Some people are good at explaining things with metaphors. They can break complicated things down into smaller pieces of wits, grasp the logic behind it, and plant it into easier real-life examples, or both.

If you can see through the tricks, you’ll see if people really know their stuff.

The best way to explain tricky things is starting with simple metaphors that everyone can comprehend. You have to know it inside out before you can break it down into smaller but relevant points that support the big picture, and then you can use proper metaphors to tell others about it.

My acid test method: try to explain something new to the elders or minors with metaphors or examples in your mother tongue without using convenient jargons.

Real knowledgeables can switch between simple and complex metaphors depending on who they're talking to. They know when to break out the fancy comparisons and when to keep things basic.

Some people are good at explaining things with metaphors, but some are not. My theory is that you can still convey concepts you don’t really understand purely with verbal skills, but you can hardly come up with ad hoc examples to explain them properly.

That means you can tell if someone is proficient on a certain topic by observing how they use metaphors or examples to support the assertions.

People with limited domain knowledge tend to use their personal experience to rationalize themselves. Personal experience is valuable, but it's just one piece of the puzzle. Trying to explain quantum physics or geopolitics based solely on the experience of living in a small mental town just won’t cut it.

The idea works both ways. When you’re learning something, try to catch the principles through metaphors, if there are any; try to explain it to others with legit metaphors to see if you have successfully internalized it, and train yourself for the ability to develop and use more sophisticated metaphors for better communication.

When communicating with someone, try to grasp their rationale behind the words and see if they are agreeable and what’s under the mental carpet.

YouTube video with Chinese captions (experimental)

The technology is, of course, still in its infancy, but I think it’s very impressive and promising. Although some repetitions and formulas started to show after I listened to some conversions, I think it will be more natural and ”

Support to more languages will be welcomed (only English for now, but they can read other languages such as Chinese). I expect the two folks to generate more audio versions of my work in the future.

Give it a try.

Meeting rooms need protocols to function properly, and protocols change along with time, topics, and participants. In many meetings, people spent a significant portion of time on protocols instead of addressing the issues.

A meeting is akin to a theater play. It needs a topic, roles, relationships (also hierarchies and tensions) among characters, and a meticulously written script to succeed.

Everybody in the room plays along.

Here comes the question: why do we call meetings? To communicate, to command, or to perform?

There are different kinds of meetings. Some are meant for communication, some for commanding or performance. However, no matter what they are for, meetings should head for conclusions, decisions, actions, and preferably closed deals.

Do your meetings meet the objectives?

If not, the easiest workaround is bringing discussions out of the meeting rooms. Let the meeting room be the theater and the corridor or caféteria be the war room.

Just be sure to deliver an impressive performance in the meeting room and earn the good curtain call you deserve.

According to “How US soldiers were fed in the US?,” the US built an enormous logistics system to deliver food (in addition to ammunition and other supplies) to feed its millions (16 million at its peak) of soldiers.

Consisting of airplanes, railways, and trucks, the system worked successfully in maintaining the morale and the advantage of US soldiers on the battlefield and led to its victory.

After the war, in my opinion, the system remained and became the backbone of the US in terms of its (cold) war efforts and the business and manufacturing flexibility later called “globalization.”

Many other less-developed countries might have benefitted from the logistics system, but the US is still the major beneficiary of outsourcing, influence, and power projection.

China might have wanted to replicate the feat through its “one-belt, one-road” initiative; however, the idea was not tested by emergent, common needs (such as war), and the potential participants were motivated by their respective interests.

The system could be imitated technically, but the Chinese version lacks common interest other than the intangible “economic growth,” which China has dominated in its own right.

On the other hand, the US version has its own problem. Although its military logistics system is still mighty, the lacking of common interest in some areas is also plaguing its ability to compete with newly developed countries, such as China, in the commercial sense.

For now, the US is still the most powerful country by inheriting its legacy from World War II, and the free world is somehow safe thanks to the system. It’s not a definite advantage, but it’s still hard to surpass in the near future if there’s no next World War.

For now, the US is still the most powerful country by inheriting its legacy from World War II, and the free world is somehow safe thanks to the system. It’s not a definite advantage, but it’s still hard to surpass in the near future if there’s no next World War.

Adidas deliberately chose models with slightly fuller figures, breaking the stereotype that only “athletic bodies” are suitable for wearing sportswear.

They even take a step further to embrace a bit of “extra flesh” around the waist.

Normally, this kind of waistline (it even exists on people with athletic bodies) would be retouched effortlessly. But in this case, they didn’t (or only altered it slightly).

This is a clever move because people with “imperfect” bodies are also a significant potential customer base for sportswear.

In the past, they could have shied away or even felt embarrassed when looking at advertisement photos and might hesitate to walk into the store and make a purchase.

Since the brand is sending the “it doesn’t matter” message, the copy serves as an encouragement for this customer segment.

Even better, the copy doesn’t explicitly state that “people with something extra can also wear it” or anything similar. If they did, it would have labeled this customer segment unnecessarily.

By subtly encouraging potential customers and letting them come up with the idea that “this is just the process of getting fit,” Adidas knows how to attract its target audience in full.

Starlux, a Taiwan-based airline company, recently had a collaboration with a local band called “五月天” (literally “days in May”) for the latest wave of promotion.

In a Facebook posting, the copy reads:

Starlux mayday mayday!!!

Are you guys excited? (Starlux) is even collaborating with 五月天

It seems that the copywriter, who may neither have worked in the aviation industry, was unaware of the meaning and significance of “mayday,” which is derived from the French phrase “m’aidez,” or “help me,” and is used by pilots only in emergencies.

Interestingly, the copywriter went so far as to “yell” the word twice to fully comply with the prescribed protocol for conveying a sense of distress.

The copywriter eventually admitted that he had no idea of the true meaning of “mayday” and had simply translated the band name literally as “May+day.”

(Note: the posting could have been written by a Statlux fan, but the “Mayday” campaign is official.)

Apparently, K. W. Chang, the founder of Starlux and an airline pilot himself, was not given the opportunity to review the collaboration plan and its marketing material, or this coincidence was unlikely to happen under his watch.

Showcasing “mayday,” despite it having nothing to do with the band, in an Airline’s marketing campaigns is a classic blooper. Fortunately, it only happened on the stage rather than in the air.

As marketers, it’s imperative for us to know a thing or two about the industry and another language we intend to use in campaigns. It might be trivial, but sometimes it is just as larger than life as it gets.

I have a habit of asking, “How much does this cost?” after receiving services like pumping up a scooter tire or adjusting my glasses, which are usually free in Taiwan.

And the answer I usually get was, “No charge, don’t worry about it.”

As I see it, asking such a question is a win-win. I get a (though expected) free service and satisfaction from someone’s kindness, while the storekeeper receives my gratitude and respect, as I, the customer, consider their service valuable.

However, the premise of asking this question is that if I “dare to” ask for quotes, as long as the price is reasonable, I will pay it with the mindset that “I should pay fairly in exchange for any service since everyone is making a living.”

If I would ask for it, there’s no reason to decline.

Although I’d consider the gesture polite, the storekeeper may not necessarily feel the same.

“You used my services and time, knowing that it’s supposed to be free. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ask ‘how much?’”

What I really wanted to say is, “Please, don’t take free services for granted.” After having your scooter tire pumped or glasses fixed, don’t forget to say “thank you” before you leave, but don’t say something inappropriate like “Hey, it takes you only seconds; you can’t charge me for that!” (and even take a free sample on your way out.)

On the other hand, if you are someone providing these services, would you prefer customers who politely ask about the charge but don’t spend a dime after all or big spenders who haggle over prices and asks for freebies?

It’s actually a tough question for me. How about you?

(By the way, I have another habit — I always save the best part for the last.)

• Read also: Thank you, and thank you too.

As an experiment, this first version post was translated from the original by ChatGPT-4. However, I’ve rewritten about 40% of the translated piece, which took longer than translating it myself.

There is no need to be anxious as long as you can have fun in or out of AI.

My social media accounts have been recently flooded with people’s stupid/smart conversations with AI or pictures featuring beautiful girls generated by Midjourney.

Although it’s not technically difficult, and I do experiments and observe trends, I don’t enjoy spending my time playing with prompts since it’s a bit boring for my taste (I am not underrating their value, it’s just a personal choice). I understand it’s like learning a new programming language — you want to do everything with it, and the process is exciting. I get it, really.

To me, using prompts to write or draw doesn’t qualify as “creation” (so it is quite accurate to call it “generative” as in GPT), and no matter how good I think the results are for now, their lifespan is incredibly short.

“AI dueling”

The most interesting contradiction is the term “AI dueling,” which I created in another article. Some people are already using AI to write stories or even an entire book, and then the readers ask AI to compile a 500-word summary to skip all the hassle and pretend they have read the whole thing.

This is a waste of intelligence and electrical power. The person who “wrote” the book may not have read it either, not to mention the smart, AI-wielding readers. The only ones who read it were your dear AI robots as they “dueled” each other in the process.

The scenario will become even more prevalent in the future since some authors don’t bother to write articles all by themselves, and neither do the readers. However, there are “commercial voids” to fill — you can’t sell a one-page book with only five bullet points; for now, you need the “volume” to put on a reasonable price tag.

These are no fun to me. Drawing, appreciating arts, writing, and reading are all fun things I don’t want the AI to take the privileges. But I’m happy to use it when it’s not “doing my job” but “saving my effort.”

If I’m doing something for my client and will get paid for it, and AI can take two hours out of the three for me to do something fun, I will be more than happy to use it and thank Heaven for such bliss.

For the new book I recently completed, I trained an AI engine to read the contents and have it answer the readers' questions about the book. The robot is still kind of silly, but it’s fun too.

“Saving,” not “doing” your job

My basic principle: don’t become a person who can’t do your job without AI (or any “productivity tool,” for that matter) or who can’t “supervise” and judge the results from AI.

If AI can summarize five key points from a long article for me, that’s great. But if I don’t have the ability to do it myself when necessary, or if I can’t discriminate the quality of the summary, then such tools are not helpful to my long-term growth.

As said earlier, AI is a good tool for “saving your effort,” but don’t let it do the jobs you’re supposed to master.

“False strength”

From the tool viewpoint, the “ability to use AI” and “fluency in prompting” can be considered “soft strengths,” but they could be overextended into “false strengths.” It’s sometimes hard to distinguish between the two, but it’s easy for discerning eyes.

For example, John Doe used AI to write a book about AI; AI generated everything from outlines to content, and that’s perfectly possible. But the problem is that John didn’t actually “write” the book as he read it at best; when John was asked a question about the book, he could probably not answer it. (He could ask AI to answer for him, though.)

One solution to this awkward situation is to use more advanced AI tools to write his next book as technology advances so that it looks better than the previous one. But it’s like covering a lie with more lies — it could go on like that until the happy ending, but it could also implode somewhere.

The same is true in the workplace. You can rely on AI to deliver reports, generate charts, make presentations, and do brainstorming, but it’s hardly possible to rely on AI to lead people, handle crises, make strategic decisions, negotiate with customers, or face challenges in meetings.

You can’t get by just with false strength.

Don’t be anxious, be happy

In workplaces, “a mixed bag of true and false” is everywhere, even before AI, so I won’t judge it as long as you’re happy with the results. But for me, especially at this stage of my career, I don’t feel comfortable allowing tools and AI to do everything for me, and I hope you can have your judgment of real strengths.

Some of my friends who are very successful in their professions have recently been suffering from “AI anxiety,” worrying about “what if I can’t use AI” or “I could be replaced in the future.” There is no need to worry too much, at least for a “working generation.” Their professional abilities still have value as long as they can make good use of the tools to “save the efforts.”

There’s another reason why I am not anxious. With healthy market competition, all kinds of AI applications will sprout one after another as SaaS (Software as a Service), and they will compete with each other with the comprehensiveness and combination of functionality, ease of use of the front-end interface, and the uniqueness of the back-end tool integration.

Simply put, they are bound to become better and easier, and you can just sit back, relax, and wait for it to happen.

For now...

1. If you’d rather tinker with the generative AI engines, learn how the technology is doing, and experience the fun of generating something yourself, have fun.

2. When it comes to work, don’t think of “the ability to use AI” as the only edge you have. Some already warned that “startups based solely on ChatGPT are dangerous.”

3. Whether you are good at writing, drawing, management, or anything else, keep refining and stay ahead of the curve. This has nothing to do with AI.

4. Be clear about how AI tools would “save” or “do” your job.

5. Don’t worry if you don’t use today’s AI tools. They will get better and easier, so you’re safe to skip them for now. Even if you need customized business AI tools in the future, there will be plenty for you to buy.

6. If AI can save you some time, take it to do something you find more enjoyable.

(Chinese version)

At work, I have a motto, “Do/Be/Achieve what others can’t.”

However, when I was helping or coaching others at work, I disliked hearing them say, “someone has been doing this and doing just fine, so let’s get around it.”

That means I don’t think “others are doing it” is necessarily an issue as long as you have your own edge.

The two things, my motto and “don’t be afraid to try again,” sound contradictory, but they don’t indeed. On the contrary, they share a common idea:

Be others can’t be, then you’re better.

Be competitive with what someone is doing, and then you’re better — than both your old self and others.

Being better doesn’t mean guaranteed success, but at least you’ll have a better chance and be worthy of your own efforts. If you’re not better or just on par, you’d have a better chance to fail since you’re just another “me too” at best.

There’s a line from a Japanese anime describing the struggle of a Sushi chef apprentice, namely “Shota no Sushi.” It goes like this:

To real masters, the ultimate homage is to surpass them. Surpassing them makes the work, the art, and the world better.

So be all you can be, do something great, no matter if someone is doing it, and achieve what others can’t.

Surpassing makes things better.

Digital transformation starts with reviewing and optimizing internal processes and structures before introducing new tools.

It doesn't usually work as expected if you do it the other way around.

This is supposed to be a very simple concept, but it's quite common to see business owners with a misconception that sees tools as an elixir rather than a cure.

An equally simple analogy is that you have tons of raw data ("big data?"), and you bought a database software expecting it to put the data into slots and turn it into usable information in a snap.

The right way, at least as it is now, is to normalize the data first, design the database structure accordingly, and then pour the data into it.

With the right steps, you'd see the flowers bloom and the data becomes something meaningful.

Conversely, if you didn't normalize the data and just filled the vault with the mess, you get garbage for sure.

Pretty straightforward, but you get the idea.

For more on this topic, read my other article about digital transformation (in Chinese).

Before the days of Twitter and Facebook, a few whining paragraphs made a story on my blog. Since everyone had their own blog, the online world was quite “decentralized.”

When you want to respond to something, you visit a particular blog and leave a carefully crafted message. You might find a string of people responding to the same story and form a mini conversation or even an online party.

Then there came social networks. People are herded as “friends” and become centralized on a timeline. Timeline flows and washes messages and comments away like there’s nothing important.

It’s now easier to respond to a message, and you don’t even have to write a word since a 👍 is all you need.

We reply, we respond, we give thumbs or claps, but we are not making as many “intellectual conversations” as before.

After some clean-up, my 7,000 stories went down to around 2,000 with relatively substantial content.

One of the reasons I could write so many was that I made a lot of intellectual conversations, and I was always able to find news topics from them and have a healthy dose of stimulation from my readers, so I kept writing almost every day.

Now I follow the Facebook and Twitter timelines and subscribe to about 100 blogs and news sites. But I have a feeling that I was dragged by topics and news, not the exchange of ideas.

This is not good. I need conversations, stimulation, and passion to churn out meaningful, inspiring stuff.

In my blogosphere, I am still one of the most diligent writers in Taiwan. People either make short bursts on Facebook or become media writers, as blogging is already passé.

Hardly a conversation. How regrettable. Make one, anyone?

Originally written on Aug 17, 2017.

I love this encyclopedia so much since it’s like holding the whole universe of knowledge in the corner of my desk. I could find virtually anything I need in it — the brief history of a particular country, the definition of an exotic term, or what’s on the other side of the world — not unlike what I do with Google today.

At that time, we, in Taiwan, were forbidden from reading descriptions about our own country, the government, or the leader, like North Korea or China today; censorship did once exist in this democratic nation.

Sensitive terms, such as the story of our leader from foreign perspectives shown in the picture below, were blacked out since they could not ban the entire book set. But I always managed to remove the black crayons to fulfill my curiosity, and fortunately, it didn’t get me into any trouble.

The tiny encyclopedia used to be like an information gold mine to me, but it’s now more like a time capsule concealing the knowledge frozen in time and the censorship that used to be there.

There are two phases of disagreement handling.

First, we must agree to disagree; otherwise, it would be like in totalitarian countries where only one voice exists, and disagreement is not an option.

Then we can proceed to agree on disagreements. Most of the time, there is more than one option, and the options are not mutually exclusive. So we respect others and spend some time looking at the choices and (painfully) make decisions to ditch our own or (painfully) fight for the hopefully better ones.

That’s also normal, and we learn from the results as well as the processes to be better people.

Sometimes this is called compromise, sometimes democracy.

“Yeah, tell me about it.” You might have heard answers like this. It sounds like an agreement with what you said, but oftentimes it’s not. It’s actually a statement of implied disagreement.

Again, we routinely disagree on things, and it’s more healthy to iron out the differences by first admitting them heartily rather than giving a snobbish, superficial yea.

That’s not helping at all, and we are still on different sides of a chasm.

We like incremental improvements and don’t necessarily recognize that we do.

“No, I like giant, or even better, quantum steps.” You may say.

Quantum steps are good, but they don’t happen every day. And most of the time, they are still countless incremental improvements at work; you just don’t realize it.

You’d buy a slightly better (sounding) mechanical keyboard for yourself on your birthday, new year’s day, whatever anniversary, and you even expect one for valentine’s day.

Because you like mechanical keyboards, and a little tactile or audio improvement excites you. It has nothing to do with productivity but mental satisfaction. You’re encouraged by the satisfaction and dopamine for the next purchase.

That’s how the market and marketing work. Enterprises take advantage of the impulse for incremental improvements and make money from each one’s urge. Can you imagine keyboard companies only do business when major improvements arise?

If you’re in the tech business or an avid game player, you know incremental backups are good. “Save early, save often,” or “SOSE,” they said. By doing that, you keep up with the latest situation and lose the minimum in case something happens.

You don’t do “quantum step” backups because it’s not the best way it works, and something is almost guaranteed to happen with it.

Incremental improvements are good. Evolution takes time, but our economy depends on it to function.

The only exception is war. Wars don’t grant us time, and we are pushed to react fast to survive. Instead of incremental improvements, people propel progress with countless trial-and-error attempts and magnificent failures.

Incremental improvements are good. You gotta love them.

A friend of mine, a renowned, respected professor, can be called a sex addict. For years, he goes to certain prostitutes to satisfy himself, not just for sex but also for his self-esteem.

(I won’t go deeper on this since it’s too complicated.)

“I’ve spent more than a Mercedes-Benz on them over the years.” He once said with a grin.

He has a particular taste for women, and the opportunity to choose was a liberty for him to go beyond imagination.

“Of course, it’s unethical or unfaithful, if you’d say, but it saves my marriage.” He told me candidly.

That’s indeed one of his excuses. Reasonable and understandable, but it wouldn’t survive any moral examination. I wouldn’t endorse his reasoning.

Many things we do wouldn’t survive moral examination either, and we wouldn’t endorse each other in public.

Maybe it’s hypocritical, especially among people of the same gender, but I believe that we all have reasons behind those “unendorsables.” Under some circumstances, you may judge people by their (wrong)doings by calling this friend a “disloyal pervert,” “dirty,” or something more colorful.

Which is fine, suit yourself. You are absolutely entitled to do that no matter if you’re an endorsable person or not.

But I’d say not to judge a person by his/her inner depression or agony. You’d know it’s there, but you don’t know where they were from, and you can do nothing about it.

“You dirty pig.” I called him in the face as we drank, “I know what’s it all about, but you have to work on this.”

“I am working on it, hard.” He shrugged.

In the past few months, life has changed a lot. As you might have read somewhere else, I just retired from corporate work to enjoy my time, or more precisely, it’s a sabbatical. I’ll still work and write, but without obligation to anyone except for those who are really close.

I bought an old apartment in Taichung for investment and spent much time in the past months dealing with the associated issues such as a mortgage, transfer, and renovation.

When friends asked why Taichung, my answer was always that Taipei houses have become outrageously expensive and way over my budget. On top of that, Taichung is actually a better place to live if the job is not a concern.

But no, I’ll stay in Taipei for now but go to Taichung occasionally, mainly on weekends.

During that time, I finished translating a book into English and wrote/translated for several organizations on business, marketing, and geopolitics/military topics.

After everything is settled down, I’ll return to my normal writing pace and maybe more if things go as expected.

The epidemic is still an issue. It affects the life and agenda of mine (and many others) and keeps people from meeting in person. Stay safe and live well; we will see each other here.

Don’t just read. Write me if you can. Let’s talk.

I had a conversation with a few young fellow marketers last night.

One of them asked:

“Why many senior marketers would pull themselves out of the front-line jobs to become lecturers selling courses?”

I replied:

“Some of them switched their roles to cover up the fact that they can hardly learn new tricks.”

Sometimes I feel too old to learn new tricks too, really.

There’s nothing wrong to switch your role as a lecturer, and we are not asking a coach to stand at-bat. It’s my own choice to keep learning rather than sell courses, and I’ll honestly tell you “I can’t do that” or “I don’t know what that means,” step aside and then leave it to the real experts.

There is already an existed metaverse. It’s the Facebook.

You see virtual profile photos, virtual identities, virtual stories, virtual relationships, virtual opinions, virtual masters with virtual theories, contents you don’t own, things you don’t say in real life, real money, real fake, real scam there, every day.

Once on Facebook, you have a pair of AR glasses on by default. You see people’s fun, rich, exciting life imposed on your dull, poor, self-replicating one; and you return to the real world in a flash with the glasses off.

Why Mark Zuckerberg loves metaverse so much? Because he has already done it and made a hell lot of real money from you.

Chinese:

F大叔的日常通信

為什麼Mark Zuckerberg這麼愛metaverse？

其實Facebook就已經是個metaverse。 虛擬的頭像、虛擬的身分、虛擬的故事、虛擬的關係、虛擬的感想、虛擬的個性、虛擬的大師、虛擬的學問、不屬於自己的內容、真實世界中不敢講的話、真的錢、假的貨、真的詐騙。 在FB上你也等於是戴著一副AR眼鏡看世界，戴上會看到燈紅酒綠的富足人生，摘下來之後還是一隻面對著荒煙蔓草的社畜。 為什麼Facebook老闆這麼愛metaverse？因為他早已經做出來、而且也賺到你真正的錢了。 English…

Read more

4 years ago · 傅瑞德 | Fred Jame

He did exercises regularly and is capable of weightlifting maybe more than I can.

Do heart stents mean unhealthiness?

It seems beyond the question. How can you call yourself healthy if you need stents?

That brings up an interesting question. What separated healthy from unhealthy? If someone hurt his arm and needed a metal joint planted, will you call him "unhealthy" after he fully recovers?

What if he fully recovers after having heart stents installed?

Does unhealthy mean one still has risk after recovery? What kind of risk counts? Who (especially ones in the middle age) dares to claim a life without such risk?

That's why we always put ourselves in some mental shadow. How about keeping ourselves in a recovered status quo and call ourselves healthy?

It’s supposed to be a happy day for everyone. You, and the people around. Every week or every month, there must be somebody’s birthday coming, so we can be happy all year round.

Last night, a friend sent me a recording of a rarely-heard version of the birthday song. It was sweet and sentimental, but I suddenly felt sad listening to it.

There’s no better day to recap, review and rewind your own life till today on your birthday. However for most people of my (middle) age there were not always nice things in life, and there were even things you don’t want to look back on again.

On this day, you have to, helplessly, face it mandatorily — it’s your birthday, it’s a beginning of a new cycle, and people will remind you to stand in front of it. You’re pressed to end something here, start something here then move on.

Should we look back on every birthday? Wisdom told us that gone is the past, you can’t reverse the time so it doesn’t help to be sad or happy, so just ignore it and get yourself refreshed like a clean sheet of paper for the next round.

Can you?

We all have our own burdens. You can keep it out of sight but you’ll always feel the force.