A Brief Look-back at Year End

A kid looks at the toy in another kid's hand, thinking, 'He has something that I don't have.'
One interpretation of the story is that the kid lives in a deprived family. He has to work hard to fight against natural selection, a much greater effort to be put in in order to survive. Also his personality as a whole is shaped by constant pressure coming from all directions.
This person is everybody, we are all deprived in some ways, and we are shaped and nurtured over time by something we cannot possibly have the control over.

Another interpretation of the story is that the kid is properly equipped with quite a few toys already. He is genuinely happy with what he has. Until he sees this toy in the other kid's hand which is so much better than what he has ever seen before. No, he is not greedy, but he wants to have something better due to his 'ambition'. This encounter of the new toy has truly broadened his horizon, and this realisation challenges himself to get out of his comfort zone, to put extra effort into getting that 'better' toy.
The toy, for me, is the (sometimes unfathomable) knowledge and talent.

The final interpretation shows an opportunity missed, not due to any resource constraint. The boy could be holding the exact toy that the other boy is holding. It's not because there isn't enough money or anything, he made the best decision at the time he got the toy. Although he really could have been holding this other toy that he prefers, for one reason or another, he is holding this inferior option. But hey, he tried his best at the time, he might as well put up with what he has. Reality is such that he cannot always get what he think or expect he would get.
This feeling, within me, was felt when I saw intimate couples together as the first sparks from the firework glittered in 2012.

What's ahead, as always, is full of uncertainty. Holding high hopes; always look on the bright side of life, and always look on the right side of life!

[Learn] Q&A

When you see kids go on a field trip, the questions pour out of them. Never ending, interesting, deep... even risky.

And then the resistance kicks in and we apparently lose the ability.

Is the weather the only thing you can think to ask about? A great question is one you can ask yourself, one that disturbs your status quo and scares you a little bit.

The A part is easy. We're good at answers. Q, not so much.

[Ponder] One to One

Things come and go.To be physically presence, to be exchanging conversations with the person you value are the building blocks of a successful and fulfilling relationship experience. What ultimately drives this genuine understanding of one another, without a slight bit of contemptuous thought, is too intricate to be put in sentences. And it is rare. Voicing out views would appear to be frank, otherwise it could just be something called patience working its magic, masquerading an underlying robust feeling. A proactive exchange in comment delivered in a good manner can mostly avoid discontentedness, but often it is met with either denial or misinterpretation. Once a constructive initiative puts the other into a zone of resistance, it would trigger the siren sound. Further push or shove can almost guarantee the beginning of a sequence of self-defence and excessive justifications, and we can almost be sure that stubbornness will be found at this stage at both ends. An important thing in this circumstance is not to let emotion override one's rational mind. This is the key for the path towards resolution to be found. 

On the other hand, meeting this (one) important person does not necessarily mean you would be spending a significant amount of time together, and it all hinge upon gut feelings. This often signifies that further withheld or drawn-back approaches are required. But the further a string is been pulled back, the greater the risk is for a damaging trigger to be set off in the future. Therefore, it would require an even more sophisticated, mentally calm and steady person to avoid this final bitterness to be felt. 

Some vital words to bear in mind: Do not be afraid to take on challenges. Keep faith and chin up to the contest. Ultimately, one shall never be afraid to fail.

[Learn] Do not cover your ideas

Remember at school other students preventing you from seeing their answers by placing their arm around their exercise book or exam paper? It's the same at work, people are secretive with ideas. 'Don't tell them that, they'll take the credit for it.'
The problem with hoarding is you end up living off your reserves. Eventually you'll become stale.
If you give away everything you have, you are left with nothing. This forces you to look, to be aware, to replenish.
Somehow the more you give away the more comes back to you.
Ideas are open knowledge.
Don't claim ownership.

[Learn] It's all my fault

If you are involved in something that goes wrong, never blame others. Blame no one but yourself.
If you have touched something, accept total responsibility for that piece of work.
If you accept responsibility, you are in a position to do something about it.
Here are some common excuses for failure:
1. It was a terrible brief.
2. I need a better partner.
3. There wasn't enough money to do it properly.
4. The director didn't listen to me.
5. I was too busy on other projects.
6. I wasn't given enough time.
Most of these grievances are every day one very job. That won't change.

The point is that, whatever other people's failing might be, you are the one to shoulder the responsibility.

There are no excuses.

[Share] Fairness

As I've said far too often, fairness isn't an objective feature of the universe. It's a concept that was invented so children and idiots can participate in arguments. With that said, I give you the following question about fairness:

If you and a friend go to lunch with each other on a regular basis, but you pay for lunch three times as often as your friend, is that fair?

Your mind immediately wonders if there are extenuating circumstances. Is the friend doing something for you in some other way? Are you wealthy whereas your friend is not? Is your friend also a client? Did your friend drive from out of town? Are these lunches always in the same place?

When evaluating fairness, we understand that you need to throw everything into the mix. You can't isolate one variable. For example, when comparing the tax burden on the rich versus the other 99%, you want to look beyond the federal income tax rate and include payroll taxes, sales taxes, and any other taxes. That's fair, right?

Wait...Are we leaving something out? Why don't we also tally up the benefits of the taxes? That's part of the equation too. Let's go back to our lunch example to see why.

Suppose you buy lunch three times more often than your friend, but in every case you eat at your favorite place in the world and your friend can barely tolerate the cuisine. Let's also assume it's a long drive for your friend, but very convenient for you. In fact, it's the only restaurant that's near enough to your workplace for you to have lunch in an hour. You both get the benefit of your friendly banter, but only one of you enjoys the food and convenience. With this new information, it seems a bit fairer that you pay for lunch more often than your friend because you get the most benefit.

Now back to taxes. Doesn't the fairness argument demand that we at least try to determine who gets the most benefits from taxes paid? I think it does. (This is a good time to remind you that fairness isn't a real thing. I'm just chasing shadows here to make a point.)

So who benefits most from taxes? Is it the wealthy person who benefits from protecting his fortune, or is it the people who consume the greatest percentage of the social services? Let's consider some specifics to tease out an answer.

Consider Social Security. The wealthy pay a much lower percentage of their total income towards social security because the tax only applies to the first $106,800 of income. And the wealthy also make a lot of money from investments that are not subject to the tax. But on the benefit side, Social Security has no real value to the wealthy. The retirement payout isn't enough to change their lifestyles. Social Security is an odd tax in the sense that you're really just letting the government hold your dollar with the promise that if you live long enough they might give you one or even two dollars later. In that sense, the tax is only unfair to the people who die young.

How about the military? All citizens get the same bodily protection. But the rich also get to protect vast fortunes whereas the poor and middle class have less to protect. But remember that half of the country pays zero federal income tax. Financially, they get a free ride from military protection, unless they are in the military. And a typical rich person might pay a hundred times more in federal taxes, on an absolute dollar basis, than a typical middle class taxpayer. That seems about right.

If you think of paying taxes for military protection as a sort of insurance policy, I would argue that it has great value for protecting your first $100 million of assets and a rapidly declining value for protecting anything above that arbitrary number. In other words, if a wealthy person loses all but his last $100 million, his lifestyle would be about the same as before. A wealthy person's practical benefit from the military is capped even if his fortune is not.

We can't ignore the physical and emotional cost to military people and their families, which is concentrated in the non-wealthy portion of the population. But as long as military service remains voluntary, I think we can view that noble calling as a separate issue from taxes.

How about sales taxes? There are no sales taxes on groceries, rent, education, medical care, garbage service, water, or any of the essential services provided by public agencies. That covers most of the budget for low income families. My guess is that most people pay about 1% of their income for sales taxes and get more than their money's worth in state services in return. The rich pay a much higher dollar amount, but arguably that's a good value for them too. They have more assets to protect from criminals, more cars on the road, and so on.

I don't have an overall conclusion in terms of tax fairness because fairness isn't a real thing. People simply do whatever they think will maximize their benefit, give or take some irrationality. Fairness is just the marketing spin. All I'm saying today is that any discussion of tax rate fairness needs to include a discussion of who gets the most benefits. A more complete discussion of fairness, as I'm suggesting, will still be ridiculous, because fairness is an illusion. But for some reason I can't settle for half an illusion. I like my absurdities in full servings.

[Learn] A Walt Disney Story

An eight-year-old boy approached an old man in front of a wishing well, looked up into his eyes, and asked:

“I understand you’re a very wise man. I’d like to know the secret of life.”

The old man looked down at the youngster and replied:

“I’ve thought a lot in my lifetime, and the secret can be summed up in four words

The first is think. Think about the values you wish to live your life by.

The second is believe. Believe in yourself based on the thinking you’ve done about the values you’re going to live your life by.

The third is dream. Dream about the things that can be, based on your belief in yourself and the values you’re going to live by.

The last is dare. Dare to make your dreams become reality, based on your belief in yourself and your values. ”

[Thoughts] Make no Assumption

Now imagine a problem is identified. And there are numerous ideas in mind, if used properly, could allow a final solution to be reached. Hence one might decide to try their best to just tackle it straight on. But one essential element that might have been missed could come back and bite us towards the end of the problem solving process.
This monster is the assumption(s) that was initially made, be it the assumption made before the problem or the assumptions made between the identification of the problem and the beginning of the problem solving process. Once assumptions are neglected, we are exposing ourselves to enter a danger zone.

An analogy could be made to a maths problem. Once an issue is identified, we make the wrong assumption that would further lead us to solve the problem towards the wrong direction, finally we either get an answer that does not represent the true solution, or just get a massive error or contradiction.

One way to ensure the solution is reached is that after we had identified the problem at the initial stage, we should make sure no erroneous assumptions were made before solving the problem. And sometimes, assumptions might do more bad than good, so thereby making no assumption could actually be the best assumption.
That way, if we erased the false assumptions, we could realise that the problem didn't really exist afterall!

[Quotes] Have a little faith

"Lovely isn't it?"
What?

"Life," he said.

I wondered, how important ritual is?
"Vital," he said.
But why? Deep inside, you know your convictions.
"Mitch," he said, "faith is about doing. You are how you act, not just how you believe."

There's this salesman, and he knocks on a door. The man who answers says, 'I don't need anything today.' The next day, the salesman returns. 'Stay away,' he is told. The next day, the salesman is back. The man yells, 'You again! I warned you!' He got so angry, he spits in the salesman's face. The salesman smiles, wipes the spit with a handkerchief, then looks to the sky and says, 'Must be raining.'
That's what faith is. If they spit in your face, you say it must be raining. But you still come back tomorrow.

When I asked the Reb, Why do bad things happen to good people?, he gave none of the standard answers. He quietly said, "No one knows." I admired that. But when I asked if that ever shook his belief in God, he was firm.
"I cannot waver," he said.
Well, you could, if you didn't believe in something all powerful.
"An atheist," he said.
Yes.
"And then I could explain why my prayers were not answered."
Right.
He studied me carefully. He drew in his breath.
"I had a doctor once who was an atheist. This doctor, he liked to jab me and my beliefs. He used to schedule my appointments deliberately on Saturdays, so I would have to call the receptionist and explain why, because of my religion, that wouldn't work."
Nice guy, I said.
"Anyhow, one day, I read in the paper that his brother had died. So I made a condolence call."
After the way he treated you?
"In this job," the Reb said, "you don't retaliate."
I laughed.
"So I go to his house, and he sees me, I can tell he is upset. I tell him I am so sorry for his loss. And he says, with an angry face, 'I envy you.'
"'Why do you envy me?' I said.
"'Because when you lose someone you love, you can curse God. You can yell. you can blame him. You can demand to know why. But I don't believe in god. I'm a doctor! And I couldn't help my brother!'
"He was near tears. 'Who do I blame? he kept asking me. 'There is no God. I can only blame myself.'"
The Reb's face tightened, as if in pain.
"'That," he said, softly, "is a terrible self-indictment."
Worse than an unanswered prayer?
"Oh yes. It is far more comforting to think God listened and said no, than to think that nobody's out there."

He loved to smile. He avoided anger. He was never haunted by "Why am I here?" He knew why he was here, he said: to give to others, to celebrate God, and to enjoy and honor the world he was put in. His morning prayer began with "Thank you, Lord, for returning my soul to me." When you start that way, the rest of the day is a bonus.

Happiness?
"That's right. The things society tells us we must have to be happy-a new this or that, a bigger house, a better job. I know the falsity of it. I have counseled many people who have all these things, and I can tell you they are not happy because of them. They had money and health. Having more does not keep you from wanting more. And if you always want more-to be richer, more beautiful, more well known - you are missing the bigger picture, and I can tell you from experience, happiness will never come."

When a baby comes into the world, its hands are clenched. Why? Because a baby, not knowing any better, wants to grab everything, to say, 'The whole world is mine.'
But when an old person dies, how does he do so? With his hands open. Why? Because he has learned the lesson.We can take nothing with us.

So have we solved the secret of happiness?
"I believe so," he said.
Are you going to tell me?
"Yes. ready?"
Ready.
"Be satisfied."
That's it?
"Be greatful."
That's it?
"For what you have. For the love you receive. And for what God has given you."
That's it?
He looked me in the eye. Then he sighed deeply.
"That's it."

What profits a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?

I think people expect too much from marriage today. They expect perfection. Every moment should be bliss. That's TV or movies. But that is not human experience.
Twenty good minutes here, forty good minutes there, it adds up to something beautiful. The trick is when things aren't so great, you don't junk the whole thing. It's okay to have an argument. It's okay that the other one nudges you a little, bothers you a little. It's part of being close to someone.

One, as in the singular God. One, as in the Lord's creation, Adam.
"Ask yourself, 'Why, if he meant for there to be faiths bickering with each other, didn't he create that from the start? He created trees, right? Not one tree, countless trees. Why not the same with man?

What is there that forgiveness cannot achieve?

It does no good to be angry or carry grudges. It churns you up inside. IT does you more harm than the object of your anger.

I used to think I knew everything. The higher I climbed, the more I could look down and scoff at what seemed silly or simple. I should be ashamed of thinking I knew everything, because you can know the whole world and still feel lost in it. So many people are in pain-no matter how smart or accomplished-they cry, they yearn, they hurt. But instead of looking down on things, they look up, which is where I should have been looking too. Because when the world quiets to the sound of your own breathing, we all want the same things: 

 Comfort, Love, and a Peaceful Heart.

[Me] Travel June/July/August

16th June: Beachbreak live in Pembrey, Wales
23rd June: Flight from London Stanstead, UK to Dusseldorf Weeze Airport, Germany and then to Holland
29th June: Germany - Oberhausen
30th June: Holland - Roermond designer outlet
3rd July: Holland - Rotterdam
5th July to 8th July: Germany - Berlin
10th July: Flight from Dusseldorf Weeze Airport, Germany back to London Stanstead, UK
12th July: UK - Brighton
13th July: UK - Bicester Village, Oxford
17th July: Flight from London Heathrow, UK via Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport, Russia and then to Hong Kong
18th July: Hong Kong
1st August: Flight from Hong Kong via Changi International Airport, Singapore and then to Sydney Kingsford-Smith Airport, Australia
18th August: Flight from Sydney Kingsford-Smith Airport, Australia via Singapore back to Hong Kong
 30th August: Flight from Hong Kong via Istabul Ataturk Airport, Turkey and then to Barcelona El Prat Airport, Spain

[Learn] Compare - Not Necessary

For us to determine the 'right' value of an object, the methods of comparing/contrasting would make the whole process easier. Human beings are not completely competent in judging the correct absolute value of any given object, and the need of a second object as a reference point is often necessary for us to put a price tag on different things. 

On the other hand, in our culture a lot of times people advise us to compare ourselves with others.  "You should be like your father," "You can win; the others aren’t as good as you," "You must be the best of your class," etc., and this is not always the best way of thinking. There are many reasons to change this way of thinking and begin to compare ourselves only with ourselves. This is the way it should be, and in this paper I will discuss some of the most important reasons for this.

The first reason to avoid comparing yourself with others is that there will be always someone better than you. It doesn’t mater in which aspect, but it is always true. Therefore, you could feel inferior to others and maybe without a real reason. For example, you can be an incredible architect and the best of your generation, and this can make you feel incredibly good, but if someday someone is better than you are, you could feel sad although you are still the same incredible architect that you were before.

The second reason to elude this kind of comparison is that you will always find someone worse than you, but as opposed to the first reason, this can make you feel better than the others, and this feeling can turn into a horrible pride. For example, if you are the second best student of your class, and one day the very best student leaves the school, you will then be the best one although you are still only as good as you were before.

These two first reasons leads us to a third one: If you want to be better than the others, you don’t need to improve yourself; you only have to make the others look bad. If I want to be the leader of the group, but you are the leader now, what I need to do is to make you look like a traitor or stupid and then I can take your place. Then I will be better than you.

A fourth reason to stop comparing ourselves is that the one who compares him/herself with others is judging, and this doesn’t help us develop as human beings. Nobody knows the internal reality of the other; nobody knows his/her story and his/her most deep intentions, and when we judge it’s harder to accept the others.

The last but most important reason to avoid comparing ourselves with others is that when we do, we can be tempted to copy them, to do the same things, and to act and think like them. The problem with this is that if we copy someone, we will never know who we really are and what we really want, and then we will never grow spiritually.

For all these reasons and because we are unique, we should not compare ourselves with others, only with ourselves. The only comparison pattern that we really have is our consciousness. So, if we use this pattern we will not feel less or more than others; we will not try to make others look bad; we will not judge so much; and we will accept ourselves as we really are. In other words, we will live happier.

[Share] Coordination

Coordination

Our economy is almost entirely based on a Darwinian competition--many products and services fighting for shelf space and market share and profits. It's a wasteful process, because success is unpredictable and unevenly distributed.
The internet has largely mirrored (and amplified) this competition. eBay, for example, not only pits sellers against one another, it also pits buyers. Craigslist makes it easy for buyers to see the range of products and services on offer, making the marketplace more competitive. Google, most of all, encourages an ecosystem where producers can evolve, improve and compete.
I think the next frontier of the net is going to use the datastream to do precisely the opposite--to create value by making coordination easier.

A pre-internet pioneer of this: the method residents are assigned to hospitals after med school (the Match). The competitive way to do this is the same way we do college--we tell students to apply to a ton of schools, and perhaps you get into four, perhaps you get into none. Perhaps someone else gets into your favorite and chooses not to go... while you're left behind.

The Match coordinates instead. You tell the system your favorites, in rank order, and it uses application feedback from the hospitals to maximize the happiness of the largest number of applicants. No sense wasting scarce acceptances on people unable to work in two places at once.
Consider the way Logos is determining which books to bring out. They challenge readers to indicate the most they'd be willing to pay for a particular title, and then, based on the number of people voting with their dollars, can bring out titles at the lowest possible price for the largest number of people.
In both cases, the system works because it can become aware of buyer preferences in advance. Kickstarter takes this to an extreme, allowing producers to pre-sell items before making them. But this is not nearly as nuanced as it could be, and a lot of effort is wasted in acquiring the attention of potential purchasers.

Any wasting asset--a restaurant table, a seat at a conference, a wasting box of fish--can be efficiently used instead of wasted if we use technology to identify and coordinate buyers.

Synchronizing buyers to improve efficiency and connection is a high-value endeavor, and it's right around the corner. It will permit mesh products, better conferences, higher productivity and less waste, while giving significant new power to consumers and those that organize them.

[Video] Think

[Learn] Status quo bias

Status quo - existing condition.
Bias - a preference or inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgement.

Altogether, 'status-quo bias' is a cognitive bias for the status-quo, where we are happy with the state of affairs that previously existed. It leads people to prefer things remain the same, or things to be altered only if is absolutely necessary.

Causes - It could be a result of loss aversion in the theory of decision making, which is referred to as a strong tendency of people in favour of avoiding losses instead of acquiring gains. Once the status-quo is established, it hurts for anything changes to occur.

Examples - A person signs up for a trial period of a magazine subscription, henceforth the person establishes a status-quo granting the ownership of a new magazine every week. Towards the end of the trial period, subscriber is not very likely to terminate the subscription as the value attached to the magazine by the reader is now greater. Loss aversion also comes into play. Let the possible utility gain of cancelling the subscription be £1  and a possible £1 loss in utility in cancelling, with same probability each. Loss aversion says that the £1 loss would make the person more dissatisfied than the satisfaction gained from the £1 earning. Therefore, sometimes we would not even make the 'right' choice if the potential gain is greater than potential loss (the decision would have been to cancel the subscription by a risk neutral individual).

Specific form of 'status-quo bias': Endowment effect - A hypothesis that people value a good or service that they own than the ones which don't belong to them.
An example could be seen by simply changing the magazine subscription above into something that you own. We value our belongings more than an identical object that doesn't belong to us. It gives us the same satisfaction, but we attach greater value to those that we are endowed with.

Effects - Theory of rational choice obviously plays an important role in decision making. We assume people select their most preferred items of choice in their preference/ranking. If we know this ranking, we can predict the choice infallibly. However, this assumption could be falsified in reality, as people adhering to their status-quo more often than they should.
Sticking to your guns could be bad for you. In a sense that it can lead people to become over conservative when faced with an unambiguously superior alternative. The strong desire to keep one thing (in order to avoid any loss making) could potentially yield greater loss. Say a bank offers a more favourable deposit interest rate, but one would be happy to keep the inferior banking account existing. Or say you are determined to change into a healthier way of living, but struggle to even take the very first step towards a healthier diet.
On the other hand, sticking to your guns can also be good for you. Status-quo bias plays a role in a daily routine. Once established, the routine would provide a safer path, and this self-reinforcing protection would encourage people to make safer choices.

All in all, this behavioural bias is often so subtle that people are not aware of it, making it extremely difficult to break out of a set of pattern. At the same time, nudging people into setting up a 'correct' starting point should be a good way forward.

[Football] Champions League Final 2010/11 Report

Barca's front three all got on the scoresheet as the Spanish champions saw off their English counterparts to collect the trophy and seal their place in history

Barcelona are the champions of Europe after producing a scintillating performance to defeat Manchester United 3-1 at Wembley Stadium this evening.

In what proved to be a one-sided affair, Pedro gave the Catalan giants the advantage only for Wayne Rooney to cancel out his strike. In the second half, however, Lionel Messi and David Villa took centre stage, adding their names to the scoresheet in an imperious win.

The first half commenced at a frenetic pace, with Manchester United enjoying the best of the early exchanges. However, Barca eventually found their rhythm, and the match settled into a pattern of the Spanish side enjoying possession while United attempted to keep them at bay.

David Villa enjoyed a pair of efforts, one of which whizzed past the upright, and the other was gathered by Edwin van der Sar. With such dominance being exhibited by Barca, a breakthrough was inevitable, and Pedro duly delivered on 27 minutes.

Xavi was allowed to stroll through the centre of the pitch and reach the penalty area, where he flicked a pass into the path of the winger, who coolly slotted inside Van der Sar's near post for a thoroughly deserved advantage. 

But against the run of play, United hit back, albeit in controversial fashion. Interplay between Michael Carrick and Wayne Rooney led to the ball reaching Ryan Giggs, who appeared to be in an offside position before feeding the England striker in space in the area. Rooney kept his head to curl the ball across Victor Valdes and into the corner.

At the end of what was a breathless 45 minutes, Barca looked to regain their advantage. Lionel Messi continued to drift deep and collect the ball, and came within inches of reaching Villa's near-post cutback, but was unable to make definitive connection.

The second half witnessed a continuous flow of traffic towards the United goal. Dani Alves stung the legs of Van der Sar from inside the box before Messi's follow-up was cleared from under the crossbar. But the diminutive frontman was not to be denied.

On 54 minutes, a static United rearguard allowed Messi and space to approach the area and rifle a shot that swerved past a cumbersome dive from Van der Sar and into the net, for his 12th goal in the Champions League this season, equalling Ruud van Nistelrooy's record total in the competition.

Barca maintained the momentum. Messi, Xavi and Iniesta all tested Van der Sar but the keeper stood up to their efforts, but the third seemed destined to arrive, and with 20 minutes remaining, United's fate was sealed.

Sergio Busquets rolled the ball to Villa on the edge of the area, and the Spaniard swerved his strike superbly into the top corner, before running to the fans behind the goal to celebrate.

From then on, Barca were content to see out the victory, to clinch the famous trophy for the fourth time in their history, and their second title in three seasons.

Barcelona

• 01 Valdesyellow card
• 02 Danielyellow card (Puyol 88)
• 03 Pique
• 22 Abidal
• 06 Xavi
• 08 Iniesta
• 14 Mascherano
• 16 Busquets
• 07 Villa (Keita 86)
• 10 Messi
• 17 Pedrito (Afellay 90+2)

Substitutes

• 38 Olazabal, 
• 05 Puyol, 
• 21 Adriano Correia, 
• 15 Keita, 
• 20 Afellay,
• 30 Thiago, 
• 09 Bojan

Man Utd

• 01 Van der Sar
• 03 Evra
• 05 Ferdinand
• 15 Vidic
• 20 Fabio Da Silva (Nani 69)
• 11 Giggs
• 13 Park Ji-Sung
• 16 Carrickyellow card (Scholes 76)
• 25 Valenciayellow card
• 10 Rooney
• 14 Hernandez

Substitutes

• 29 Kuszczak, 
• 12 Smalling,
• 08 Anderson, 
• 17 Nani, 
• 18 Scholes,
• 24 Fletcher, 
• 07 Owen

[Football] Champions League Final 2010/11

Back in Stadio Olimpico, Rome, 2009, United put on early pressure, but a 10-minute goal has put United on their back-foot, shifting the entire game in Barcelona's favour. United deployed a 4-3-3 system, with the solid Rio Vidic partnership in centre back. Anderson playing alongside Carrick in the absence of Fletcher looked energetic at first but Barca's dominant possession coupled with their superb pass completion rate have kept United at bay.

This time round, Barca would not have Henry nor Eto'o in their attacking front, whose roles will be replaced by Villa and Pedro respectively. Fletcher missed the 2009 final and that could've contributed to the midfield dominance by the Xavi-Basquets-Iniesta triplet, with Xavi and Basquets averaging the most passes made per game. Sir Alex could field the best defensive forward Park to keep up the tempo at United's midfield, deploying Carrick or Fletcher to sit on top of the centre backs, occupying the space which Messi is likely to appear. However, the level of match fitness of Fletcher comes into question and it is doubtful whether he will feature part of a demanding Champions League final.

Up front, whether Hernandez would partner Rooney would depend on the midfield featured. The potency of Hernandez this term has shifted Sir Alex's tactics so that Rooney has adopted a deeper role, thereby dropping into midfield to help out Carrick and Giggs, while Park and Valencia patrol the wide areas. 
Rooney's ability to defend as well as attack would make him a good candidate to negate Basquets, whilst allowing Hernandez to keep Barca's back four busy. Moreover, the Mexican could add supreme value in United's counter attacks. 


Another possible 4-2-3-1 tactic would mean a break-up of the superb partnership of Rooney and Hernandez. Rooney's tireless tracking back into midfield at times of Barca attack could release the likes of Nani and Valencia down the flanks once Barca losses possession. Nani and Valencia definitely possess the pace to run pass Alves and out-of-position Puyol. Abidal and Maxwell are returning from injury and this would cause a shift of Mascherano into an unfamiliar centre-back position and will see Valenca trying to exploit the space behind Puyol. 


There is going to be a time when Barca will dominate possession, and it will run down United player's energy when they try to win it back. So Sir Alex might ask his team to close down and press only in certain areas on the field. It is vital how United hold onto and use the ball once they've won it, as they would never want to give it away easily having consumed vast amount of energy. Hence United players have to be focused at all time, to chase the ball, and to avoid misplaced passes. To win the game, United needs to play fast, and proactive, as they're never a successful reactive side like Mourinho's Internationale last season. United have players who are capable of stopping Barca. Giggs could add value by acting to dictate and shift the tempo of United's play. 


Sir Alex has a full squad to choose from. He often comes up with something unexpected in big games.

Champions League Final 2009: 

Likely Starting Line-up Champions League Final 2011:
Barcelona: Valdes; Alves, Mascherano, Pique, Puyol; Xavi, Basquets, Iniesta; Pedro, Messi, Villa.
Manchester United: Van der Sar; Fabio, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra; Carrick, Park, Valencia, Giggs; Rooney, Hernandez.

[Music Vid] All Time Love

[Learn] Process

Process is typically described as a well-established way of achieving or accomplishing things. As could be observed anywhere, processes follow routines that give dynamic to our surroundings. Without understanding of the underlying process, results observed could not be made sense of sometimes. Gathering a good sense of the process allows information to be transformed into knowledge.

At the same time, it does not necessarily mean that by following the very same process, a same (unique) destination would be resulted. Deterministic processes are vehicles that generate a predictable outcome at destination. Blindly following a process without knowing where it might lead you could cause undesirable consequences. The expectation of a deterministic process should be well defined and known at the time of observation, whereas for some non-deterministic or stochastic processes, the possibilities of paths that will be undertaken by the process would be unpredictable.

Fixing a deterministic process, following it throughout, usually gives us the desired result that is targeted initially. Similarly, fixing a target steers us in the right direction in reality. And very often, simply assuming process to be followed to be fixed and not prone to shocks is foolish. Hence, allowing for some sort of random factors to affect the process that we follow would add flexibility, which in turns will likely to generate an even better outcome, given we respond to these random shocks in real time sensibly. 

[Music Vid] Fix You

[Book] Predictably Irrational

1.      The truth about relativity

Relativity helps us make decisions in life. But it can also make us downright miserable. Why? Because jealousy and envy spring from comparing our lot in life with that of others.

It was for good reason, after all, that the Ten Comandments admonished, “Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” This might just be the toughest commandment to follow, considering that by our very nature we are wired to compare.
(Level of salary doesn’t relate to our happiness. We find satisfaction is dependent on relative salary)

Can we do anything about this problem?

The good news is that we can sometimes control the “circles” around us, moving toward smaller circles that boost our relative happiness. (If we are thinking of buying a new car, we can focus on the models that we can afford)

We can also change our focus from narrow to broad. (2 errands to run today: buying a new pen and buying a suit. At an office supply store, you see a nice pen for $25. But it’s on sale for $18 at another store 15 min away. Do you decide to take the trip to save $7? Most people faced with this dilemma say that would take the trip to save $7. Then you’re shopping for your suit. You find a luxurious gray pinstripe suit for $455 and decide to buy it before someone whispers in your ear that exact suit cost $448 at another store 15 min away. Most people in this case wouldn’t bother travelling to save $7!)

This is the problem of relativity – we look at our decisions in a relative way and compare them locally to the available alternative. We compare the relative advantage of a cheap pen with expensive one, and this contrast makes it obvious we should spend extra time to save up $7. The relative advantage of cheaper suit is very small, so we spend the extra $7. Think of whether you can spend that marginal amount of money spent on somewhere else (perhaps spending on a book?).