A friend of mine is in the gym - seemingly all the time. If he's asked where to buy steroids, he takes it as a compliment. When asked how does he reward himself for reaching fitness goals, he invariably asks the same question, "What do you mean?" No one appears to expect him to respond with a question - or a question like this.
His lengthy answer is distilled into two corollaries:
1) He doesn't look at working out as a punishment in the sense that he has to give himself something to keep him going.
2) He doesn't look at working out as a means to get a reward for hitting a goal.
For him, working out becomes the reward. He makes this clear by saying, "My reward is that I'm not fat." or something along those lines. And, almost as invariably as asking the first question, the next question is usually something like, "What about eating a pint of ice cream or something? Just once?"
His answer to this is much shorter: "That's like a recovering alcoholic rewarding himself with a shot of whiskey."
What I've observed about these encounters with (usually) complete strangers is that he affects all of them positively - insomuch that they get a boost of morale and encouragement to workout out a little harder, a little longer, and with a better attitude. I observe this in the various industries that I've encountered: Many people make a goal to get through the work/school day. Sometimes you need to do this because of other stress; however, see what you can do if you were to look at your work/school day as the reward and not a means to a reward. It becomes infectious and you'll probably enjoy life much more because of it.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Un-Hope Yourself
"Hope is a euphemism for surrendering one’s fate
to someone or something else’s will.”
- Father Crane, Polarity Reversed
Today's blog will center on the concept of hope. I won't give a dictionary meaning of the word - that's a bit expected; however, I firmly believe that hope is more personal and unique to each of us. Aside from Father Crane's distilled point of view, we find that hope has many flavors and many avenues.
Buying lottery tickets is, in effect, buying hope - you probably won't win, but you certainly can't win unless you play. Doing everything you can for a sick, loved one is then left in the hands of hope; hope becomes the unseen force of optimism that drives recovery. Hoping for world peace is quite an endeavor, but at a minimum, peace cannot happen unless you (as in yourself) are peaceful. Many people survive day-to-day relying on hope: Consider the many violent conflicts going on at this very moment. While I'm the comfort of a keyboard, there are literally thousands of men, women, and children stranded on a mountaintop running from ISIS.
On one end of the spectrum is lottery tickets. On the other end is day-to-day survival. The latter example puts much of what we complain about into perspective.
Personally, I dislike the concept of hope. It is tantamount toward declaring that you will do no more to achieve something. Many times you can't do anything more, but I would urge you to reconsider relying less on hope when given the chance. Look into every possible way to reach whatever goal you seek. Instead of playing the lottery, save the money for a higher education, starting your own business, investing in someone else's business, or buying a loved one a gift (you would be surprised how enriching this act can be). Relying on hope is throwing in the towel; sometimes you must, but not all the time. If you've acted on all possible angles, then focus on backup plans, if possible.
I sometimes talk about my day job - it's very technical. I've been privileged to make some really state-of-the-art systems. I can tell you this: Those I work with have never relied on hope. Instead, they plan for suppliers to be late, R&D to be late, funding to be late, and so on. We know that when we deliver something to end consumer that they may not like it - this is out of our control. However, we develop backup plans for the "what-if" that they don't. We make a plan instead of hoping.
I've had those close to me pass away from illness. All I had was hope - I'm not a doctor and even the doctors were left relying on hope.
Before you rely on hope: Make sure that you've tried everything. Make sure that you have a backup plan, if possible. Don't let your fate be surrendered to someone or something else's will, if you have to power to do so.
- Father Crane, Polarity Reversed
Today's blog will center on the concept of hope. I won't give a dictionary meaning of the word - that's a bit expected; however, I firmly believe that hope is more personal and unique to each of us. Aside from Father Crane's distilled point of view, we find that hope has many flavors and many avenues.
Buying lottery tickets is, in effect, buying hope - you probably won't win, but you certainly can't win unless you play. Doing everything you can for a sick, loved one is then left in the hands of hope; hope becomes the unseen force of optimism that drives recovery. Hoping for world peace is quite an endeavor, but at a minimum, peace cannot happen unless you (as in yourself) are peaceful. Many people survive day-to-day relying on hope: Consider the many violent conflicts going on at this very moment. While I'm the comfort of a keyboard, there are literally thousands of men, women, and children stranded on a mountaintop running from ISIS.
On one end of the spectrum is lottery tickets. On the other end is day-to-day survival. The latter example puts much of what we complain about into perspective.
Personally, I dislike the concept of hope. It is tantamount toward declaring that you will do no more to achieve something. Many times you can't do anything more, but I would urge you to reconsider relying less on hope when given the chance. Look into every possible way to reach whatever goal you seek. Instead of playing the lottery, save the money for a higher education, starting your own business, investing in someone else's business, or buying a loved one a gift (you would be surprised how enriching this act can be). Relying on hope is throwing in the towel; sometimes you must, but not all the time. If you've acted on all possible angles, then focus on backup plans, if possible.
I sometimes talk about my day job - it's very technical. I've been privileged to make some really state-of-the-art systems. I can tell you this: Those I work with have never relied on hope. Instead, they plan for suppliers to be late, R&D to be late, funding to be late, and so on. We know that when we deliver something to end consumer that they may not like it - this is out of our control. However, we develop backup plans for the "what-if" that they don't. We make a plan instead of hoping.
I've had those close to me pass away from illness. All I had was hope - I'm not a doctor and even the doctors were left relying on hope.
Before you rely on hope: Make sure that you've tried everything. Make sure that you have a backup plan, if possible. Don't let your fate be surrendered to someone or something else's will, if you have to power to do so.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
I'm Back. Some thoughts about the Hachette/Amazon dispute.
Hello all,
Polarity Reversed is finished and I am able to return to many other things that I've eschewed for a few months now. I used to have hobbies somewhere... just can't remember where I put them.
I have much to write in this blog, but I still have to keep some wiggle room for subsequent editions and Polarity #3 - I will tentatively blog only on Wednesdays now.
Over the past few months, I've had several readers that expressed interest into what it takes to become a writer. I've written about this topic before, but I was remiss on expounding on what happens AFTER you're published. What's become front-and-center recently is the very public dispute of Amazon and Hachette. Since this is a blog about ripple effects, I felt it apropos to delve a little deeper into the ripple effects this will cause.
Most people (even readers) don't even know that Hachette is one of the 'Big 5' major publishers. If you read James Patterson, David Baldacci, or Robert Gilbraith (aka JK Rowling) then you are reading a Hachette book. I am not a Hachette author, having chose the Indie route for reasons outside the scope of this discussion. Many other authors have focused on the "bullying" nature of Amazon and have made more of a qualitative argument. Being that I'm more of a quantitative person...
The inside rumor is that Amazon wants Hachette to get 50% of the sale price instead of 70% for ebooks. In a nutshell:
1. Authors that sign with major publishers get anywhere from 20% to 30% of the sale price as their royalty for an ebook. This means that 30% goes to Amazon and 40%-50% goes to Hachette. If you think 20%-30% for the author is bad, consider that they usually get 5% to 12% for printed books. These numbers vary. Authors don't see any money until after they've exceeded their advance amount. 15% goes to their agent.
2. Going to 50% from 70% would really hurt both Hachette and their authors. You have a better chance making a living as a professional athlete than you do as an author. Hachette would undoubtedly have to reduce the royalty they pay to authors, thus making a living from it becomes even more astronomically bad.
3. 70% or more of ALL book units sold are ebooks these days. The chain of people - from author to agent to editor(s) to artist to sales reps to person X - get paid in money, not percentages. The math means that there is a lot less money for these people to make. Skirting the argument that greed exists in every corporation, rest assured that there are many people in this chain that add significant value and aren't rolling in the big bucks. Many of these people say that they must all work twice as hard for half the money. You, as a reader, can read whomever you want. My point is that the major publishers aren't trying rake as much money out of you, the reader, so they can be rich; they do it primarily to pay their employees and to have money to pay advances to up-and-coming authors. The industry has been bleeding immensely over the past ten years mostly because roughly a third to half of all sales are from self-publishers and Indies (something that was more or less non-existent about 15 years ago). Hugh Howey has done some great analysis on this subject.
4. Amazon offers a 35% royalty option and a 70% royalty option to those who self-publish. The 35% option gives some extra flexibility and some extra money for international sales. Most choose the 70% option. I scratch my head wondering why Amazon can't extend this to Hachette and I can only infer that I don't have all the details.
5. Amazon is really upsetting a lot of non-Hachette people out there because of the end result of what we see so far. One can only reason that Hachette had some kind of distribution agreement in place with Amazon that seemed to cost Amazon more money in the long run. Or that Jeff Bezos really needs that extra house on the moon.
6. I wonder what Amazon will do to me (and I refer to any author). I don't have to sell on Amazon, but the reality is that 41% of all new books on the planet are sold there. It is estimated that 90% of all book purchases originate with checking Amazon's prices at some point.
The upshot to all of this is that both Amazon and the publishers will have to streamline their processes even further. There is a vast over-supply of book titles out there given the demand of readers; you can't afford to lose fans. Fans are what drive consistent sales. As a reader, how many times do you try a new author and deeply regret wasting your weekend reading their book?
Polarity Reversed is finished and I am able to return to many other things that I've eschewed for a few months now. I used to have hobbies somewhere... just can't remember where I put them.
I have much to write in this blog, but I still have to keep some wiggle room for subsequent editions and Polarity #3 - I will tentatively blog only on Wednesdays now.
Over the past few months, I've had several readers that expressed interest into what it takes to become a writer. I've written about this topic before, but I was remiss on expounding on what happens AFTER you're published. What's become front-and-center recently is the very public dispute of Amazon and Hachette. Since this is a blog about ripple effects, I felt it apropos to delve a little deeper into the ripple effects this will cause.
Most people (even readers) don't even know that Hachette is one of the 'Big 5' major publishers. If you read James Patterson, David Baldacci, or Robert Gilbraith (aka JK Rowling) then you are reading a Hachette book. I am not a Hachette author, having chose the Indie route for reasons outside the scope of this discussion. Many other authors have focused on the "bullying" nature of Amazon and have made more of a qualitative argument. Being that I'm more of a quantitative person...
The inside rumor is that Amazon wants Hachette to get 50% of the sale price instead of 70% for ebooks. In a nutshell:
1. Authors that sign with major publishers get anywhere from 20% to 30% of the sale price as their royalty for an ebook. This means that 30% goes to Amazon and 40%-50% goes to Hachette. If you think 20%-30% for the author is bad, consider that they usually get 5% to 12% for printed books. These numbers vary. Authors don't see any money until after they've exceeded their advance amount. 15% goes to their agent.
2. Going to 50% from 70% would really hurt both Hachette and their authors. You have a better chance making a living as a professional athlete than you do as an author. Hachette would undoubtedly have to reduce the royalty they pay to authors, thus making a living from it becomes even more astronomically bad.
3. 70% or more of ALL book units sold are ebooks these days. The chain of people - from author to agent to editor(s) to artist to sales reps to person X - get paid in money, not percentages. The math means that there is a lot less money for these people to make. Skirting the argument that greed exists in every corporation, rest assured that there are many people in this chain that add significant value and aren't rolling in the big bucks. Many of these people say that they must all work twice as hard for half the money. You, as a reader, can read whomever you want. My point is that the major publishers aren't trying rake as much money out of you, the reader, so they can be rich; they do it primarily to pay their employees and to have money to pay advances to up-and-coming authors. The industry has been bleeding immensely over the past ten years mostly because roughly a third to half of all sales are from self-publishers and Indies (something that was more or less non-existent about 15 years ago). Hugh Howey has done some great analysis on this subject.
4. Amazon offers a 35% royalty option and a 70% royalty option to those who self-publish. The 35% option gives some extra flexibility and some extra money for international sales. Most choose the 70% option. I scratch my head wondering why Amazon can't extend this to Hachette and I can only infer that I don't have all the details.
5. Amazon is really upsetting a lot of non-Hachette people out there because of the end result of what we see so far. One can only reason that Hachette had some kind of distribution agreement in place with Amazon that seemed to cost Amazon more money in the long run. Or that Jeff Bezos really needs that extra house on the moon.
6. I wonder what Amazon will do to me (and I refer to any author). I don't have to sell on Amazon, but the reality is that 41% of all new books on the planet are sold there. It is estimated that 90% of all book purchases originate with checking Amazon's prices at some point.
The upshot to all of this is that both Amazon and the publishers will have to streamline their processes even further. There is a vast over-supply of book titles out there given the demand of readers; you can't afford to lose fans. Fans are what drive consistent sales. As a reader, how many times do you try a new author and deeply regret wasting your weekend reading their book?
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Blogging Hiatus
I'm busy incorporating edits into POLARITY REVERSED at the moment. This, with the day job, are keeping me underwater. I'm also penning the draft for the third installment of POLARITY bit by bit. If I could only ditch the day job for writing...
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
How to Get the Most Out of Your Intuition
Louis Pasteur once said, “Chance favors only the prepared mind."
Some people seem to be born to recognize opportunities long before anyone else even blinks (e.g., Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison). Many people pass by opportunity even when it hits them in the face. Opportunity is frequently driven by the phenomenon known as 'luck'.
I really dislike the word 'luck'. It's a cop out for trying to figure out what, exactly, happened. How did I end up in this? It must be luck - as if luck was some kind of magical force. At the risk of making this blog entry a rant about luck, I will shift the focus somewhat to simply say that all of us will experience this thing, luck, at some point in our life - many times. If not today, it could happen tomorrow.
What are you doing about it?
This question should elicit a question from you - usually, "What can you do about it?" If it's a good luck situation, then you should take advantage of it before anyone else does. If it's a bad luck situation, then you should have an exit strategy. Either way, both of these scenarios will require you to be prepared to act, to have a prepared mind.
The prepared mind has two qualities. First, it isn't distracted. This means you should give yourself a chance to focus and be observant. Inevitably this means less day-dreaming, less obsessing, less TV, and less <any activity that requires whole commitment, no interaction, and is a time vampire>. Second, embrace diversity. This is an overused term that usually doesn't come with anything more than a "because it's good for us". I'm not suggesting that you like whatever form of diversity you experience, but rather you should at least experience life from a different perspective.
Regarding diversity, try a simple experiment: Get a ladder out and put it inside your home. Go up the ladder a few feet off the floor. Now imagine yourself walking through your home trying to go about your day. All of the sudden, a new world is opened up within your existing world - going through doorways is difficult, leaning underneath the sink is difficult, seeing just how dusty the top of the refrigerator is... is disturbing, seeing all of the dust up high is disturbing, try taking a shower, try fitting in the bathtub, etc. You've forced yourself into a new, diverse world and you're instantly seeing challenges.
By minimizing distractions and embracing diversity, you will be able to recognize new challenges, opportunities, and solutions much faster and much more effectively. The next time luck - good or bad - hits, you will be able to instantly evaluate much more than you could before. Why? Because you've prepared your mind. And, most importantly, your intuition will be more attune to your needs because of this.
Some people seem to be born to recognize opportunities long before anyone else even blinks (e.g., Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison). Many people pass by opportunity even when it hits them in the face. Opportunity is frequently driven by the phenomenon known as 'luck'.
I really dislike the word 'luck'. It's a cop out for trying to figure out what, exactly, happened. How did I end up in this? It must be luck - as if luck was some kind of magical force. At the risk of making this blog entry a rant about luck, I will shift the focus somewhat to simply say that all of us will experience this thing, luck, at some point in our life - many times. If not today, it could happen tomorrow.
What are you doing about it?
This question should elicit a question from you - usually, "What can you do about it?" If it's a good luck situation, then you should take advantage of it before anyone else does. If it's a bad luck situation, then you should have an exit strategy. Either way, both of these scenarios will require you to be prepared to act, to have a prepared mind.
The prepared mind has two qualities. First, it isn't distracted. This means you should give yourself a chance to focus and be observant. Inevitably this means less day-dreaming, less obsessing, less TV, and less <any activity that requires whole commitment, no interaction, and is a time vampire>. Second, embrace diversity. This is an overused term that usually doesn't come with anything more than a "because it's good for us". I'm not suggesting that you like whatever form of diversity you experience, but rather you should at least experience life from a different perspective.
Regarding diversity, try a simple experiment: Get a ladder out and put it inside your home. Go up the ladder a few feet off the floor. Now imagine yourself walking through your home trying to go about your day. All of the sudden, a new world is opened up within your existing world - going through doorways is difficult, leaning underneath the sink is difficult, seeing just how dusty the top of the refrigerator is... is disturbing, seeing all of the dust up high is disturbing, try taking a shower, try fitting in the bathtub, etc. You've forced yourself into a new, diverse world and you're instantly seeing challenges.
By minimizing distractions and embracing diversity, you will be able to recognize new challenges, opportunities, and solutions much faster and much more effectively. The next time luck - good or bad - hits, you will be able to instantly evaluate much more than you could before. Why? Because you've prepared your mind. And, most importantly, your intuition will be more attune to your needs because of this.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Why You May Not Click With Someone
Inevitably we all come across that person - the person that we don't click with. It seems that from the moment we met him or her, it wasn't going to fly. Sometimes it's pretty obvious. I once had a boss who, upon meeting her, held out one hand and said, "This is me." She then circled her other hand around the hand that was held out and then said, "This is the universe."
So... the universe revolves around you. Got it.
Sometimes it isn't as obvious. I met a husband and wife who lived in downtown Boston. The husband was a smart, funny, and overall nice guy. He gave off that creepy feeling and I didn't know why. If you're waiting for me to say that he was later caught doing something highly illegal then you'll be disappointed. I hold the belief that the creepy feeling that we get isn't necessarily a sign of imminent danger - rather it's a part of a higher level of chemistry. I really don't think I could be at my best being around the guy and I'm not sure why. I am certain that I wasn't at my best around my ex-boss who insisted she was the center of the universe. I stress the 'ex' part of that.
There are those that you may not click with immediately, but you find yourself warming up to over time. Perhaps it's part of that higher-level chemistry that has finally found a working alignment. Now I'm not going to spout off on an unseen force guiding these dynamics. I will just say that we all experience it and we struggle to explain it.
I, for one, get disappointed with myself for having unwarranted, negative feelings towards someone I just met. Then it hits me - maybe I'm the one who's not aligned with this person. Maybe I'm the one that's causing this negative backlash. A bad day can easily be the culprit for feeling negative but I've found that far too often it's simply because that person reminds me of someone else from my past that I didn't get along with.
Before you avoid someone forever, ask yourself if you've given that person a fair chance. Ask yourself if it's not them and it's actually you causing that creepy feeling.
So... the universe revolves around you. Got it.
Sometimes it isn't as obvious. I met a husband and wife who lived in downtown Boston. The husband was a smart, funny, and overall nice guy. He gave off that creepy feeling and I didn't know why. If you're waiting for me to say that he was later caught doing something highly illegal then you'll be disappointed. I hold the belief that the creepy feeling that we get isn't necessarily a sign of imminent danger - rather it's a part of a higher level of chemistry. I really don't think I could be at my best being around the guy and I'm not sure why. I am certain that I wasn't at my best around my ex-boss who insisted she was the center of the universe. I stress the 'ex' part of that.
There are those that you may not click with immediately, but you find yourself warming up to over time. Perhaps it's part of that higher-level chemistry that has finally found a working alignment. Now I'm not going to spout off on an unseen force guiding these dynamics. I will just say that we all experience it and we struggle to explain it.
I, for one, get disappointed with myself for having unwarranted, negative feelings towards someone I just met. Then it hits me - maybe I'm the one who's not aligned with this person. Maybe I'm the one that's causing this negative backlash. A bad day can easily be the culprit for feeling negative but I've found that far too often it's simply because that person reminds me of someone else from my past that I didn't get along with.
Before you avoid someone forever, ask yourself if you've given that person a fair chance. Ask yourself if it's not them and it's actually you causing that creepy feeling.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Politics of 50-50
With few exceptions, most industrialized, modern nations have significant political opposition groups. In the United States its Democrats and Republicans. It seems that every election that comes along somehow keeps enough of a split vote that nearly anything can happen in the next election cycle. The House, the Senate, and the Presidency switch hands have rarely had all three ran by the same party during the nation's history.
One could reason that the arguing gets the country nowhere - or any country that has the same kind of odds of political swapping that the U.S. has (name a country in Western Europe). One could argue that China is an exception to this rule, but those living in China would tell you that poverty is rampant - about 3/4ths of the population lives on less than $5 per day. The fancy pictures we see about China are usually those in urban areas - far away from the rural, poor areas. China is an enigma because of its vast exploited population and natural resources.
For those who remember the 2000 presidential election and called it close, you should look into the election of 1876. I won't spoil the details except to say that the president was decided by a committee of 15 men - not by the popular vote or the electoral college. One could argue that the 2000 election was decided by judges but in the case of the 1876 election even the judges agreed that the 15-man committee was the right answer. The nation survived and thrived.
The ebb and flow of politics - however painful - is what makes countries successful. It forces both sides to be held accountable; if you don't agree with that then go live in a dictatorship (there are plenty to choose from) and re-assess your opinion.
In some ways, it literally is Us versus Them. It appears to work.
One could reason that the arguing gets the country nowhere - or any country that has the same kind of odds of political swapping that the U.S. has (name a country in Western Europe). One could argue that China is an exception to this rule, but those living in China would tell you that poverty is rampant - about 3/4ths of the population lives on less than $5 per day. The fancy pictures we see about China are usually those in urban areas - far away from the rural, poor areas. China is an enigma because of its vast exploited population and natural resources.
For those who remember the 2000 presidential election and called it close, you should look into the election of 1876. I won't spoil the details except to say that the president was decided by a committee of 15 men - not by the popular vote or the electoral college. One could argue that the 2000 election was decided by judges but in the case of the 1876 election even the judges agreed that the 15-man committee was the right answer. The nation survived and thrived.
The ebb and flow of politics - however painful - is what makes countries successful. It forces both sides to be held accountable; if you don't agree with that then go live in a dictatorship (there are plenty to choose from) and re-assess your opinion.
In some ways, it literally is Us versus Them. It appears to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)