Burning Man 2015 in Pictures I: Supply Trip to Reno

So, early in 2015, we decided we should build a gigantic flaming mirror maze in the desert. Lacking any suitable deserts nearby, we decided to go to Burning Man in Nevada. On the way, I took a few thousand pictures.

Any large project such as this one requires extensive planning. We’ll cover that later. This post is about the frantic last supply trip to Reno (Nevada), which is the closest major center to Black Rock City. Most people traveling to ‘The Burn’ end up in Reno at some point, even if it’s just traveling through.

Reno is a casino town, if somewhat overshadowed by Las Vegas. Our home away from home was the ‘Eldorado’ hotel and casino:

The Eldorado, Reno, Nevada.  Our home away from home.
The Eldorado, Reno, Nevada. Our home away from home.

They had a surprisingly well designed parking garage:

Our favourite parking garage.
Our favourite parking garage.

Where we parked our (still very undusty) trusty steed:

Our Trusty Steed!
Our Trusty Steed!

And took another gander at the glitz of the Eldorado before venturing inside:

The Glitz of the Eldorado by day.
The Glitz of the Eldorado by day.

Inside, we found the shortest escalator ever, as S demonstrates:

The Escalatrix De-escalates the Shortest Escalator I.
The Escalatrix De-escalates the Shortest Escalator I.
The Escalatrix De-escalates the Shortest Escalator II.
The Escalatrix De-escalates the Shortest Escalator II.

After checking in, we went in search of supplies!

Sadly, we were not allowed to go on the cart:

No cart for you. :(
No cart for you. 🙁

But we were successful at Trader Joe’s (protip: excellent supply store for Burning Man):

Trader Joe's Success!
Trader Joe’s Success!

We then went on a brief[1] walk outside, and saw an ‘ampersand’:

Ampers and ampersands.
Ampers and ampersands.

And then went quickly back to the Eldorado:

The Eldorado by Night.
The Eldorado by Night.

For some much-needed rest to prepare for the long journey ahead.

[1]Reno did not feel like a optimal place to go for a nice night walk.

Five Management Roles

I was talking with my best friend earlier today, and we were comparing notes on some different management roles. Traditional hierarchical management theory[1] tends to have all of the management roles embodied in one person. This can be problematic, as very few people are good at all of the management roles.

This has led to a number of different techniques for dividing these roles among people. To start, we’ll talk about five of these roles, using Agile software development language, as that’s what I’m most familiar with:

Performance Manager (Worker Evaluation):

The ‘Performance Manager’ is probably the most traditional of the roles. When someone talks about their ‘boss’, it is generally the person who evaluates their performance, gives them performance reviews, and decides if they should get a bonus, a raise, or be fired[2].

Estimatrix (Estimator):

The ‘Estimatrix[3]’ is in charge of estimating the amount of effort required to perform a task or set of tasks. This role is often spread out over multiple people, even in traditional hierarchies.

Product Owner (Prioritization):

The ‘Product Owner’ is the other half of ‘traditional’ management. They are in charge of prioritization of the work being done, once it has been assigned to a team and estimated.

Scrum Master (Removing Obstacles):

The ‘Scrum Master’ (my favourite) is charged with removing obstacles. Once the team knows what it is working on, things will get in the way. Some of the obstacles are acute issues, associated with work being done, some of the obstacles are chronic issues, which are generally solved by trying to change habits, and many ‘restrospectives’.

(People) Development Manager (Development Conversations):

As a retention technique (and because it’s the right thing to do), many organizations spend time on development of their employees, helping them figure out what they want to do with their careers, and helping to find them ways to develop while doing their job.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at some ways these roles are remixed.

[1]It’s really more of a default.

[2]Like user stories, anytime your description includes the word ‘and’ or ‘or’, it means you can subdivide it further. That is left as an exercise to the reader, if they are so inclined.

[3]I really enjoy this suffix.

Running A Sprint Planning Meeting

It’s the little things that sometimes make a difference. When I was teaching standardized test math so many years ago, I noticed as I was drawing problems on the board, all the little habits that I had picked up. Habits which make solving problems easier, habits which reduce the chance for error.

Things like the curve on the leg of the lower-case ‘t’, so that it doesn’t look like a ‘+’. Curving your ‘x’ so it doesn’t look like a ‘*’ sign.

I think some of this (probably sometimes annoying) attention to detail had carried over to Sprint Planning meetings[1].

Planning Poker is a method for a group to converge on a time estimate for a task or group of tasks. There are a number of ways to do this. The ‘canonical’ way we were taught to do this was to use Fibonacci-numbered cards (1,2,3,,5,Eureka!). This involved a discussion of the task(s) to estimate until everyone had a reasonable idea of their complexity, then each person would choose a number estimate, all of which would be revealed simultaneously, to hopefully reduce bias. The discussion before estimation would not include estimates of how long things were estimated to take, to also try to reduce bias.

While we were running our planning meetings, I noticed that we would start to slip away from this ideal, perhaps because certain things were not important, perhaps because we didn’t see that certain things were important. For example:

We moved from cards to apps, and then to fingers. Using apps for estimation is less annoying than finding the cards each time, but fingers are even faster to find. I/we tried to get around the bias effect by having everyone display their fingers at once, and that worked reasonably well. Even making each person think about their estimate before display can help a lot with reducing the impact of what others might think of them.

One thing I tried which never really caught on when other people were running the meeting was saying ‘A,B,C’ instead of ‘1,2,3’, with the idea that it would be less biasing on the numbers people were choosing. (This may have mostly been an impression of mine, as the moving of the estimate from a mental number to a number of fingers may cement it in a slightly different mental state…)

If one is not careful, and perhaps somewhat impatient in meetings[2], one can start suggesting estimates before they are voted on. It can take considerable discipline and practice to not do this.

Another thing I noticed was how difficult JIRA was to use when one is not practiced in it, especially in a room with many people watching. Something that any experienced[3] demo-giver would know like the back of PowerPoint’s hand.

That’s all I have for now. For more minutiae, tune in tomorrow!

[1]For those of you who have not had the pleasure, these are the meetings at the start of an iteration, where the team sits down in a room, estimates a bunch of priority-ranked tasks, and decides (generally by consensus) how many of them they will commit to getting done in the next two weeks. Like all meetings, they can be good or bad, and the meeting chair (I feel) can make a large difference.

[2]I am probably as guilty of this as anyone. I would recommend Randy Pausch’s ‘Time Management‘ for those who feel similarly.

[3]Read: ‘Battle-scarred’

Goal-less Games

A couple of days ago, we were talking about different ways of making computer games challenging, and the question came up:

How do you design a goal-less game[1]?

One step along the way is to remove all of the explicit goals. You could make a sandbox game like Minecraft, and only allow ‘Creative Mode‘, but people will just use that ‘sandbox‘ to build things, or to define their own goals, which they can then achieve.

Here, we are attempting to design a completely goal-less game.

You could start the game by removing all the in-game knowledge of the player character, a la System Shock, or Planescape: Torment. However, this merely focuses the player on the goal of ‘figuring out what is going on’.

So, you want a game with no explicit goals, where the player is enjoined from forming goals of their own.

S and I talked about a few ways to do this:

You could try something like ‘Papers, Please‘, where the goal is survival, but very difficult to navigate. S suggested something along the lines of a ‘Kafkaesque‘ game that we had been discussing, with constantly moving goalposts, where the goal always seems possible, but probably isn’t. (Pac-Man level 256 might fall in this category.)

You could go one step further and combine this with a sandbox game, where the game somehow detects what goal(s) you are trying to reach, and subtly moves that goal just out of your reach.

But these are examples of games with goals, just seemingly reachable but actually not reachable ones.

You could also go a completely different direction and make something like ‘Desert Bus‘, which has a goal, but reaching that goal is so boring that very few people will ever achieve it.

This brings us to the concept of the ‘Grey Game’. Not a reference to ‘Grey Aliens‘, or to ‘Grey Goo‘, but a game which is similar in concept to an isolation tank:


The player is suspended in a featureless grey landscape. They can move in every direction, but nothing changes. Nothing ever changes. You might think that parts of the background are different from other parts, but unlike COBE, all you are seeing is pixelation, and the universe is grey and featureless. Forever.

[1]As a thought exercise, it’s often useful to explore the limits of many or all of the assumptions you can perceive, to see what happens when you negate or change each of them (or multiple ones in tandem). We may discover a new goal-less game or goal-less genre of games, or we may discover this is actually impossible[2], and find some interesting ideas which are partway towards the negated or changed assumptions. I think I want to write about this some more. Watch this space!

[2]Some might say that the very definition of ‘game’ assumes the existence of a ‘goal’. I say ‘to-mah-to‘.

Which ‘Magic Numbers’ do You Use?

I was talking with S earlier this week, and the idea came up for a post about the numbers that I remember and use for estimation. I enjoy the sobriquet ‘Magic Numbers’.

‘Magic Numbers’. They’re considered bad practice[1] in programming, but are such a useful and helpful part of human ‘back of the envelope‘ problem solving[2].

Water:

The ‘Magic Number’ which precipitated this post was the fact that one tonne[3] of water is one cubic meter in volume. Interestingly, this is actually a number of interlocking ‘Magic Numbers’, including: One tonne is one thousand kilograms, water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimetre (‘density of 1’), one thousand is 10x10x10, one tonne is one thousand liters of water, one liter is one kilogram, etc, etc…

I mostly enjoy using this to respond to ‘I could eat a tonne of this’, or to estimate whether you could fit a tankerfull of oil in an office.

It is commonly known that ice will float on water, because the hydrogen bonds give the water molecules a structure which is more spaced out and less dense than close packed[4]. Also, water has its greatest density of about one at about 4 degrees C.

Density:

Incidentally, hydrocarbons have a density of about 0.7, so the tankerful of oil mentioned above would rather difficult to swim in. This 0.7 is close enough to 1.0 so as to make no difference for most back of the envelope questions. Strong acids are known to have densities greater than one[5], but that’s not really that useful most of the time.

The Earth has a density of on the order of five. Interestingly, while reading this, I learned that granite and quartz have a density of about three, much less than I had been assuming. No wonder pumice can float.

Gold has a density of about 20 (19 and change, when that matters). Osmium and Iridium are the densest, at around 22 and change.

On the list of interesting curiosities, Saturn is the only planet in the solar system known to have a density less than one, about 0.7! This was only useful in winning a scientific trivia contest with TJFN when I was young.

Scientific Constants:

Avogadro’s number is 6e23, Coulomb’s constant is 9e9, the ideal gas constant is 8.314 (I remember that one because it includes pi), G is 6.67e-11, the Planck constant is 6.63e-34. Most of these are useless without things like the mass or charge of an electron or proton. The only one I use is Avogadro’s number, and that’s largely to calculate how much of your body is made up of atoms which were once part of a particular famous person[7].

For atoms, what I’ve found useful is the fact that a proton is about 2000 times heavier than an electron, and that chemical bond distances are measured in Angstroms (1e-10m).

c is 3e8m/s, which is useful for Star Trek and Star Wars-type arguments. One atmosphere is 101.325kPa, or about 30 feet of water (which is important for divers).

Math constants:

Pi is 3.14159, or 22/7[6] to its friends. Pi comes up a lot.

e is about 2.718. e doesn’t come up very often.

log10(1) = 0
log10(2) ~= 0.301
log10(3) ~= 0.477
log10(7) ~= 0.845
log10(10) = 1

With these three, you can calculate all of the logarithms from one to ten, and much of everything else. In high school, we memorized all of the perfect squares up to 100^2, but most of those have fled from memory.

The (x+y)(x-y) = x^2 – y^2 trick still comes in handy, though.

Large Things:

The CN Tower is 553m tall, really only useful in Toronto.

The Earth has a radius of about 6380m, has an orbit of 93e6 miles (150e6km), useful for things like Dyson Sphere and Red Giant arguments.

The Earth is about 6e24kg, has a diameter of about 40,000km (at the equator), axial tilt of about 23.5 degrees (Uranus is the only planet with an axial tilt significantly greater, almost sideways!).

The sun is about 400x larger than the moon, and is about 400x further away, and this is why solar eclipses work.

Conversions:

1.609 km/mi (0.621 mi/km), 2.54 cm/in (by law!), 9/5+32 degrees C-> degrees F.

SGD, AUD, CAD, USD, EUR, GBP are pretty close in value, and are in that approximate order with only a factor of about 2 separating them. HKD has maybe 6-8 times per unit, CNY is in that general ballpark, and JPY has about 100 times per unit.

Miscellany:

My handspan is about 10″, which is very useful for measuring things.

Stories are about 2m tall.

3600s/hour, 86400 seconds per day, the Unix epoch started 1970-01-01, useful if you spend any time coding, or want to know how long something will take at ‘x per second’. (100k seconds per day is a useful gross approximation for many applications.)

And I would be remiss if I left out my favourite physics approximation (from the same class where I learned about Stirling’s approximation):

sqrt(10) ~= pi.

Thank you and good night.

[1]Although, compare some cases where they are considered not quite so bad practice.

[2]They are also almost essential for proper answering of ‘Fermi Questions‘.

[3]’Tonne’ means metric tonne, or 1000 kg. You can tell because it’s spelled in the French way, and SI (Systeme Internationale) was brought in while France was a preeminent country.

[4]I didn’t know what the actual structure of ice was before looking it up. Apparently, it’s tessellating hexagonal rings.

[5]’Add acid to water, like you oughta’, else you may melt the top of your beaker off.

[6]Really, it isn’t, but it’s a useful approximation sometimes.

[7]With some reasonable approximations, I remember it being billions of atoms with each breath.

Bringing You Little Conversational Nuggets

Yesterday, I was out at lunch, and a good friend of mine was telling a story about ‘fishing for piranhas’. As he mentioned, “it’s about as easy as you’d expect. You put some meat on a stick and dip it into the water. They’re really bony when you try to eat them, though.”

There’s such a delicious joy in bringing little conversational nuggets to people. Sometimes, it almost feels like this is what humans are made for, sharing bits of information back and forth.

S talks about how we go out into the world, and then bring each other back little stories to share, kind of like bringing twigs back to build our nest together.

Memes are real. Tell your friends. [1]

It may help bring you closer together.

[1]Think about it.

Brain Structure vs. Brain Thoughts vs. Hash Functions

So, I was doing a knowledge transfer session[1] last week, and I was struck by the way that my brain seemed to be answering the questions. It felt almost like there was a structure inside that was taking the input from the questions, and outputting the answers in a different part of the brain.

It felt different from the hash functions that I mentioned before. Those felt like they were hash functions[2] implemented in software, the structure above felt more like inflexible hardware, like you put a problem in, it or something upstream abstracts the problem to a useable form, it spits the answer out automatically and gives you that answer before you know it.

Hardware can be fun sometimes.

But this was the first time that I really felt that thoughts and reactions I was having were completely the result of brain hardware rather than software. It was a most interesting feeling.

It felt more like channels or a Pachinko/Peggle game.

It’s interesting the contrast here. When you’re trying to get something creative out of your brain, it’s like fish jumping out of water, and you’re trying to relax to allow yourself to see them and express them. When you’re answering a question, you’re taking the words in, and passing them through a filter and hash function. When you’re solving a problem, sometimes it’s all processed through some kind of a hardware structure.

Some might use the analogy of sound waves traveling through a Crystalline Entity, but I like the analogy of a collagen structure with the cells removed that concepts can travel through to and from specific places, so you could have a graph in many directions or dimensions, perhaps simultaneously[3]

Your brain structure can be dictating your answers to questions, perhaps not always your thoughts. Fascinating.

[1]PM me if you want to know more!

[2]They felt like hash functions both because they were in software, but more importantly because they each worked in one direction only, or with a specific ‘twig’ not the same as others'[4].

[3]Do these thoughts ever collide?

[4](Other people or other twigs)

How do you Make Computer Games Challenging?

So, you’re designing a computer game. You want some sort of challenge for your player(s) to face. How do you design that challenge? We’ll assume some sort of single player game for now, but most of the things we’ll talk about should easily translate to multiplayer.

Almost[1] all games have a goal[2]. Most of the time, this goal is imposed by the game creators, some of the time this goal is invented or imposed by the player themselves.

For example, in Candy Crush, the goal is to match enough candies in a specified time period to gain points to pass a threshold (‘obtaining one star’). In Skyrim, the quest (at least at the start of the game) is to escape an area and survive.

As you attempt to reach these objectives, the game designers have provided you with various positive and negative obstacles.

Terrain:

Terrain is an excellent example of an obstacle that can be positive or negative. In Skyrim, you can hide around corners, or you can fall down a mountain. In Candy Crush, the shape of the board can make certain portions easier or much more difficult to match.

Offensive Items:

Special Candies can be classified as offensive items, compare them to a sword which allows you to do more damage with a single blow.

Defensive Items:

In Candy Crush, the candies can be encased in ‘jelly’, which acts as a shield that must be overcome. In Skyrim, you have various types of armour which you and your adversaries can wear. (Sometimes, only they can wear it.) There are also magical defenses.

Miscellaneous Items and Magic:

In Candy Crush, you can obtain a ‘Lollipop Hammer‘, which helps you by removing or triggering single candies.

In Skyrim, there is a wide variety of special purpose items and magic. The line between these is often blurry.

AI Adversaries:

I don’t think there are many AI adversaries in Candy Crush, unless they decide to tinker with the random candy generation algorithm, or if you count level design. Skyrim is populated with hundreds, if not thousands of NPCs who will interact with you in various ways.

Repetition:

An uninteresting way to make a game more challenging is to make it more repetitive[2.5]. You could make your player battle the same enemy 35 times, or solve minor variations on the same puzzle 50 times, or make them walk through an endless samey forest.

Ideally, you want to give a feeling of exploration and small but noticeable differences along the way.

Next time, we’ll compare two more games which are even more distinct. Suggestions in the comments below!

[1]I say almost, even though I can’t think of any games which don’t have a goal, and/or can’t have one created by the player. Inventing one sounds like a fun challenge. I don’t mean a game with an impossible challenge which always seems almost possible, I’m talking about a game which aggressively has no goal, and cannot, to the greatest extent possible.

[2]Or goals plural. Multiple interlocking[3] or interrelated goals are out of scope.

[2.5]Than usual…Most of these games are quite repetitive.

[3]Sometimes I think I write just because I enjoy using words such as ‘interlocking[4]’.

[4]Not to be confused with Interlochen[5].

[5]S: “Or Interleukins.”

Visually ‘Misheard’ Words

‘Foot Locker.’ ‘Foot Looker.’

Keming.'[1]

This was originally going to be a post about visually ‘misheard’ words, where I talk about how visually ‘mishearing’ words may be similar to how I ‘mishear’ words and conversations like a record player slightly too far from the record.

But then I realized that’s just ‘keming‘[2].

So I’m just going to take this time and glory in the beauty of keming.[3]

Have a good night. 😀

[1]Maybe NSFW.

[2]Still maybe NSFW.

[3]Yep.

What are your Non-Negotiables?

What are your Non-Negotiables? Most recently, I was talking to someone[1] about my New Year’s resolutions, and we were discussing why I had done one of them, but not the other two. It eventually came out that the resolution that worked (writing every day this year[2]), worked because I had made it a Non-Negotiable[3]. I had resolved that no matter what, every day this year, I would write something. Somehow, every day, I would carve out an hour or two, pushing other things aside so that I could focus and write.

(Incidentally, this practice focusing has done wonders for me, helping me find ‘the zone’, or ‘flow’ much more consciously and easily.)

Sometimes I would push aside a computer game, or facebook, sometimes sleep, but those things didn’t matter compared to the commitment I had made (mostly to myself) to write every day.

Interestingly, the other Non-Negotiable that came to mind today was the 5-minute standup. I was talking to someone about it today, and they started to say ‘5-10 minutes’, and I had to interject, with talk of Non-Negotiables, how if you let something like that slip, pretty soon you’re having daily half-hour sit down ‘stand-up’ meetings.

Interestingly, biking to work every day is not quite a Non-Negotiable. I take probably a couple of weeks off each year, some for snow, some for rain, some for events. It’s pretty close, though, and I’m not so worried, because I’ve been doing it for long enough (14 years, I think), that it’s a pretty deep-seated habit.

So, what are your Non-Negotiables? What is the one thing you want to change this year?

[1]Pretty sure it was G at a life coaching session, but my brain has this annoying tendency to abstract things away, but that’s another post. I also remember it from a speech by the head counselor at music camp many years ago, but that’s another story…

[2]At least so far…

[3]This is a good precis from a life coach on Non-Negotiables.