- Facebook - post describing the challenge
- Twitter - congratulating/cheering on Jason Kaplan and Laura Pellow on their one year anniversary
- Twitter - replying to Jeff Cho explaining why I had been so quiet lately
- Twitter - post directed at those fear-mongering regarding Google's privacy policy update, warning that Microsoft had been doing it for awhile
- Google+ - initial impressions/findings of the challenge, and an apology for missing out on a hangout
- Google+ - shared the webpage for the Humble Bundle for Android, saying how without the ability to install apps from outside the app store iPhone users would never be able partake in this.
- Twitter - Message to the Trello team asking about a feature to be added (turns out they already planned on adding it)
This direct tweet made me question the category of tweets in different contexts. Unlike Google+ and Facebook, there is no dedicated channel for responses and even single target messages like the one to Trello act differently than a true share. So I polled Twitter about it, intending to delete the Trello tweet depending on the answer.
By that description, I guess I kinda broke the rules of the challenge; I ended up having two tweets that day. However, in the spirit of the challenge, only the poll went out to everyone so I consider it okay. From this point on though, reply tweets were deemed acceptable..@shawndrape Depends on the context, but I'd call it a comment.Tweet (SYN), comment (SYN-ACK), conversation (ACK). #TwitterTCP
— Jeff Cho (@gojeffcho) February 2, 2012 - Facebook - Post ranting about issues while turning on Timeline, which were eventually resolved. (private post)
- Google+ - A funny picture I'd found of a dog running through the snow. Also got to play with the "add text"/meme generator feature.
- Facebook - Shared that I formally quit Haidong Gumdo due to constraints on my time table. (private post)
- Twitter - post (fake) ranting about how our dog's fur ends up on everything
- Google+ - Shared a small pic of our dog cuddling one of his toys, wishing my circles a good weekend (private post)
- Google+ - minor venting post about setting up Glassfish server, and wondering if it is a good idea (private post; filtered to target only my technology and development contacts)
- (The lack of post on Valentines Day stands out to me for some reason)
- Google+ - post about Life is Crime, a mobile social game based around thug life at local buildings
Friday, February 17, 2012
30 Day Sharing Restriction Challenge Summary
Because it was a AQ (I'd like to put FAQ, but I'd be lying) here is a list of the posts I shared during the challenge:
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Blogging on the go
I wrote a blog yesterday with the Tumblr app and aside from the fact that it didn't share to Twitter I was very impressed with the experience.
So now I try with Blogger.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Targeted Sharing: Facebook vs. Google+
A friend of mine over on Twitter, @gojeffcho, has been auditing Google+ for the second time and asked me what I thought of it. My reply is below:
First, some background on the two mechanics and how I use them. In Facebook, there are what they call smart lists. They can be created around your networks (university or city), or around who you talk and interact with most frequently. They came out after the Google+ service and were touted as a better way for most people to organize their friends (the implication being that no one wanted to put people into circles). However, the lists in Facebook I have created are as follows: Close Friends, Family, Acquaintances, Alumni, Kingstonians (used mostly for when I am actually heading to Kingston), and then everyone else I assume is in one massive list called friends.
In Google+, I have two types of circles. I have circles which denote how close people are to me, for the purposes of restricting access to personal information. These are the circles which most closely relate to Facebook: Family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers. Then I have circles based on interest, which Facebook doesn't really have a mechanism for: Tech/Developers, Torontonians, Gamers, etc. These circles are the ones I use to filter myself for the benefit of my followers.
The fact that Google+'s circles allow me to target my posts not only by familiarity but also by interest speaks to the flexibility that I mentioned above. It means that I can post my tech questions and opinions to that group without boring my family, and I can post hilarious pictures of the dog to the family without boring, well, everyone else on the planet. I have no issues with other people seeing the content, but I prefer to focus content towards them that they will appreciate. I also make sure to keep enough content public so that people I haven't filtered yet (or I haven't followed back yet) get a taste for my interests.
I anticipate two counter-points to my above arguments. One, that Facebook lists allow me to target based on content just as well as Google+ does. While this is true, there are two things that Google+ has over Facebook in this regard that make Google+ a better system for it. Namely, the ability to modify circles for any person any time their name appears in a post or on a comment and the ability to search through the system based on interest. The second counter-point is that Google+ circles don't do a very good job of filtering content since a follower can't choose the content they want (onus is on the creator).
To the second point, I must concede. It's not a perfect system by any stretch. However, I feel based on my current usage that it is both enough for my current needs and has the potential to expand further in that service. I don't feel that Facebook is even interested in raising the bar of content filtering given their preference that everyone share everything as openly as possible.
Those are my main reasons for preferring Google+'s method of targeted sharing, and that doesn't even get into my tertiary reason for using the system: being able to send e-mails with comments and pictures from Google+ to those who aren't using the system. If you have any comments or critiques, I look forward to hearing them.
@gojeffcho My reason for being attached to G+ is I like targeted sharing, and I like Google's philosophy towards passive sharing in search.However, as Jeff pointed out, Facebook also has targeted sharing so I felt the need to classify why I prefer one system of sharing over the other. I believe that circles on Google+ better allow me to control who can and should see my content than Facebook, and that Google+ circles are more versatile and flexible as a mechanic. I'll expand more below.
— Shawn Drape (@shawndrape) January 10, 2012
First, some background on the two mechanics and how I use them. In Facebook, there are what they call smart lists. They can be created around your networks (university or city), or around who you talk and interact with most frequently. They came out after the Google+ service and were touted as a better way for most people to organize their friends (the implication being that no one wanted to put people into circles). However, the lists in Facebook I have created are as follows: Close Friends, Family, Acquaintances, Alumni, Kingstonians (used mostly for when I am actually heading to Kingston), and then everyone else I assume is in one massive list called friends.
In Google+, I have two types of circles. I have circles which denote how close people are to me, for the purposes of restricting access to personal information. These are the circles which most closely relate to Facebook: Family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers. Then I have circles based on interest, which Facebook doesn't really have a mechanism for: Tech/Developers, Torontonians, Gamers, etc. These circles are the ones I use to filter myself for the benefit of my followers.
The fact that Google+'s circles allow me to target my posts not only by familiarity but also by interest speaks to the flexibility that I mentioned above. It means that I can post my tech questions and opinions to that group without boring my family, and I can post hilarious pictures of the dog to the family without boring, well, everyone else on the planet. I have no issues with other people seeing the content, but I prefer to focus content towards them that they will appreciate. I also make sure to keep enough content public so that people I haven't filtered yet (or I haven't followed back yet) get a taste for my interests.
I anticipate two counter-points to my above arguments. One, that Facebook lists allow me to target based on content just as well as Google+ does. While this is true, there are two things that Google+ has over Facebook in this regard that make Google+ a better system for it. Namely, the ability to modify circles for any person any time their name appears in a post or on a comment and the ability to search through the system based on interest. The second counter-point is that Google+ circles don't do a very good job of filtering content since a follower can't choose the content they want (onus is on the creator).
To the second point, I must concede. It's not a perfect system by any stretch. However, I feel based on my current usage that it is both enough for my current needs and has the potential to expand further in that service. I don't feel that Facebook is even interested in raising the bar of content filtering given their preference that everyone share everything as openly as possible.
Those are my main reasons for preferring Google+'s method of targeted sharing, and that doesn't even get into my tertiary reason for using the system: being able to send e-mails with comments and pictures from Google+ to those who aren't using the system. If you have any comments or critiques, I look forward to hearing them.
A better kind of nutrition point system
Over the past two months I’ve been brainstorming ideas for startups. I’m increasingly anxious to get some of my work out into the public eye so I can really get a feel for what caliber of programmer I am.
One of those ideas is loosely based on Fitocracy, an application which uses game mechanics to encourage efficient workouts. It’s a winner because while few people know which exercises are better than others anyone can look at a points total and see how the exercises they chose measure up against someone else’s. I figured if someone can make it that easy to see which exercises you can do then there is a niche for someone to come along and do the same thing to show which food is better than others.
The goal of this system would be healthy eating as opposed to weight loss and would assign higher point values for healthier foods. The methodology of diet plans which use points like a cost is flawed. Why? People don’t like to spend things but we love to collect them: especially points!
The unique position such a service would be in would allow calculations based on what else you have eaten that day, week and month as well. Been having too much sugar from juice, for example? We can give you point penalties based on the combination of food you’ve been eating. Have you eaten a lot of really good food recently? We can reward you with badges and recognition from your friends.
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention friends? That’s another thing that traditional nutrition systems don’t take into consideration. Keeping your friends in the loop to the general status of your eating habits can let them congratulate you, or serve as a warning ;)
Obviously there is a lot to flesh out and a lit of work to be done getting proper information on food. I’m still amazed at how much work the Fitocracy team goes through to get the numbers crunched for any given exercise. But I’d still love to do it and I think it’s about time I stopped wishing.
One of those ideas is loosely based on Fitocracy, an application which uses game mechanics to encourage efficient workouts. It’s a winner because while few people know which exercises are better than others anyone can look at a points total and see how the exercises they chose measure up against someone else’s. I figured if someone can make it that easy to see which exercises you can do then there is a niche for someone to come along and do the same thing to show which food is better than others.
The goal of this system would be healthy eating as opposed to weight loss and would assign higher point values for healthier foods. The methodology of diet plans which use points like a cost is flawed. Why? People don’t like to spend things but we love to collect them: especially points!
The unique position such a service would be in would allow calculations based on what else you have eaten that day, week and month as well. Been having too much sugar from juice, for example? We can give you point penalties based on the combination of food you’ve been eating. Have you eaten a lot of really good food recently? We can reward you with badges and recognition from your friends.
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention friends? That’s another thing that traditional nutrition systems don’t take into consideration. Keeping your friends in the loop to the general status of your eating habits can let them congratulate you, or serve as a warning ;)
Obviously there is a lot to flesh out and a lit of work to be done getting proper information on food. I’m still amazed at how much work the Fitocracy team goes through to get the numbers crunched for any given exercise. But I’d still love to do it and I think it’s about time I stopped wishing.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
A re-introduction
I spent some time fiddling around with a personal blog on tumblr (shawndrape.tumblr.com) but due to conflicts with another blog (which I may move over here as well) being labeled as the primary blog on their system it created come conflicts and issues that I just didn't want to deal with.
To be completely honest, I had forgotten about this blog that I started waaaay back when. I don't have many thoughts here, but I think I can put up a couple more pretty quickly within the next few weeks. I have been having many long discussions with @gojeffcho and @jasonpkaplan on Twitter about the quality of recent Zelda games (namely, Skyward Sword) compared to the older ones. As a result, I'll have material for a review/opinion piece on Skyward Sword AND Ocarina of Time to share before too long.
Otherwise, I'm just going to see where this goes. ;D
To be completely honest, I had forgotten about this blog that I started waaaay back when. I don't have many thoughts here, but I think I can put up a couple more pretty quickly within the next few weeks. I have been having many long discussions with @gojeffcho and @jasonpkaplan on Twitter about the quality of recent Zelda games (namely, Skyward Sword) compared to the older ones. As a result, I'll have material for a review/opinion piece on Skyward Sword AND Ocarina of Time to share before too long.
Otherwise, I'm just going to see where this goes. ;D
Thursday, August 26, 2010
News of Apple's recent patent regarding spying on phone users has made me give some thought to hardware security and access rights. So!Food for thought: OAuth for hardware controllers. On the iPhone it already exists for the location services in one form: Apps need to be granted access once, and web apps need to be granted each time (within a 24h gap I believe). However, I think that we should be able to give web clients continual access to hardware via permanent yet revocable authorization. What does that sound like to you?
Furthermore, I think things like this should be extended to other hardware features such as the camera and vibrate functions. What it would take would be (from my completely ignorant point of view) a central "API" access point for phones of a given type that could be given to web clients to allow access to hardware features if properly signed.
For example, I'll take RIM since blackberry phones are fairly tied to the RIM network. If I want to get access to John Doe's phone, I should be able to request a secret and consumer key from him for a particular feature and then sign requests to rimissohawt.com/phone/api to get access.
Thoughts? (Linda Lawrey says I should always spiff my posts up if they are long, so here is a funny image for your enjoyment. I like Androids, but I like the Chrome error icon more.)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Days 2 & 3: At least I read a book!
Day 2
Day two would have been a success of my goals were it not for the deployment I had to do. I ended up starting the deployment a bit earlier than anticipated, and got it done by the time 11 PM rolled around. However, instead of trying to meet the "Sleep at 11PM" goal, I decided to meet the "No computer for an hour before bed" goal. So I stayed up until midnight reading a junk novel that I had picked up earlier this year since it was on sale and I was in the store for Objective-C books anyways. I woke up at the alarming time of 8:19 AM however, so I don't think the trade-off was a good one.
Summary: 1/3 goals met, didn't regress.
Day 3
After coming back home early and getting caught in the rain I left early to avoid (btw, I think meteorologists use the term "thunder showers" way too liberally these days) I collapsed to watch TV and cook a small dinner before heading out to my gumdo session.
Tangent: The martial art Haidong Gumdo is a swordsmanship martial art from Korea that I picked up during my first year of university. As a martial art, I find that it puts more emphasis on fluidity of motion and the sound of a sword whistling through the air as you dance around opponents is breathtaking. Anyone interested should take a look here and find out if there is a practicing dojang near them.
Because of the session running from 9 PM to 10 PM, I didn't get home until about 10:30 and was restless up until 11 PM. However, I did manage to get to bed at 11! =D
Unfortunately, I still didn't wake up on my own before my alarm, so I was unable to meet all three goals.
Summary: 2/3 goals met
Addendum
Since I was able to get to bed by 11 PM but still didn't get up before the alarm, I will be moving the target bedtime up by 15 minutes to 10:45 PM. Each night I am able to get to bed by the target time but can't wake up before the alarm, I move up the bedtime. This is so that I can get an idea of when my ideal sleep cycle should begin and end. Here's hoping I don't have to move it up too far!
Day two would have been a success of my goals were it not for the deployment I had to do. I ended up starting the deployment a bit earlier than anticipated, and got it done by the time 11 PM rolled around. However, instead of trying to meet the "Sleep at 11PM" goal, I decided to meet the "No computer for an hour before bed" goal. So I stayed up until midnight reading a junk novel that I had picked up earlier this year since it was on sale and I was in the store for Objective-C books anyways. I woke up at the alarming time of 8:19 AM however, so I don't think the trade-off was a good one.
Summary: 1/3 goals met, didn't regress.
Day 3
After coming back home early and getting caught in the rain I left early to avoid (btw, I think meteorologists use the term "thunder showers" way too liberally these days) I collapsed to watch TV and cook a small dinner before heading out to my gumdo session.
Tangent: The martial art Haidong Gumdo is a swordsmanship martial art from Korea that I picked up during my first year of university. As a martial art, I find that it puts more emphasis on fluidity of motion and the sound of a sword whistling through the air as you dance around opponents is breathtaking. Anyone interested should take a look here and find out if there is a practicing dojang near them.
Because of the session running from 9 PM to 10 PM, I didn't get home until about 10:30 and was restless up until 11 PM. However, I did manage to get to bed at 11! =D
Unfortunately, I still didn't wake up on my own before my alarm, so I was unable to meet all three goals.
Summary: 2/3 goals met
Addendum
Since I was able to get to bed by 11 PM but still didn't get up before the alarm, I will be moving the target bedtime up by 15 minutes to 10:45 PM. Each night I am able to get to bed by the target time but can't wake up before the alarm, I move up the bedtime. This is so that I can get an idea of when my ideal sleep cycle should begin and end. Here's hoping I don't have to move it up too far!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)