ROOM ZKE
USAComment.com
Zicutake USA Comment | Search Articles



#History (Education) #Satellite report #Arkansas #Tech #Poker #Language and Life #Critics Cinema #Scientific #Hollywood #Future #Conspiracy #Curiosity #Washington
 Smiley face
PROXY LIST

[Calculate SHA256 hash]
 Smiley face
Zicutake BROWSER
 Smiley face Encryption Text and HTML
Aspect Ratio Calculator
[HTML color codes]
 Smiley face Conversion to JavaScript
[download YouTube videos in MP4, FLV, 3GP, and many more formats]

 Smiley face Mining Satoshi | Payment speed
CALCULATOR DIMENSIONS AND RECTANGLE

 Smiley face
CREATE ADDRESS BITCOIN
Online BitTorrent Magnet Link Generator
[PERCENTAGE CALCULATOR]
JOURNAL WORLD:

SEARCH +8 MILLIONS OF LINKS ZICUTAKE STATE

Gangnam Style 近期最火- 中文歌词



朴载相

PSY(原名朴载相)的祖父是从日本帝国时代开始就非常有钱,现在爷爷是某半导体公司社长。本人毕业于美国伯克利大学音乐系。2001年正式出道,是韩国很著名的R&B实力派歌手,舞也跳得不错,在韩国拥有很高的人气,而且他的歌被韩国民众广为传唱。

朴载相 - 个人资料

朴载相朴载相
本名:朴载相[PARK JAE SANG]
国籍/地区:韩国    
出生年月:1977年12月31日
星座: 射手座     
家庭情况:姐姐 foodstylelist朴在恩,爸爸 企业家朴元浩   
爱好:跳舞、旅行   
擅长:克拉立涅特、打鼓   
所属公司:YG   
同公司艺人:Bigbang 、2NE1、蜘蛛、SE7EN等[1]









今年看了对我影响比较大的戏 ~海苔億萬富翁~
, 特别推荐给所有,有梦想,追梦,想要创造奇迹的朋友。
 戏里的一句话~ 你有没有感觉过自己很妙小~ 把我再次敲醒了!

简介

一个不爱读书的年轻人, 总是抱着想要做生意的梦想, 遇到了种种的挑战,
尝试了各种方法,在他生意有了一些起色时,以为可以松一口气,但是,发现了父亲欠下的
巨款, 才觉得自己是多么的渺小。自己做生意的收入根本没可能还清。

他没有放弃,想的只是如何让自己的生意做得更大! 结果。。。。。。。。。。


 今年28岁(1984年出生)的伊提帕·柯彭温奇(Aitthipat Kulapongvanich),是泰国最知名的海苔品牌“小老板海苔”创办人兼执行长。他不仅与佐克柏同年,两人也同时选在2004年创办手上的明星事 业。2010、2011年,小老板海苔的总营业额都超过10亿泰铢(泰铢与新台币币值接近1:1),2010年至今,成长率更高达30%。不仅是泰国 No.1的海苔品牌,外销20多国,《Cheers》杂志抢先独家专访“小老板”,一探他的海苔亿万传奇之路。现在,他的故事也被拍成电影《海苔亿万富 翁》。

借此影片, 希望大家梦想成真, 继续努力! 创造辉煌!!




Authority and ad hominem

Argument from authority ("I'm the expert") goes hand-in-hand with the ad hominem ("you're not"). Each may be rebutted by the other, and the average quality as evidence of arguments from authority are about the same as the average quality as evidence of ad hominem. By necessity, these two kinds of evidence are the dominant forms of evidence that lead each of us as individuals to believe what we believe, since little important of what you believe comes from your own direct observation. Authority's investment costs are one good proxy measure for evaluating the value of such evidence. But contrast the law of the dominant paradigm. Perhaps the latter is superior for judging claims about the objective world, whereas investment costs are superior for judging the intersubjective.

Cattle "Emissions"


Ancestral Health Symposium 2012 is now history. The symposium took place at the Harvard Law School August 9th-11th. Not a bad gig for a forage agronomist! The title of my presentation was The Reality of Ruminants and Liebeg’s Barrel: Examining the New ‘Conventional Wisdom'. All of the presentations were video taped, and will be freely available.
My title slide. Cattle mob grazing a pasture under center pivot irrigation.
Photograph by Dawn Gerrish.
One of the themes of this year’s symposium was sustainability. I don’t see that term in the simplistic way many do, in part because I remember being told by leaders of the sustainable agriculture movement that “animals have no place in sustainable ag!”

The truth is that the production of animal products from perennial forages is the sustainable agricultural system. Many, however, are concerned about the carbon dioxide and methane “emissions” from livestock in general, and cattle in particular. Some folks don’t seem to understand that a cow grazing grass can only emit carbon that was originally in grass, and that the carbon in grass has to have come from the atmosphere. So it’s a cycle not an “enrichment.” But there’s more to it than that!

Under the following assumptions:

Carbon:Nitrogen ratio = 17 and 3.4% N, giving 57.8 % C
3% of body weight daily dry matter (DM) intake; 1,000 lb cow = 30 lb DM per day
70% utilization - 30 lb DM eaten / 0.70 = 42.8 lb DM offered
Equal above and below ground DM distribution
90% of C consumed is “emitted” 

We’d see:

42.8 lb DM above ground, 42.8 lb DM below ground – 85.6 lb DM total
57.8% C in DM – 49.5 lb C total
17.3 lb C consumed
15.6 lb C emitted

Thus, for every pound of carbon “emitted” by a cow on grass, 3.2 pounds of carbon are fixed in plant roots, uneaten plant debris, or the cow herself or her calf. Even if we say that 100% of carbon she ingested is emitted (a biological impossibility!), there’d be 2.9 pounds of carbon fixed for every pound emitted! Beef cattle are carbon negative!

Someone (perhaps Todd Becker?) asked me what happens to methane in the atmosphere. A good question, and one I wasn't completely sure about. So I went looking and found the following at this site:
"In the lower part of the atmosphere, below about 10-12 km (the troposphere), the key cycles are mediated above all by the presence of what are called OH radicals — colloquially known as the atmospheric detergent. All hydrocarbon chemical species that are emitted can be eventually broken down (or oxidized) by these radicals to CO2 and H2O, and methane is no exception. An average molecule of CH4 lasts around eight to nine years before it gets oxidized. This is a long time compared to most atmospheric chemicals but is fast enough so that there can be significant year-to-year variability."

[遊戲產業]給予遊戲產業應徵者的一點忠告(履歷篇)




“When you get in the door don’t wear a suit and tie. I turned up for a warehouse job wearing a suit and tie and they knew that I didn’t ‘get the job’.

If you show up for working in a game company wearing a suit, they aren’t going to trust you. Show up in character. Be real. People want real. The game industry is about being real — not only about being real but staying real.”

- Paul Steed, art design for Quake series. RIP.




這一年當中由於業務需求,常常會需要過濾一些履歷,甚至經常代人轉發履歷。時不時就會收到一些讓人不知所措的履歷,網路上教別人寫履歷的網站多的是,所以我也不想很攏統的跟大家講一樣的事情,我這邊要教大家怎麼做好到遊戲業求職的準備,不管你是業界的中生代、新鮮人甚至是老鳥,我都希望這篇簡短的文章可以幫助你們在產業中求職更順利。

Case I : 使用人力銀行求職

如果你沒有驚人的學歷,那請你把下面的功夫作紮實:

  1. 拍一張專業一點照片,也許可以是學士照、穿西裝的照片、或是工作、演講、記者會、展覽時拍的照片等都是不錯的選擇。外表可以看出許多軟性資訊,千萬不要草率了事。
  2. 將自己的經歷條列清楚後,仔細把你曾經參與的專案、遊戲寫出來,把執行的工作項目清楚交代清楚,在不揭露公司機密情況下詳載Track Record。
    EX: 規劃每月人數、營收活動以達公司制定目標,經營某產品時曾達成季度目標200%以上。 商城與數值設計企劃,曾設計某某遊戲某次改版的商城與數值,改版後因某某道具銷售策略成功,使得該遊戲營收有20%顯著成長。身兼數款產品的專案管理,每款都是按照計畫準時上市。負責遊戲QA,協助降低錯誤產生數量23%。以上這些例子都寫的還很粗糙,這是你想要的工作,你應該要寫的比這個更好很多!
  3. 附件作品很重要:不要一直狂說你多厲害、或是多熱愛遊戲。用實際例子證明,附上你最棒的分析報告、產品企劃書、作品等,不然就列出最喜歡的數款遊戲,並給予簡單幾句評語。
  4. 最後,好好的寫好求職信,短短用一句話寫出下列幾點:
    • Who are you?
    • Where did you see this job offer
    • Why do you want this job? 
    • What makes you think you can do this job well? (Why do you deserve an interview?)
    • 最後,一定要強調你的履歷上的亮點或是有檢附作品等額外資訊。
    • EX: 貴公司的公司理念為競技遊戲,而我個人從學生時代就一直熱衷參予電子競技,所學專長雖然與資訊或是行銷無直接相關,但請參考附件[我對於貴公司電子競技的看法與未來展望]後給予指教。最後,希望貴公司能給予面試機會。(P.S.是你要的工作,認真寫吧!請不要跟我一樣草率,隨手寫寫。)

大部分的人力銀行的履歷都是雞肋資訊,沒有人會花太多時間過濾你的自傳,假設你前面的求職信就沒有抓到用人主管的眼球,學經歷也沒有太多亮點,那你的履歷很容易就被忽略掉。我只有一句話:Impress Me!

針對新鮮人或是資歷尚淺的產業同仁:

你們求職的第一個責任就是釐清工作內容是什麼,熟讀並理解其要求是甚麼。了解哪些條件自己符合,並針對這些條件舉出實際例子強化這些項目。了解哪些條件自己不符合,但設法用其他的方式加以彌補。譬如說工作內容要求地區性實體活動推廣,那麼應該在履歷中加入大學時曾經跨校籌辦過電影節活動等等。或是對方要求英文,雖然自己目前沒有證照,但是已經補習多時,預計近期內將能通過考試等等。


大部分面試官想要看到的只有幾個東西:

  • 能力/條件(需具有可信度)
  • 積極態度,是否用心想要這份工作
  • 可塑性,是否願意/嘗試持續學習並願意面對自己的缺失並加以彌補
  • 額外加分:拿出你的壓箱寶吧!


Case II: 透過其他管道,得到用人主管或HR的e-mail


  1. 千萬要寫好求職信(Cover Letter),如果不知怎麼寫,請問Google大神!
  2. 千萬不要直接Copy人力銀行的格式,尤其如果你是要應徵的職位不是基層,或你不想再當基層員工了。既然人家給了一個很open的方式,認真的想一個呈現自己最佳的方式。目前我看過比較簡單又紮實的方式就是做10頁以內的PowerPoint,簡單解釋自己做過的事情。另外,如果有不錯的作品一定要附上。
  3. 最後還是一句話:IMPRESS ME!了解自己的亮點,把自己的亮點強化到最大之外,千萬把自己拉回來,確認對方的人力需求是甚麼,設法去滿足對方的需求。
  4. 拿出你對遊戲的專業見解,你的專業表現如果超越HR能夠理解的範圍,基本上你就成功一半了!

CASE III: 友人介紹


  1. 我只有一個忠告:對得起你朋友,別讓他擔保你,你卻給他亂來。好工作不難找、真友誼難尋。當然,自己的招牌也不要輕易就這樣砸掉。遊戲圈子很小,修度ㄟ丟!


最近小愛身邊親自遇到幾個狀況,大家多注意千萬不要犯這些錯:


  • 沒有看清楚應徵的必要條件就投信,並且沒有設法在Cover Letter或是履歷中彌補不足。
  • 幫朋友的朋友轉發履歷,但是對方直接copy某人力銀行的履歷。
  • 釋出應徵管道,但是對方求職信只寫了三件事情:我短暫的做過遊戲、我很喜歡遊戲、希望給我一個面試機會。信中大概只有類似的字眼約30字,假設你是面試官,你會想要打開他的附件嗎?
  • 照片亂七八糟的一堆。
  • 學經歷寫完之後,下面敘述非常模糊。你可以在更精確一點表達,想像你是要跟情人告白吧!告訴她,你有多愛她!你會為了她做多瘋狂的事情!
  • 別讓附件變成扣分。作品、履歷、自傳裡面錯字連篇、標點符號不正確、文法謬誤。寫自己英文優,但是英文自傳不堪入目。
  • 把所有作過大大小小的事情全部寫進去,竟然都已經透過專屬的信箱寄信了,相信你對這份工作的重視程度應該稍為高一些,麻煩你為這份工作將你的履歷量身訂做,去蕪存菁,發揮亮點,強調最相關的學經歷。
  • 規規矩矩,毫無特色,平淡無奇。

希望今天寫的這些意見能夠幫助大家求職更順利,當然我也希望自己未來收到的履歷能夠更切入重點一些:D

最後,提供大家一些網路上找到的範本,大家自己可以去Google搜尋看看,關鍵字:Resume, Template, Creative

最後的最後,小愛要工商時間一下徵求Web Game PM,如果你覺得你符合以下條件,歡迎與我聯繫

1.須具備1年以上網頁遊戲營運經驗,對於網頁遊戲營運操作有高度信心者。
2.對網路遊戲產業具有熱忱、重視團隊合作及勇於創新突破。
3.熟悉網頁遊戲推廣上市與行銷規劃,對於數字敏感及具網頁遊戲KPI追蹤分析能力。
4.熟悉國內外各大網頁遊戲平台介接流程及規劃。
5.熟悉各種網頁遊戲產品類型與特性,擅長分析產品優缺點。
6.須具備提案規劃與結案分析能力。
7.須具備跨部門資源溝通與整合能力。
8.具專案管理經驗者,優先錄取。
9.具Web game成功上市之產品管理經驗者,優先錄取。
10.熟悉各大網路社群媒體及粉絲團操作者佳。
11.具網路媒體行銷經驗者佳。
12.精通第二外語者佳。

(已截止)


Proxy measures, sunk costs, and Chesterton's fence

G.K. Chesterton ponders a fence:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Contrast the sunk cost fallacy, according to one account:
When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can’t stop now, otherwise what I’ve invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless. If there is no hope for success in the future from the investment, then the fact that one has already lost a bundle should lead one to the conclusion that the rational thing to do is to withdraw from the project.
The sunk cost fallacy, according to another account:
Picture this: It's the evening of the Lady Gaga concert/Yankees game/yoga bootcamp. You bought the tickets months ago, saving up and looking forward to it. But tonight, it's blizzarding and you've had the worst week and are exhausted. Nothing would make you happier than a hot chocolate and pajamas, not even 16-inch pink hair/watching Jeter/nailing the dhanurasana.
But you should go, anyway, right? Because otherwise you'd be "wasting your money"?

Think again. Economically speaking, you shouldn't go.
Has Chesterton committed the sunk cost fallacy? Consider the concept of proxy measures:
The process of determining the value of a product from observations is necessarily incomplete and costly. For example, a shopper can see that an apple is shiny red. This has some correlation to its tastiness (the quality a typical shopper actually wants from an apple), but it's hardly perfect. The apple's appearance is not a complete indicator -- an apple sometimes has a rotten spot down inside even if the surface is perfectly shiny and red. We call an indirect measure of value -- for example the shininess, redness, or weight of the apple -- a proxy measure. In fact, all measures of value, besides prices in an ideal market, are proxy measures -- real value is subjective and largely tacit.
Cost can usually be measured far more objectively than value. As a result, the most common proxy measures are various kinds of costs. Examples include:
(a) paying for employment in terms of time worked, rather than by quantity produced (piece rates) or other possible measures. Time measures sacrifice, i.e. the cost of opportunities foregone by the employee
(b) most numbers recorded and reported by accountants for assets are costs rather than market prices expected to be recovered by the sale of assets.
(c) non-fiat money and collectibles obtain their value primarily from their scarcity, i.e. their cost of replacement.
Proxy measures are important because we usually can't measure value directly, much less forecast future value with high confidence. And often we know little of the evidence and preferences that went into an investment decision. You may have forgotten or (if the original decision maker was somebody else) never learned the reason. In which case, the original decision-maker may have had more knowledge than you do -- especially if that decision-maker was somebody else, but sometimes even if that decision-maker was you. In which case it can make a great deal of sense to use the sunk cost as a proxy measure of value.

In the first account of sunk cost, there seems to be no uncertainty: by definition we know that our investment is "hopeless." In such a case, valuing our sunk costs is clearly erroneous. But the second, real-world example, is far less clear: "you've had the worst week and are exhausted.." Does this mean you won't enjoy the concert, as you originally envisioned? Or does it mean that in your exhaustion you've forgotten why you wanted to go to the concert? If it's more likely to mean the latter, then my generalization of Chesterton's fence, using the idea of proxy measures, suggests that you should use your sunk costs as a proxy measure of value, and weigh that value against the costs of the blizzard and the benefits of hot chocolate and pajamas, to decide whether you still will be made happier by going to the concert.

If your evidence may be substantially incomplete you shouldn't just ignore sunk costs -- they contain valuable information about decisions you or others made in the past, perhaps after much greater thought or access to evidence than that of which you are currently capable. Even more generally, you should be loss averse -- you should tend to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring seemingly equivalent gains, and you should be divestiture averse (i.e. exhibit endowment effects) -- you should tend to prefer what you already have to what you might trade it for -- in both cases to the extent your ability to measure the value of the two items is incomplete. Since usually in the real world, and to an even greater degree in our ancestors' evolutionary environments, our ability to measure value is and was woefully incomplete, it should come as no surprise that people often value sunk costs, are loss averse, and exhibit endowment effects -- and indeed under such circumstances of incomplete value measurement it hardly constitutes "fallacy" or "bias" to do so.

In short, Chesterton's fence and proxy measures suggest that taking into account sunk costs, or more generally being averse to loss or divestiture, rather than always being a fallacy or irrational bias, may often lead to better decisions: indeed if it is done in just those cases where substantial evidence or shared preferences that motivated the original investment decision have been forgotten or have not been communicated, or otherwise where the quality of evidence that led to that decision may outweigh the quality of evidence that is motivating one to change one's mind.. We generally have far more information about our past than about our future. Decisions that have already been made, by ourselves and others, are an informative part of that past, especially when their original motivations have been forgotten.

References:

Chesterton's Fence

Sunk Cost Fallacy  (1), (2)

Endowment Effects/Divestiture Aversion: 

Loss Aversion:

Cost as a Proxy Measure of Value