Chew Piin Huann 丘品焕

We determine if something is ergodic or non-ergodic roughly by comparing the two: a) At one single timestamp, you compute the average of 1,000,000 people b) Take 1 single person, going through 10 years, you compute his average We all know very slow, low productivity fields (construction, electricians, retailed restaurants, or even consultants, accountants etc.) are very ergodic. Their (a) and (b) are the same. Internet couldn't help scaling the atoms unlike the bits, they remain very localised. There is no such thing as "a millionaire electrician/baker/construction worker", "a law firm or consulting firm that goes public", "an amusement park with million-dollared valuation". These localised fields are "winner-take-little" or "losers-take-alot". Try running a local retailed shop selling goods and make a million quickly! Even people who make hardware are pretty ergodic (again Internet is not really their ally). We also know that fina...

One of the hallmark of science is the presence of a control set in an experiment. Sometimes this modality is known as "randomized trial and error". Many science teachers in elementary schools are cognizant of that and always try to "teach" students what does "control set" really mean.  Alas, the nature of this "controlled experiment" technique is very subtle and not easy to be grasped. I myself made the mistake to gloss over it for decades. Until very recently I had an epiphany on the real essence of "controlled experiment". For example, if we want to know if water is a vital ingredient for photosynthesis, we build 2 sets of plants, one with water and another without (while keeping the remaining variables fixed for both plants). The corollary is that 1 of the 2 sets of plants must be able to grow. If it is the one with water hence it is self evidential that water is required, if it is the one without water then it is otherwise.  It so...

  The following are some examples of things I wish I'd known or done when I was 20 in year 2013 (This advice is suitable for people who were born in year 2003 and beyond) - Be careful of popular things like law, medicine, accounting (translating into 2023 it might be something like web 3.0, crypto, data science). They are not necessarily bad, but think twice because you are gonna be sucked into the prestige magnet - Always aim for the super long term. Want to have a girlfriend/boyfriend? Ask yourselves if you could still live with such a person 10 years later? Want to choose a career? Ask yourselves could you stand doing that thing consistently for 10 years. If the answer is not a solid yes then they are not your right partner or your right career. - Dare to give harsh criticisms to friends and family. Being too nice to them in the short term by sugar coating is actually harming them in the long run. By being truthfully harsh to people around you, they also tell you the truth in r...

I wish people talk more about the difference between a problem-solver and a problem-solved-er. The latter is a person whose sole motive is to get rid of problems at all costs. You would find such a person agonizes at every step and every second during the actual problem solving process. Never for a second he would marvel at the odd idea of "problems are fun as they challenge you and push your limits". "Equating the word 'problems' with 'fun'? You can't be any more lunatic!", he said.  The former, while caring about getting a problem solved at the very end (because otherwise he is just a lazy-bum who never gets anything done), derives equal amount of (if not more) delight from the apparently gnawing problem on his hand.  For a problem-solved-er, the sole reason to bend over backwards is the final reward of "problem solved". Anything before that is excruciating evil. For a problem-solver, the struggle during the problem-solving process is...

Check out my (digital) bookshelves at the link below: http://www.goodreads.com/chewpiinhuann

[Case 1: If Vaccines are Mandated] Chance of vaccines killing everyone on the planet: As low as the roof of your house falling on your head Chance of vaccines eradicating COVID-19: Not 0* Chance of governments tyrannically implementing a unanimous policy: Almost 100 [Case 2: If Vaccines are not Mandated] Chance of COVID-19 being eradicated: How is it even possible?^ Chance of COVID-19 (from at least 1 person) killing everyone on the planet: Not 0 Chance of individual liberties remaining impervious: 100 [Notes] * Those who allege that vaccines caused coronavirus mutation couldn't prove that "If there weren't vaccines coronavirus would never have mutated". ^ Saying "Darwinian elimination method (letting weaker people die from COVID-19)" is a "COVID-19 eradication method" is like saying "let cockroaches eating my leftovers" as a method of washing dishes.