It was over 2 years since my last phone update (well not entirely true, as I downgraded when I entered MI N D EF as I had to get a non-camera phone), so when the iPhone 6s announced its release, I knew I wanted to upgrade my S4!
Got my 64GB Space Grey pretty fast - just headed down to the launch event and within seconds of registration my queue number was up. Good job Singtel!
As for what's new, I always like Apple's own copywriting - they have a solid team who drafts the most elegant of descriptions (despite some hyperboles) and makes you feel like you want to get the phone now. http://www.apple.com/sg/iphone-6s/
These are my first impressions / highlights of the phone.
1) iOS is really smooth.
I think the most noticeable thing to me immediately was the speed of the iOS. Having used Androids for 2+ years, I've grown somewhat accustomed to a 1s delay while switching between apps, after pressing the home button, with this delay sometimes going up to 3s (e.g. launching the camera)
When I began playing with my iPhone 6s, transitions were smooth and quick. I like the transition effects too, though the gf told me to turn them off to save some battery. But they look cool! I hope this smoothness maintains - I recall my old iPhone 4 which slowed down slightly over time.
2) 3D Touch is ok, until more apps integrate it.
Marketed as one of the latest, groundbreaking, revolutionary features of the new iPhone, 3D Touch allows you to use a firm press (on top of the usual tap, and long press that we all know) to activate new functions.
It is a cool feature, but it only works for some default apps, such as Camera (a firm press on the Home menu brings up a dropdown menu to 'Take a selfie, take a video' etc. This is somewhat redundant as the switching between function is really quick in the Camera app itself), Messaging (peek and pop, i.e. previewing messages. Abit useless as no one uses SMSes nowadays), and Safari (you can hard press to preview websites. Not sure how useful this is, why would you want to preview something?)
My initial feeling is that for now, this is a little superfluous, and till they can integrate it for more shortcut-like features to improve productivity, 3D touch is just a gimmick. I can think of some possible shortcuts they can implement:
Firm press on Instagram app icon to immediately choose an image to post
Firm press on Whatsapp to dropdown the last 4 chats and you can choose which to message
Firm press to mimic the function of a long press in Android
3) Having notifications centre and the WiFi / Airplane mode shortcuts separate is quite annoying
By habit, I still sometimes swipe down from the top to turn on WiFi or data, but for some unknown reason, Apple chose to split them up. It seems perfectly compatible to combine both (as with most Android phones' notification centres), but.... guess they want to be different.
4) Double tap home button trick!
Can't reach the top left corner with your thumb? I discovered this nifty trick this morning - just double tap your Home button (not press it, just double tap it) and it shifts your screen down! Tahdah.
This function should be turned on by default, if not, just explore the Accessibility settings it's somewhere there.
5) Hey Siri
Haha I had great fun playing with this. You can turn on a 'Hey Siri' function which allows you to go 'Hey Siri' at any time (even with phone locked) and you can give a voice activated function. Like Open Safari, Open Facebook, etc.
--
ok that's all! Hope to get used to the typing soon, adapting over from Swiftkey. I miss swiftkey... (and I don't want to jail break my phone, at least not yet...)
What makes a good TV show? A good plot? Good dialogue? Good character development? All three?
Some of my favourite TV shows are carried by the strong dialogue, but don't have much plot / character development. For example, Modern Family, Suits, and Psych.
Psych arguably has one of the best two-character chemistry ever seen on TV. Shawn and Gus (James Roday and Duke Hill) interact so naturally on the show it hardly seems scripted... and indeed, sometimes it isn't! From the blooper reels, you can see that many lines are actually improvised on-set by the two of them, especially their back and forth banter. I'm not sure what else is scripted (their spontaneous pop culture references?), but it sure made for an entertaining show.
One of their running gags is how Shawn would introduce Gus, with a WIDE variety of (sometimes outright ridiculous) nicknames. I'm still not sure whether this is scripted or James Roday just rattles off the first thing on his head. Judging from the way Gus reacts (he sometimes plays along naturally, sometimes has a wtf? reaction, so I would think it's improvised? lol)
It's precisely of this strong chemistry / dialogue that made the show last as long as it did - I think it was somewhere around the 4th or 5th season (or maybe later? can't remember) where the show all but abandoned its main premise (Shawn being 'psychic') and became more of a two-bit comedy act with some romance with Juliet and the hilarious Lassider, but it still carried on for a few more seasons.
Suits puts up a strong challenge for 'best two-character chemistry' against Psych, for the stellar performances of its two male leads, Harvey and Mike (Gabriel Macht and Patrick Adams). Their interactions are sharp and witty, their pop culture references roll off their tongues naturally. What puts this show above Psych for me is that this sharp writing (of dialogue) extends to almost all its characters - Jessica, Louis, Donna (sorry, I think while Rachel is hot, she's a boring character with the lousiest lines). While it is a 'serious' legal drama, every episode has its fair bit of funny lines and witty one-liners uttered by any of the main characters.
There is a general theme for each season (e.g. power struggle with Daniel Hardman, within the firm, with whoever), but I won't give any huge points for 'plot/character development' for this show.
Modern Family is a recurrent hit season after season for its relatable family comedy mockumentary style. Apart from its special mockumentary style (not unique, since Arrested Development already did this before), the big strong suit of this show is its witty dialogue. I think almost 80% of lines are actually some form of wordplay /puns, so I really admire the creativity of the writers to consistently come up with such brilliant scenes peppered with hilarious puns or jokes. Of course, it has the backing of a strong cast who convincingly portray all sorts of emotions, and the fan favourite Phil Dunphy, brilliant played by the talented Ty Burrell, who steals every scene he's in.
So these are TV shows driven by strong dialogue, but with little plot / character development. How about a good plot?
A show with good plot needs to well-written - appropriate drama, good pacing, believable scenes. Two of my favourite shows, LOST and Prison Break, fall under this category.
LOST has a very ambitious narrative structure. It abandons the traditional linear storytelling and adopts character-centric episodes with a flashback format which alternates with scenes on the island. Using this unique narrative structure, it somehow manages to seamlessly advance the main story on the island, and provide compelling backstories for most of its characters. I don't know if you ever stopped to marvel at the genius it takes to do this well, but it is truly a masterclass of good writing.
LOST's strong suits are aplenty - deep character development/background, good drama, decent mystery, suspenseful writing, and the fan-appeasement through easter eggs peppered throughout the episodes. This is one show where it's better to watch it live (e.g. week after week) rather than marathon it after it has finished its run - I recall being left in utter suspense after each cliffhanger ending, and googling for the fan theories and speculation.
The now-famous final shot of Season 1
Unfortunately, I (and many others) feel like it was probably too smart for its own good, and ran for 1-3 more seasons than it should have. I know many people who gave up on the show somewhere in seasons 3 or 4, as it was getting too confusing. I personally stuck with it through all 6 seasons, but I can't say I can confidently explain some of the plotlines involving the Dharma Initiative and whatnot.
Nevertheless, it still remained a fairly popular show through its 6 seasons, and ended with a reasonably satisfying ending (though it remains widely debated).
Prison Break uses a not-so-new idea (escaping from prison) but paints a very compelling story with it - a brilliant structural engineer tries to rescue his maligned brother who was on death row from prison. The strength in the show was its ability to build up suspense and tension and advance the plot purposefully with each episode. This is the kind of show which you don't want to stop watching, simply because of how intense the episode ends, it just makes you want to keep going.
[SPOILER ALERT]
I liked how the show transitioned from escaping from Prison (Season 1) to WHAT do you actually do after you escape (Season 2). A fairy tale ending of 'running away into the sunset' simply isn't believable, and I appreciate the realistic handling of this - the Fox River 8 becomes a national manhunt for the FBI. What I didn't like was how the show went full circle back to its 'prison break' roots in Season 3, with the new Panama season, and I think eventually the show began its decline from there.
I still loved the show - there was unmistakable tension and dramatic scenes still, but it just lost the kick and original appeal of the original premise. Also, the overall series didn't exactly have much character development, but that isn't really a big fault of the show.
[SPOILER ALERT END]
How about a show with good dialogue, strong character development, and good plot?
[Spoiler alert for Breaking Bad]
Breaking Bad is one such show - the introduction, growth, development, and decline of Walter White is Character Development 101 at its best. The gradual change is believable, strongly written, and seems almost inevitable, as Walter lets his pride slowly transform him into an anti-hero of sorts.
The show has the support of a few other strong characters - Jesse is brilliant as a problem 'teen' (not quite), who follows Walter in his character arc (His character was meant to be killed off in Season 1, but the showrunners decided to keep him after seeing how good the actor was).
The introduction of Gus was one of the show's golden eras - Giancarlo Esposito is an undisputed star of the show the moment he was introduced, with his polite, professional demeanor, masking his cold, steely personality, accentuated with his precise diction. He's one of my favourite TV villians, and the way the show ended him was fitting, well-written, and chilling (check out how he adjusts his tie just before he collapses). This scene was one of my favourites, not just because of Gus, but because of the performance of the silent Hector - the amazing portrayal of emotions purely through his eyes. Just watch the wheelchaired man's eyes go from sorrow, surrender, to resilience, anger, pure hatred.
[end of spoiler alert]
The point of this whole post was actually to talk about The Walking Dead. [spoilers ahead]
I started watching The Walking Dead recently, and just finished the third season. I wanted to find out why this show was such a big hit. Indeed, the first season was brilliant and intense - I was at the edge of my seat almost the whole time, and the episodes felt tightly written. However, the show began to take a strange swerve off course, spending an entire season in a farm and then an entire season in the prison.
The problem with the show was that each season felt like a different show. The theme / focus seemed to shift - from zombie-centric to character-centric to... I'm not even sure what. This problem was a real one - I realised it was because the show actually changed showrunner twice (for a total of 3 showrunners)
The show suffered when it chose to focus on unlikable characters (ugh, Andrea) and painting them as a central character when no one really cared about them and they were just plain annoying. That episode in Season 3 which was entirely a chase between the Governor and Andrea felt like an utter waste of time. The show is plagued with loopholes like the magical forest which can sometimes takes days but at other times take hours to travel, and somehow characters end up meeting each other in it. Also, characters often mention 'we are short on ammunition' but in a later scene expend a few bullets meaninglessly.
Zombies also became relegated for human drama, which is an understandable development (since humans probably get used to it and more mentally equipped to deal with zombies), but part of me wishes for the same zombie intensity as Season 1. Huge props to the make-up artist chief who designs all these zombies though, quite impressive how they think of new ways to present zombies, as well as new ways to kill them.
As for character development, Rick's narrative arc from a stoic, righteous leader of the group - to a battle-hardened, slightly mentally unhinged character, was moderately convincing (though some other critics thought otherwise). However, the character of Merle was managed horribly. From his original introduction as a racist blabbermouth bully, to his reintroduction as a more mellow, strategic expert in Season 3, the jump was simply not believable. To make it worse, the writers 'ended' the character in the most ridiculously lame way ever, in some kind of sudden self-vindication/redemption quest as he took on Governor himself in a poorly executed mission (why would you snipe random soldiers and give away your location, and not just take your first shot at the Governor?)
It seems like each character changes its arc every time a new showrunner took over, which sets up a very choppy viewing experience. I was originally considering giving up on the show, but after reading some online posts, I decided to give Season 4 a chance. Let's hope it gets better.
I was generally quite apathetic in the 2011 General Elections, but this time round I've been reading and watching some videos and articles with interest. I'm rather annoyed though by how several flawed styles of thinking keep resurfacing on my Facebook news feed.
I'm not here to debate issues - I'm neither sufficiently eloquent nor knowledgeable. I've just noticed three psychological errors that people commit this GE, and I'm here to call them out.
1) Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to seek out information that supports our personal beliefs, and ignore / overlook / discredit information that opposes our beliefs. This is RAMPANT all over my newsfeed. If I was to draw a comic that illustrated them, it would be someone plugging their fingers into their ears and they're going 'ngah ngah ngah ngah'.
I am right you are wrong no information you present will change my views ngah ngah ngah ngah.
To cite an example, a common criticism I've seen of the government is that 'They don't listen to the people'.
This post is flawed for other reasons, but let's just focus on the confirmation bias part.
But how true is that? Do the government just sit in their ivory towers and ignore the common populace? Let's just examine one case study.
How many of you have heard of the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS)? If you haven't, you can head over here to check it out.
To give you a flavor of what it is, it is a THREE-year long project (still ongoing) by the Ministry of Defence to improve the hotly debated and controversial issue of National Service (NS).
It consisted of a year long consultation period, in which there were focus groups, surveys, town hall sessions, website/Facebook interactions, dialogues within NS units, and more, all to gather feedback about NS from the population. What followed next is they took all these feedback, deliberated them, and put forth 30 recommendations that would improve many facets of NS, such as to improve identity & purpose, support & recognition, and administration & communication.
If this is not public consultation, or 'listening to the people', I don't know what is. This is just one ministry - I know for a fact that other ministries have been having regular public consultations (especially the social ones).
So the bottom line is, the government IS listening. Whether they get the solutions right is a different matter altogether, but you CAN'T say that they are not listening. Insisting that they don't listen is just holding fast to your confirmation bias and being an irrational human being.
Take your fingers out of your ears. Explore the alternatives. Are your beliefs really true?
2) Being Emotional Creatures
Jonathan Haidt, a renowned moral psychologist, once said (paraphrasing his argument): "People tend to rely on their emotions (or as he calls it, 'moral intuitions') rather than conscious reasoning to make moral judgments". You can read more about this in his article, 'The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail'.
Other than trying to sound smart by quoting a famous person, the point of quoting this is to say that apart from moral judgments, this rule seems to apply to politics too. Many people are letting their emotions rule them and lead them to weak conclusions. If they could be dispassionate for a second, they may realise that their conclusion/arguments aren't that great.
The above Facebook post I linked would be a great example in itself. The poster saw that it was pitiful and sad that the elderly had to work so hard, and concluded that the government was at fault and wasn't listening.
Another example would be the populist policies that some of my FB friends are supporting. Populism is basically pushing for policies that appeals to the interests of the general population (without considering the general feasibility of the policy).
E.g. A particular party promising $500 every month to both elderly and youths. Say what?
This works because it pushes emotional buttons in people, while offering simplistic solutions. Some examples:
Should the elderly be suffering, working 10 hours a day, collecting cardboard? NO! We pledge to implement minimum wage, and give them $300 a month in grants too! (Watch this video by DPM / Finance Minister Tharman to understand why this doesn't work)
Are you happy that the foreigners are taking our jobs and overcrowding our trains? NO! We should stop taking in foreigners! [throwback to confirmation bias - ignoring the fact that the govt has indeed tightened up on foreign labour intake]
The bottom line is this - there are no simple solutions to some of our biggest problems. If there were, the thousands of civil servants working on them would have thought of them. Every solution is a complex, multifaceted one, that will impact different groups of people in different ways. Let's not let our emotions rule us, and draw hasty conclusions, such as supporting simplistic solutions.
[ASIDE: I used to work in a policy department in a Ministry, so let me explain the general process of how a small policy change / proposal gets implemented/approved. A minion (me) would first draft an elaborate paper that considers the background, impetus for change, presents recommendations and why, all well-researched from many sources. This draft is then critiqued (i.e. heavily edited or discussed and changed) by the minion's boss. That next piece is then critiqued by the boss's boss, in preparation to present it at a forum (basically a meeting of leaders). That piece is then discussed at that forum, and either approved or endorsed to proceed to the next forum, depending on how big the issue is. It is not uncommon for a policy paper to go through 2-3 fora before it is approved. And I'm leaving out many details/steps such as consultations with other departments / agencies, public consultation, internal discussions, etc.
TLDR: There are many fora through which a policy paper has to pass through before it can be approved, to canvas a wide range of perspectives and views before a policy is passed.
So if you think that the government doesn't consider each policy carefully, you are horribly mistaken. End of ASIDE.]
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. An empty point.
I don't really have a third point, but people like things to come in threes, so I started off that way.
Here's a kitten to distract you from the abrupt ending of this post.
