Baru setengah tahun di 2014, udah ada aja rencana di 2015. Yes, yes, yes. Gw setting target pengen ke Turkey (terutama Istanbul dan Cappadocia).
Liat-liat gambar kota Istanbul di internet aja sudah nyengir dan bahagia. Gimana kalau bisa liat beneran ya? Sebenarnya kalau dengan pasangan bisa lebih romantis dah ya. Namun Istanbul ini ga terlarang buat tujuan traveling saat masih single. Bahkan solo traveling pun gw rela, saking ngebetnya. Seriously, Istanbul tuh vibesnya keren banget. Mulai dari nuansa Eropa-Asia, West-East, terus sejarahnya juga luar biasanya. Nanti deh gw tulis kenapa Istanbul must be in our list kalau traveling. Sekarang liat gambar magic ini dulu.
As these days, I am falling in love with photography using my beloved iPhone 5S, I tried to capture some beautiful creatures. At first I didn’t know at all what are exposure, shadow, light, and other aspects used in photography techniques. I am just an ordinary person who likes seeing amazing pictures in his Instagram account. Beautiful photos attract me, the one who never likes drawing or designing a thing. Clearly I remember how I hate a subject in my high school era, “Gambar Teknik” or subject related to draw using ruler, compass circle, and graphics thingy. It was hard. Really. It end up with my avoidance in using Auto Cad, Photoshop, Corel Draw, and other software. However, strangely I am more interested in the result of creativity of simple and elegant designs. As I try to feel the vibes and meaning of every photos, the willing to create the same amazing, elegant, and wonderful photos becomes stronger.
At first, I consider to buy a new camera for beginner level to boost my consistency. Naturally, if I have a camera, I have no reason to let my passion go, to keep my commitment. But, now is not the right moment; Too much expense for this month. Sigh. One solution that I have is employing my only Smartphone. Here I go, using my iPhone taking pictures wherever and whenever I go around. So, a new camera is not required. Pass. The problem is solved.
Internet is indeed helpful.
As internet is growing faster, many photographers stop bringing their heavy and huge camera and just using a smartphone. Fortunately, iPhone 5S is one of the best phones available in the market now with its 8MP camera. Many tutorials are provided to take a great picture and then modify or design it. The easiness is also coming by available software in app store. You can choose one or two even ten software and install it in your phone. Simple and useful. I just need two days (but honestly it many only needs some hours to learn it if you want learn all tips and tricks). I prefer learning it step to step because of my working activity (truthfully, I have no free time). I believe practice makes perfect. So, I just learn it partially, go to the software, download, install, and try it. Here are some photos taken by me. Well, it is still not really good but I have tried. Feel free to criticize my photos and sharing some advice. ^^ Cheers!
Welcome back! As I have been admiring Apple for its great devices, platforms, and services, I would like to re-post the article from here by JOHN GRUBER. Credits to him, of course! For a moment I also wonder how Apple runs without Steve Jobs, how its product will be, will it be as great as before? Those questions stick in my head as Apple’s fan boy. It’s normal since it was like Jobs is Apple and vice versa. Gruber explains in detail way (as I think it is quite detail) how Cook is actually running Apple in good or even better nowadays. So, here it is.
“Only Apple” has been Tim Cook’s closing mantra for the last few Apple keynotes. Here’s what he said at the end of last week’s WWDC keynote:
You’ve seen how our operating systems, devices, and services, all work together in harmony. Together they provide an integrated and continuous experience across all of our products, and you’ve seen how developers can extend their experience further than they’ve ever done before and how they can create powerful apps even faster and more easily than they’ve ever been able to.
Apple engineers platforms, devices, and services together. We do this so that we can create a seamless experience for our users that is unparalleled in the industry. This is something only Apple can do. You’ve seen a few people on stage this morning, but there are thousands of people that made today possible.
Is this true, though? Is Apple the only company that can do this? I think it’s inarguable that they’re the only company that is doing it, but Cook is saying they’re the only company that can.
I’ve been thinking about this for two weeks. Who else is even a maybe? I’d say it’s a short list: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Samsung. And I’d divide that short list into halves — the close maybes (Microsoft and Google) and the not-so-close maybes (Amazon and Samsung).
Samsung makes and sells a ton of devices, but they don’t control any developer platform to speak of. They’re trying with Tizen, but that hasn’t taken off yet. So their phones and tablets run Android, their notebooks run Windows or Chrome OS, and there’s no integration layer connecting all the other stuff they make (TVs, refrigerators, whatever). I think Tizen exists because Samsung sees the competitive disadvantage they’re in by not controlling their software platforms, but they’re nowhere close to having something that helps them in this regard.
Amazon sells devices (including soon, purportedly, phones) and certainly understands cloud services and the integration of features under your Amazon identity. But their aims, thus far, are narrow. Amazon devices really are just about media consumption — books, movies, TV shows — and shopping from Amazon. They don’t make PCs, so compared to Apple and the growing integration between Macs and iOS devices, Amazon isn’t even in the game. And with their reliance on Android (forked version or not), they don’t have anywhere near the control over their software platforms that Apple does.
Google has all three: platforms, devices, and services. But the devices that are running their platforms are largely outside their control. They sell “pure Google” Nexus devices, but those devices haven’t made much of a dent in the market. Google’s mindset a decade ago was centered around web apps running in browsers. Google didn’t need its own platform because every PC had a browser and people would use those browsers to do everything Google provided in browser tabs. That meta-platform approach has limits, though, particularly when it comes to post-PC devices. Their stated reason for buying Android wasn’t because they wanted to design and control the post-PC device experience, but because they wanted an open mobile platform on which their web services could not be locked out.
Google’s aspirations for seamlessness largely, if not entirely, revolve around Google’s own apps and services. They’ve long offered tab sharing between Chrome on multiple devices — a cool feature, much in line with the Continuity features Apple debuted at WWDC. But if Google did something similar for email, it would only work with Gmail. Gmail on your phone to Gmail in a tab in Chrome on your PC. (On the other hand, Google’s solution would likely work from Gmail on your iPhone too; Apple (Beats excepted) offers bupkis for Android users.)
That leaves Microsoft. Here’s a tweet I wrote during the keynote, 20 minutes before Cook’s wrap-up:
Microsoft: one OS for all devices.
Apple: one continuous experience across all devices.
That tweet was massively popular,1 but I missed a word: across allApple devices. Microsoft and Google are the ones who are more similarly focused. Microsoft wants you to run Windows on all your devices, from phones to tablets to PCs. Google wants you signed into Google services on all your devices, from phones to tablets to PCs.
Apple wants you to buy iPhones, iPads, and Macs. And if you don’t, you’re out in the cold.2
Apple, Google, and Microsoft each offer all three things: devices, services, and platforms. But each has a different starting point. With Apple it’s the device. With Microsoft it’s the platform. With Google it’s the services.
And thus all three companies can brag about things that only they can achieve. What Cook is arguing, and which I would say last week’s WWDC exemplified more so than at any point since the original iPhone in 2007, is that there are more advantages to Apple’s approach.
Or, better put, there are potentially more advantages to Apple’s approach, and Tim Cook seems maniacally focused on tapping into that potential.
Apple’s device-centric approach provides them with control. There’s a long-standing and perhaps everlasting belief in the computer industry that hardware is destined for commoditization. At their cores, Microsoft and Google were founded on that belief — and they succeeded handsomely. Microsoft’s Windows empire was built atop commodity PC hardware. Google’s search empire was built atop web browsers running on any and all computers. (Google also made a huge bet on commodity hardware for their incredible back-end infrastructure. Google’s infrastructure is both massive and massively redundant — thousands and thousands of cheap hardware servers running custom software designed such that failure of individual machines is completely expected.)
This is probably the central axiom of the Church of Market Share — if hardware is destined for commoditization, then the only thing that matters is maximizing the share of devices running your OS (Microsoft) or using your online services (Google).
The entirety of Apple’s post-NeXT reunification success has been in defiance of that belief — that commoditization is inevitable, but won’t necessarily consume the entire market. It started with the iMac, and the notion that the design of computer hardware mattered. It carried through to the iPod, which faced predictions of imminent decline in the face ofcommodity music players all the way until it was cannibalized by the iPhone.
Apple suffered when they could not operate at large scale. When you go your own way, you need a critical mass to maintain momentum, to stay ahead of the commodity horde. To pick just one example: CPUs. Prior to the Mac’s switch to Intel processors in 2006, Macs were generally more expensive and slower than the Windows PCs they were competing against. There weren’t enough Macs being sold to keep Motorola or IBM interested in keeping the PowerPC competitive, and Apple didn’t have the means to do it itself. Compare that to today, where Apple can design its own custom SoC CPUs — which perform better than the commodity chips used by their competitors. That’s because Apple sells hundreds of millions of iOS devices per year. Apple’s commitment to making its own hardware provided necessary distinction while the company was relatively small. Now that the company is huge, it still provides them with distinction, but now also an enormous competitive edge that cannot be copied. You can copy Apple’s strategy, but you can’t copy their scale.
Microsoft and Google have enormous market share, but neither has control over the devices on which their platforms run. Samsung and Amazon control their own devices, but neither controls their OS at a fundamental level.
Microsoft and Google can’t force OEMs to make better computers and devices, to stop junking them up with unwanted add-ons. Apple, on the other hand, can force anything it can achieve into devices. Apple wants to go 64-bit on ARM? Apple can do it alone.
Let’s take a step back and consider Apple’s operational prowess. In their most recent holiday quarter, they sold 51 million iPhones and 26 million iPads. In and of itself that’s an operational achievement. But further complicating the logistical complexity: the best selling devices (iPhone 5S and 5C, iPad Air and the iPad Mini with Retina Display) had only just been released that quarter. iOS device sales skew toward the high-end, not the low end, because they’re not commodities. Brand new devices sold in record numbers. The single best selling and most important device was the iPhone 5S, with an all-new fingerprint sensor and camera. A secure enclave for the fingerprint data. Brand-new Apple-designed A7 processors — the first in the industry to go 64-bit. No one else is making 64-bit mobile CPUs and Apple sold tens of millions of them immediately. There are very few standard parts in these devices. Consider too that Apple has no way of knowing in advance which devices — and which colors of those devices — will prove the most popular.
But the whole quarter went off, operationally, pretty much without a hitch. Record unit sale numbers with fewer product shortages and delays than ever before. No one’s perfect — remember the white iPhone 4, which wasannounced in June 2010 but didn’t go on sale until April 2011? — but Apple is very, very good, and has been throughout the entire post-NeXT era.
Everyone knows that Tim Cook deserves credit for this operational success. Manufacturing, procurement, shipping, distribution, high profit margins — these are things we’ve long known Tim Cook excels at managing.
As the Cook era as Apple’s CEO unfolds, what we’re seeing is something we didn’t know, and I think few expected. Something I never even considered:
Tim Cook is improving Apple’s internal operational efficiency.
It has long been axiomatic that Apple is not the sort of company that could walk and chew gum at the same time. In 2007, they issued a (very Steve Jobs-sounding) press release that stated Mac OS X Leopard would be delayed five months because the iPhone consumed too many resources:
However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price — we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned.
In response, Daniel Jalkut wrote:
The best we can hope for is that it is only sleazy marketing bullshit. Because if what Apple’s telling us is true, then they’ve confessed something tragic: they’re incapable of building more than one amazing product at a time. The iPhone looks like it will be an amazing product, but if Apple can’t keep an OS team focused and operational at the same time as they keep a cell phone team hacking away, then the company is destined for extremely rough waters as it attempts to expand the scope of its product line.
Or consider the October 2010 “Back to the Mac” event, the entire point of which was to announce features and apps for the Mac that had started life on iOS years earlier.
That seems like ancient history, given the magnitude of the updates shown last week in both OS X Yosemite and iOS 8. All the things that make sense for both OS X and iOS are appearing together, this year, on both platforms. Everything from user-facing features like Extensions and Continuity to Swift, the new programming language. This requires more engineers working together across the company.
The same maestro who was able to coordinate the procurement, assembly, production, and shipment of 76 million all-new iPhones and iPads in one quarter has brought those operational instincts and unquenchable thirst for efficiency to coordinating a Cupertino that can produce major new releases of both iOS and OS X, with new features requiring cooperation and openness, in one year. They’re doing more not by changing their thousand-no’s-for-every-yes ratio, but by upping their capacity.
The turning point is clear. The headline of Apple’s October 2012 press release said it all: “Apple Announces Changes to Increase Collaboration Across Hardware, Software and Services”. It turns out that was not an empty bromide, meant to patch over run-of-the-mill corporate political conflict. Tim Cook wanted Apple to function internally in a way that was anathema to Scott Forstall’s leadership style. The old way involved fiefdoms, and Forstall’s fiefdom was iOS. The operational efficiency Cook wanted — and now seems to have achieved — wasn’t possible without large scale company-wide collaboration, and collaboration wasn’t possible with a fiefdom style of organization.
That also happens to be the same press release in which Apple announced the ouster of retail chief John Browett, whose ill-fated stint at the company lasted just a few short months. Browett is a footnote in Apple history, but I think an important one. Apple hired him from Dixon’s, a U.K. electronics retailer akin to Best Buy here in the U.S. In short, a nickel-and-dime operation where the customer experience is not the top priority. Browett thus struck many as a curious choice for the head of Apple retail.
Browett’s hiring and the resulting failure of his tenure at Apple raised a legitimate fear: that this was a sign of things to come. This — penny-pinching and prioritizing the bottom line, losing sight of excellence in the eyes of the customer as the primary purpose of the Apple Stores — this, is what happens when the “operations guy” takes over the helm.
Ends up, we should have no such worries. My guess is that it’s as simple as Cook having thought that there were operational improvements to be had in retail, and so he hired an operationally minded retail executive. He didn’t understand then what Angela Ahrendts’s hiring shows that he clearly does understand now: that Apple’s retail stores need to be treated much like Apple’s products themselves, and thus require the same style of leadership.
During the keynote last week, John Siracusa referenced The Godfather,quipping:
Today Tim settles all family business.
I’d say it’s more that Cook settled the family business back in October 2012. Last week’s keynote was when we, on the outside, finally saw the results. Apple today is firing on all cylinders. That’s a cliché but an apt one. Cook saw untapped potential in a company hampered by silos.
When Cook succeeded Jobs, the question we all asked was more or less binary: Would Apple decline without Steve Jobs? What seems to have gone largely unconsidered is whether Apple would thrive with Cook at the helm, achieving things the company wasn’t able to do under the leadership of the autocratic and mercurial Jobs.3
Jobs was a great CEO for leading Apple to become big. But Cook is a great CEO for leading Apple now that it is big, to allow the company to take advantage of its size and success. Matt Drance said it, and so will I:What we saw last week at WWDC 2014 would not have happened under Steve Jobs.
This is not to say Apple is better off without Steve Jobs. But I do think it’s becoming clear that the company, today, might be better off with Tim Cook as CEO. If Jobs were still with us, his ideal role today might be that of an éminence grise, muse and partner to Jony Ive in the design of new products, and of course public presenter extraordinaire. Chairman of the board, with Cook as CEO, running the company much as he actually is today.
This is what only Apple can do:
Software updates that are free of charge and so easily installed that the majority of iOS and Mac users are running the latest versions of the OSes (a supermajority in the case of iOS). Apple can release new features and expect most users to have them within a year — and third-party developers can count on the same thing.
Hardware that is designed hand-in-hand with the software, giving us things like the iPhone 5S fingerprint scanner and the secure enclave, which requires support from both the operating system and the SoC at the lowest levels. And now Metal — custom graphic APIs designed specifically and solely for Apple’s own GPUs. A custom graphic API to replace an industry standard like OpenGL would have been a hard sell for Apple a decade ago, because the Mac market was so relatively small. Microsoft could do it (with DirectX) because of the size of the Windows gaming market. Now, with iOS, Apple already has the makers of four popular gaming engines on board with Metal.
Tim Cook has stated publicly that new products are in the pipeline, and he seems confident regarding them (as do other Apple executives). We can’t judge them yet, but consider this: Recall again that in 2007 Apple was forced to admit publicly that they had to pull engineering, design, and QA resources from the Mac in order to ship the iPhone. This year, new products are coming and but iOS and Mac development not only did not halt or slow, it sped up. In recent years, the company grew from being bad at walking and chewing gum to being OK at it, and most of us thought, “Finally”. But that wasn’t the end of the progression. Apple has proceeded from being OK at walking and chewing gum to being good at it. Thus the collective reaction to last week’s keynote: “Whoa.”
And the whole combination — hardware, software, services — is gearing up in a way that it seems to be just waiting for additional products to join them. The iPhone in 2007 was connected to the Mac only through iTunes, a USB cable, and a manual “Sync” button. Part of what made the iPhone a surprise in 2007 is that Apple clearly was in no position to add a new platform that harmonized seamlessly with Mac OS X. Today, they are.
Last week generated much talk of this being a “New Apple”. Something tangible has changed, but I don’t see it in terms of old/new. As Eddy Cue told Walt Mossberg two weeks ago, there was a transition, not a reset.
There is an Old Apple and a New Apple, but the division between them — the one actual reset — was 1997, with the reunification with NeXT. Old Apple was everything prior. New Apple is everything since.
New Apple didn’t need a reset. New Apple needed to grow up. To stop behaving like an insular underdog on the margins and start acting like the industry leader and cultural force it so clearly has become.
Apple has never been more successful, powerful, and influential than it is today. They’ve thus never been in a better position to succumb to their worst instincts and act imperiously and capriciously.
Instead, they’ve begun to act more magnanimously. They’ve given third-party developers more of what we have been asking for than ever before, including things we never thought they’d do. Panic’s Cabel Sasser tweeted:
My 2¢: for the past few years it’s felt like Apple’s only goal was to put us in our place. Now it feels like they might want to be friends.
It’s downright thrilling that this is coming from Apple in a position of strength, not weakness. I’m impressed not just by what Apple can do, but by what it wants to do.
Jeng jeng jeng.. Gw terlibat diskusi facebook tentang menkominfo dan PKS. Hahay. Maklum ini menteri emang banyak kontroversialnya. Emang sisi kontroversi akan lebih banyak digunjingkan daripada sisi prestasinya. Kali ini masalah vimeo yang ga bisa diakses dari Indonesia. Akibatnya banyak para pekerja IT yang kehilangan (atau berkurang) mata pencahariannya, project terhambat, dan lain sebagainya dengan indikasi negatif. Honestly gw bukan pengguna vimeo jadi gw ga pernah tau contents apa aja terus gimana manfaatnya, bla bla bla. Intinya gw orang awam dalam melihat permasalahan ini.
Dari sekian banyak orang yang membahas tentang pemblokiran situs vimeo, ada dua orang yang gw pikir cukup berpendidikan (secara pake gelar S2 dari luar negeri lagi) tapi nulis status FB nya kok begitu. Yang 1 nulis kayak uneducated people, yang 1 syukurnya biasa aja. Letak persoalannya simple, vimeo diblokir, yang disalahkan menteri dan partai si menteri. Karena katanya pas periode menteri sebelumnya ga ada tuh blokir-blokiran website kayak sekarang. Does it make sense? Make sense sih, secara menteri kan pimpinan tertinggi di kementeriannya. Apa-apa yang jadi kesalahan kementerian ya salah si menteri. Lalu kenapa partainya juga diseret-seret? Ya kan si menteri dari partai itu. Jadi ya partainya salah. Ok. Well-said, di negara gw emang paling gampang men-generalisasi berbagai hal. Mari gw kasih contoh yang menurut gw logikanya sama.
Warga negara asing dari negara A tinggal di Indonesia sejak tahun 2000 sampai 2004. Disini Indonesia diperintah oleh dua presiden yang berbeda. Lalu si WNA ini terkena musibah kecelakan atau apalah yang yang merugikan WNA. Apa lalu disebut ini gara-gara presidennya? Terus apa wajar kalau negara A ini lalu bilang ini karena presidennya? Lalu bilang orang indonesia itu ga ramah? Lalu mengecap semua orang Indonesia jahat? Mungkin contohnya lebay ya namun agak mirip ya. Kenyataannya memang akan sulit jika terlibat dalam sebuah sistem. Bayangkan aja, mungkin ada bagian khusus yang menangani pemblokiran situs, lalu ada kepalanya, pimpinan bidangnya, dll, sebenarnya agak kurang tepat jika langsung menjudge ke menterinya. Tapi ya sulit, it’s a culture. Sama seperti negara-negara timur lain, yang jika ada apa-apa maka menterinya akan mengundurkan diri. Kalau di Indonesia, masalah vimeo ini aja bisa membuat menteri dihujat habis-habisan. Fyuh.
Dari diskusi gw di facebook tsb, yang punya status lalu menyarankan agar menterinya dari kalangan professional saja. Nah ternyata menteri periode sebelumnya berasal dari kalangan professional (non partai) bahkan dari akademisi (mantan rektor salah satu kampus besar). Usut punya usut, gw mencari laporan singkat perbandingan kinerja kementerian ketika dipimpin dua menteri yang berbeda. Tujuannya jelas, apa iya professional dan orang non partai efeknya siginifikan? Menurut gw, asal orangnya tepat, mau orang partai atau bukan, ga akan jadi masalah. Namun apa daya, gw ga menemukan laporannya. Padahal gw yakin pasti presiden atau staf dibawahnya punya laporan ini. Namun entah mengapa laporan ini ga ada yang sederhana sehingga mudah dipahami oleh masyarakat. To make it clear, gw belum nemu laporannya. Asumsi gw laporan itu ada tapi pasti tebal kayak buku. Please correct me if I am wrong, yang meng-assess menteri dan kementerian itu presiden kan? Bukan DPR?
Dari proses pencarian data yang hasilnya nihil, gw menyarankan agar pemerintah membuat website yang bersifat umum dan bisa menampilkan hasil penilaian kinerja kementerian dan menterinya setiap tahun. Ga apa lah kalau ganti presiden atau bahkan kementeriannya dihapuskan, tapi laporan ini harus tetap ada. Ribet ya sistemnya karena emang menteri ini semau-maunya presiden. Begitupun dengan pembentukan kementerian. Kebayang juga budget yang dikeluarkan untuk merombak kementerian jika nama dan status kementeriannya berubah setiap akhir pemilu. Yang membuat gw penasaran, masa iya ga ada bukti tertulis tentang kinerja kementerian? Hasil evaluasi ini kan sangat berguna untuk langkah ke depan. Semoga ada ya. Kalau ada bisa give it to me. Penasaran pengen baca ^^ Mari berdoa semoga negara gw bisa lebih baik lagi ke depannya. Aamiin.
I founded this article was good enough to explain why people are hating without reason. The original link could be founded here. Credits to writer and publisher (the article is not mine, though) as I keep the same title as original.
There’s only one way to avoid any and all criticism: say nothing and do nothing. If you aren’t coming across any critics, you’re probably not headed in the right direction.”
This doesn’t mean that progress is always met with constant friction. Any worthwhile work will elicit criticism (and it should, thoughtful input makes us better). But there is research that suggests that some critics are harsh by nature, not because of what they see in the creation they are criticizing. In other words, some people really are “haters,” or have a natural disposition to focus on flaws alone.
In a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers examined predispositions towards topics that subjects knew nothing about.
They found a reliable trend in the responses of certain participants. Despite being asked about a myriad of unconnected topics—and asked again about new topics at a later date, to confirm they weren’t just in a bad mood—they found two abnormal groups who they classified as “likers” and “haters.” The “likers” tended to rate most things positively with zero external information, and the haters… well, you know where this is going. From the study:
So someone’s attitude toward architecture may in fact tell us something about their attitude toward health care because both attitudes would be biased by a disposition to like or dislike stimuli.
The “dispositional attitude” of certain participants had the very real effect of influencing an opinion about things they knew nothing about. They ended up hating (or liking) things for absolutely no reason. This is incredibly important to be reminded of because it paints a very clear picture: no matter what you create, a small group of people will hate it, often without reason.
Talk to anyone with any publishing experience online and they’ll tell you: putting your work online means preparing for a slew of vitriolic, bitter comments that people would never dare say in person. The question is, why do people seem to act this way online?
“It paints a very clear picture: no matter what you create, a small group of people will hate it, often without reason.”
Psychologist John Suler proposed what is perhaps the best known analysis of the phenomenon in the Online Disinhibition Effect. It lists six primary factors as to why we may treat others differently online than we do in person:
- You don’t know me. Anonymity protects the critics “real life” reputation and shields them from retaliation and owning their actions.
- You can’t see me. Face-to-face interactions tend to have more empathy because we can see the person we are engaging with. It’s hard to feel ashamed when you don’t even know who’s affected. You’re just a screen to me, not a person.
- See you later. I don’t have to deal with your instant response, or even wait for it! I can dump my thoughts on you and never return.
- It’s all in my head. Suler argues that online interactions can distort reality. I can make up whatever attributes about you that I want, justifying my actions.
- It’s just a game. The overused response of critics who do sometimes get called out: “It’s just the Internet, man!”
- Your rules don’t apply here. This is the internet, where closing out a live chat isn’t rude, despite the fact that leaving in the middle of a conversation would be rude in real life.
Understanding criticism matters if you ever want to be able to create and sleep soundly at night. This is because criticism can take it’s toll on people who haven’t developed a thick skin, or who don’t yet recognize that even great works are going to have critics.
Professor Roy F. Baumeister explored this topic on the basis of emotions in is his paper Bad is Stronger Than Good. He found that generally speaking, bad emotions, impressions, and feedback are “quicker to form and more resistant to disconfirmation than good ones.” In other words, bitter comments stick with us and are often much harder to forget than praise. The key is to recognize this natural imbalance, and take care to remember the constructive comments.
Clifford Nass, a professor at Stanford University and author of The Man Who Lies to His Laptop, posits that negative emotions hang around because they are more likely to be dwelled upon:
Negative emotions generally involve more thinking, and the information is processed more thoroughly than positive ones. Thus, we tend to ruminate more about unpleasant events — and use stronger words to describe them — than happy ones.
Negative thoughts lead to the development of impostor syndrome, where even veteran craftsman find themselves thinking, “I’m not really good enough, people are going to find out I’m a total fraud.”
You can’t chalk up every negative comment to “people hatin’ on you,” but you also can’t let yourself succumb to the fear of getting your ego bruised. It’s going to happen. It’s your job to understand when to listen to a real critique. It’s easy to be a critic. There’s no backlash, there’s no risk. But creating? That takes guts.
How about you?
Did you have a critic who could never be pleased? How did you handle it?
I believe some people know about Barista. For you who do not know what Barista is, I will let you know in a simple way. Barista is a person making and serving coffee drinks either working at coffee shops or owning a coffee shops. Clear enough. Can everyone be a barista? Yes! But to become a barista you have to obtain a proper license. However, it is not that cheap. The learning process itself is around 10 million (IDR). I got an information about barista class in Korea, it costs us around 800,000 per course. Expensive.
To people who curious why I talk about barista because taking a barista class is my dream. Actually it is not only about taking the class but also about having a skill to serve a delicious and beautiful coffee. Let’s just imagine how wonderful if I have my own coffee shop and serve the coffee by myself. Have a clean and neat coffee shop with elegant and cozy environment is a must. Don’t forget to provide a spacious Muslim praying room to get baraka’. Awesome, right?
Today I dig some info to take a barista course in Korea. The language and pricing problem are the obstacle. There is no guarantee the course will be taught in English as my lack in Korean. The pricing itself as I stated before is out of my capacity. In addition, the time for taking the class is impossible because I am working in weekdays. Huh! It seems this dream is just so impossible. Even though it seems so, I have an idea to learn from a coffee shop owner that I usually visit nearby my home. He is kind, able to speak English, and friendly. Until now, I did not have any courage to request about this matter. How if I work there a half day just for experiencing how to make a proper coffee. It sounds great, right? Well, hope it works because I just don’t have any idea besides it. ^^