causes more environmental issues. However I need to make my point clear, there is nothing wrong for a country to start its economy somewhere, OK-enough for instance, get the engine running, and slowly move up to play the quality- and service-based game. Just look at Germany and Japan, they are probably the two best examples from the post-war era. No one wants to stay cheap forever, it is as natural as evolution.

But this progression appears to be much longer and harder for China. After 3 decades of continuous hyper-growth, one would normally expect the country to have a handful of world leading companies across industries, offering top-notch products and services and not pricing itself using cost-based method. But the reality is, except Haier, Alibaba and Huawei, there aren’t any other that can be seriously considered in this category (Baidu, Tencent, and other Fortune 500 Chinese firms are mainly the byproucts of political monopoly in my opinion).

Some could argue that they shouldn’t have it changed if it is still working. Well, as a matter of fact, for years the Chinese government has been trying to restructuring the economy because they knew it won’t last. The pressures are both domestic (1.3 billion of desires of non-stop improvement on wages and living standard) and international (cost competitions from new batch of emerging countries). Though the communist regime has a track record of achieving targets set for itself in the past, the goal of “upgrading the industries” somehow seems to lie beyond their reach.

To simplify the their paradox: the labour, energy and pollution intensive ways of producing have to be replaced gradually by businesses of value, quality, efficiency and sustainability, but any attempt towards that directions would face tremendous resistances: temptation to make quick money, concerns of high unemployment, risk of uncontainable bad debt, and above all, the potential damage to the political legitmacy of the ruling party.

And waiting should not be taken as an option either because the equilibrium is only getting more fragile. There is probably no better example than the Chinese real estate bubble (no one feels it is healthy and yet no stakeholders wants to see it go down) to reflect what’s happening on a larger scale.

But, let’s just assume the Chinese government has the courage and ability to pull it off, it’s not the end of it. The path beyond isn’t going to be easy either. To frame it nicely, the nation is quite well known for its disrespect of intellectual property. At least in the foreseeable future, this will present itself as tremendous barrier to most of the (high) technology related FDIs. That’s is to say, the country has to rely mainly on itself to work things out, and for a nation that has been “conditioned” for generations to just do “OK enough”, and constantly disregard intellectual property and craftsmanship, it is going to be challenging.

, ,

Leave a comment

2018.06.05 ‘a’ question

部门这段时间都在忙教材的事情,20/80原则耗费了我们大量的时间和精力。今天就碰到了一个有趣的问题,为什么字母 ‘a’ 的手写体和大多数字体是不同的?

这个问题要扯的话可以扯很远,简单的答案:学校里教的手写体通俗来说是为了快速书写(一笔完成不用提笔)而演变的不正规写法,写的人多了就渐渐变成标准。下图很有意思,一来说明了大部分时间 ‘a’ 的写法是历史主流,二来 uncial 写法的 ‘a’ 也说明了大小写之间的关系。

the_history_of_a

最后放一张还未定稿的教材,字母A的自然拼读页,敬请期待。

phonics_A

Leave a comment

2018.06.01 Keep Your Clients Informed

试想以下情景:

“你看上一件衣服,询问店员是不是全棉的,她给了你一个肯定的答复。也不是因为不信任她,但你还是很自然的翻出衣服上的标签上确认了一下。”

为什么会有这个动作,事后你问自己,人与人之间的信任呢?其实你也不必太过自责,好的店员也不会把这个当回事儿。面对所见和所闻,人总是偏向于相信前者。

这当然不是我总结出来的,最近在 udemy 学习销售方面的课程,Grant Cardone 的讲解很容易产生共鸣,特别是那句 “People always believe what they see, not what they hear”,以此建议在销售的过程中尽量采用书面材料(合同)和真凭实据来赢得客户的信任。短期看来可以快速完成单笔交易提高销售效率,长期来说可以极大的降低客户的维护成本,防止后院起火的概率。

Inform_buyer.png

Credit: Learn to Sell Anything by Grant Cardone, Udemy.

肯定会有人说,客户拿着合同的话今后会让我们很被动。我说,做不到的东西当初为什么要承诺?主动权从来都在自己手中,把以后救火的精力用在先把工作做好,岂不更好?毕竟我现在聊的是销售,不是忽悠。

, ,

Leave a comment

2018.05.17 Deeply Practical Project Management

I recently took a project management course from Udemy and that was indeed a very enlightening journey.

Deeply Practical Project Management

Before taking this course, I always had this ‘mis-conception’ about Project Management to be very dry, inflexible, and unpragmatic. So I purposely picked a course that is not exam-oriented. This course delivered what it promised (to be deeply practical) and totally changed my mind towards Project Management.

I could easily relate the contents of it to what actually happened in my past project management experiences. So often I spoke to myself “Gosh! If only I knew it earlier the result of that project could be quite different!”

Leave a comment