First, going through security is a breeze since you don’t have to take off and put your shoes back on (I hate doing that.) Most of the time, they just let me walk through security with my flip flops, though in JFK I actually had to take them off, which wasn’t a big deal because of how easy the procedure is with flip flops. Second, when you’re actually on the plane, it is nice to be able to kick off the flip flops and walk around barefoot. Call me a hippy, but I quite enjoy the feeling of carpet on my feet.

I think any flip flops will do, but I am partial to Rainbow and Reef. They mold to your feet over time and are extremely comfortable. I believe Rainbow has a lifetime guarantee on the soles of their sandals. Once they are worn out, they will replace them for FREE — the part that is molded to your feet stay on the sandal. Don’t quote me on that though.

Give it a try.

Things Google+ has going for it:

(1) Novelty. Google+ is the new kid on the block and is supported by a powerful player in the market. This is sure to create very rapid growth in the short term.
(2) Widespread acceptance of social networking. Everyone knows what social networking sites do and it is a part of the everyday lives of hundreds of millions of people throughout the developed world. This was a headwind that Facebook weathered that is a tailwind for Google+
(3) Facebook. Call it irony, but I think a large portion of current Google+ users heard about it from Facebook and even got an invite to Google+ via Facebook. There are plenty of mediums for Google+ to spread and Facebook is the biggest.
(4) Wisdom. Google engineers have had years to analyze Facebook and failed social networking platforms alike to assess what works and what doesn’t. They’re a new player to the game, but they’ve got plenty of information to make use of.
(5) Design. Google is known for its elegant and innovative design principles and Google+ is no exception to this. Google+ is easier to use and is (currently) less of a morass to navigate than Facebook is. Simplicity is power.
(6) Facebook is evil. I don’t actually know whether Facebook is evil or not, but there is perception of evil (Mark Zuckerberg being an easy punching bag doesn’t help.) Perhaps the world is looking for a suitable alternative to Facebook. If that is true, the Google+ is a great answer.

But, in the end I think the challenges Google+ faces are real and probably insurmountable at this point. Google+ Headwinds:

(1) Facebook might just be too big already. Facebook has gotten to the point where there are so many people on it that others are pressured to join, even if they otherwise would not have. Once the novelty factor of Google+ wears off, this will be a real problem. A friend of mine posted on his Google+ a few days ago, “I am tapping my foot, waiting for there to be enough members for this to be fun…” I think he’ll be tapping his foot for a long time and he may never stop.
(2) Cost of change. I truly believe that Google+ is better designed than Facebook. But it is different than Facebook and change is difficult to impress upon the masses.
(3) Differentiation. Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook are all social networking animals, but each serves a slightly different purpose so they can peacefully co-exist. It seems like Google+ is aiming (or at least currently has) the exact type of aspiration as facebook does (a virtual rolodex used to keep up with friends and what they are sharing.) Unless Google+ differentiates itself and finds a niche, I think it will be difficult for it to live for long.
(4) Privacy concerns. Lets be honest here. Google already knows everything about me via my e-mail, google apps account, my google reader, my search history (yikes), my adsense account, my google docs and everything else. Now, I am giving google more information about who I associate with, what I do at parties, and what things I want to share with my friends. An intelligent Google engineer could create a clone of me and basically have it walk around my life for a few days without anyone realizing. I don’t believe Google is evil. But if it was or turns that way, we’re all in a lot of trouble.

The bottom line is that Google+, I am pulling for you, but I think you’re fighting a battle that you’re not going to win unless you figure out a way to get mass buy-in or adapt your service to fill in a niche to co-exist with Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and other social networking services.

Over the next two years I am going to be writing about both my business school experiences and also about topics I am generally interested in (Business, Poker, Fantasy Sports, Probability and Statistics, Personal Finance [Don't worry Bridgewater, I'll keep your sauce a secret], Education and Technology.)

I am happy to be back.

Last update: Since May, I purchased a condo in Norwalk, Connecticut. Why, you ask? Because it was closer to my job, I think it is a good investment (whaaaat?) and because I like the idea of having my own place. It is a lot more work than I had originally imagined, but I think it is worth it if you’re willing to take on the added responsibilities.

Take care, Cyberspace.

-Raaid

Computers cannot perfectly perceive and recognize what the content of a picture is. It would be difficult for a computer to see a picture of a dog and recognize it as a dog. However, this process is very easy for humans. These simple facts are the basis for The ESP Game and Google Image Labeler. These sites use a “game” interface to pit humans against one another. Each player is showed an image and they are asked to type in tags that describe the image. Players receive points when their labels match labels of other players and over time as more and more images are labelled by multiple players, the labels for the images can become more and more precise. With enough players, enormous numbers of images can be indexed. Imagine the possibilities here…

With the web being flooded with new blogs everyday, spammers have found an excellent place to spread their plague; in comments. In an effort to combat spam, many spam filters show users a word in scrambled print and require the user to type out the letters in the word. This prevents programs from spamming, since the programs cannot identify the words in the images and therefore cannot post. One such system is CAPTCHA. Relatively cool, but hardly worldly, right? Not so fast… Every time a human decodes the word in a CAPTCHA image, the response is entered into a database… The images produced by re-CAPTCHA are words that cannot be deciphered by OCR programs that attempt to scan documents into a computer and turn them into text. For projects like this, CAPTCHA helps to correct OCR mistakes and aids in the process of digitizing books, and you’re helping even though you don’t know you’re doing it.

This is brilliant. I wonder what will be next. What problems will the collective power of the people help to solve?

I have observed that most (obviously not all) poker players are ruder, grumpier, and more arrogant than the general populace. For example, I have found that people who play poker seem to have a very inflated opinion of their poker playing abilities. How many games/sports do you know of in which absolutely no one is unskilled? How often do you meet someone who plays poker on even a sporadic basis that says they aren’t good? How is it possible that 85% of the people I speak to are “good” at poker? Everyone claims to be good at poker. What is up with that?

In the real world, how often have you seen civilized, moderately intelligent people who barely know each other, yell at each other and call each other stupid for no reason? Not too often I would suspect. It happens on the poker table all the time. The game may be for money, but it is a game and people have a right to play it any way they want, as long as they play by the rules. You always get those belligerent know-it-alls who start berating the fish (unskilled player) for making a dumb move. Sure, you just lost some money but get a grip and show some manners — we should just be adults!

For such a beautiful game, poker does attract its fair share of ugly people and degenerates. What a shame.

I am a big fan of fantasy sports. I also think that fantasy sports, like all games, should be played by the rules. Fantasy sports can be ruined if members of the league do not play by the rules. I do believe that there is a fine line between good strategy and cheating in fantasy sports. I’ve been thinking about how to define it and here is what I have come up with: any action in which all managers involved are not making efforts to improve their team’s position is cheating.

Rules vary from league to league and identifying nuances in the rules is critical to form an optimal team and an optimal strategy to perform optimally in the league. Ignoring the specific rules of a league is a sure way to stop yourself from taking home a league title. Again, strategizing based on the rules is very different than cheating. I will use some examples of excellent strategy that some people consider cheating (incorrectly, in my view).

Hording Scarcity

This strategy used to work much better in the good ol days when the only good shortstops were A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar and Chipper Jones was a 1st or 2nd round pick because no other 3B could go 30-100. Additionally, the utility of this strategy is much lower nowadays since you see only 1-2 util slot as opposed to 2-3 various utility spots. The strategy was simple. Select the top players in scarce positions and get them early so other teams in the league would be forced to give you a beneficial trade if they wanted one of the premium players. This is smart drafting, hardly cheating. You’re trying to make your team better and no one else is trying to make their team worse by trading for a star in a scarce position.

Unconscionable Trades

You’ve all seen it at one time or another. One manager makes a trade with another player that clearly favors one side. The only questions that need to be asked are, “are both sides trying to improve their team?” and “Do both sides think that they are improving their teams?” If the answer to both those questions is yes, then there is nothing about the trade that constitutes cheating. Each manager in a league is an individual entity and they paid their entry fee to manage their team as they see fit. If they wish to make a trade that they think helps their team and the entire rest of the league disagrees with them, that is too bad I think. The league did not pay that manager’s entry fee, so they do not get a vote in whether or not that manager can make a trade they like.

Pitcher Streaming

This one’s a classic. In H2H category leagues without transaction limits and IP limits, this is a popular strategy (Anyone that plays in a roto league without inning limits is asking for trouble). Pitcher streaming is a simple process in which players drop pitchers and continually add new ones during a week when they are starting a game. If a team has a significantly higher number of starts than the opposing team, then it is relatively easy to win certain categories (W, K, S, IP, etc) and have a toss-up in ratio categories (WHIP and ERA). If you can guarantee a win in 3/5 pitching categories, you’re in great shape to cruise into the playoffs in almost any H2H league. Is this illegal? No. Do people get pissed off? Yep.

One of my new year’s resolutions is to write on my blog a little bit more often.  What will I write about?  I am not really sure.  Does anyone have any ideas?

Of the 18 attempts, ONLY ONE succeeded on the first try. WHAT?