Public transit supplemented with ride-share

This morning as I walked to the usual bus stop to begin my commute, the LED information board indicated the next bus would not arrive for another half hour. In the scant two months since I’ve started taking public transit to work, it's the first time there was such a severe discrepancy. More than a few drivers must have called in sick today, as SFMTA drivers are wont to do.

Normally I would simply wait it out and kept on listening to my podcasts. However today I was tasked to open up shop at work, so punctuality was absolutely paramount. A 30 minutes late bus would have been detrimental, so out came the iPhone and an UBER was called.

Is it politically correct these days to hail an UBER car, what with the company's problems of diversity and sexual harassment? Should I have gone with Lyft instead? Probably, but alas convenience trumps virtue-signaling propensities; I'm familiar with UBER and have yet to set up an account with Lyft.  

Those Bird electric scooters everybody in San Francisco is talking about and using haven’t gotten to our “poor” neighborhood just yet, if ever. 

I fully understand the various negative externalities emanating from the advent of ride-sharing, so let's focus on the positives! It is such a relief and convenience to be able to quickly hail a car in case of emergencies like today. I can remember back in high school, way before ride-share and smartphones, if a bus was late there was no option but to keep standing at the stop until it comes. Now I can call an UBER. I mean Lyft.

The events this morning reinforced my belief that public transportation supplemented with ride-sharing is the best option to commute in a major city. I see no practical need to own a car unless you've got young kids. 

Not sure if dungeon in hell or the first floor of the campus Administration building. 

Taxation is theft

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you're not paying for it, someone is. 

It seems in response to and in preparation for upcoming elections, a sizable faction of the Democratic Party have been gaining traction, offshooting from the success of Senator Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary. They're the Democratic Socialists (of America), and the group is heavily in the spotlight recently due to congress-hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseating a Democratic incumbent in New York. Some proper party-on-party friendly fire. 

President Trump have swung the Republican party so much towards the right fringe that the inevitable pendulum swing back left would naturally match it in severity. This explains the rise in popularity of the DSA platform, with promises of free health care, free higher education, and a decent wage for every worker. The platform’s emotional appeal is immense, a left-leaning equivalent of border security and ridding the country of illegals for Trump’s base. 

It sure sounds good on paper, doesn’t it? Who would say no to job guarantees and free college? 

Right, but then the age old question becomes: how are we going to pay for it? Indeed there are no free lunches. The obvious and sole avenue to acquire the money is to tax and tax a lot, especially the super rich. Because both parties can’t seem to cut spending ever, we can only resort to take from the rich to increase revenue. 

It bears repeating: taxation is theft. 

Do the wealthy have a moral responsibility to give back and take care of the poor? An argument can be made for the affirmative. However, agency and decision should reside with the individual, rather than compelled by government (i.e. tax). I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have done well to corral a hundred or so billionaires and millionaires to donate their wealth. The campus where I work at is full of buildings and wings made possible by generous donors (The Coppola family, to name one). 

People say for a country as prosperous as the United States, it ought to have no issues in providing socialistic services. But think of how the United States become affluent in the first place. It certainly wasn’t socialism. It’s Capitalism, and we’d be careful to deviate from that at our peril.

Because how is Venezuela doing these days? 

Currently reading: Ray Dalio's magnum opus. 

Tom Cruise is still learning

I was watching one of my weekly Korean variety shows, and none other than Tom Cruise, Henry Cavill, and Simon Peck showed up this week as guests. It seems nothing is more effective to promote a Hollywood film in Korea than special guesting on one of their popular television programs. Ryan Reynolds did it for Deadpool 2 to perfection, so I guess the Mission Impossible PR team thought it would be great to have Tom Cruise and company pop in on Running Man. 

Can’t speak for how it was received in Korea (probably well), but as an American viewer who speaks Korean, it’s always a bit weird when foreign stars and personalities show up on Korean shows. The language barrier between the hosts and guests almost always produce a few cringe-inducing moments for me. Because I can remember the awkward moments I had last year traveling to Korea and conversing with the local population in my then not so decent Korean.  

Before commencing with games the Running Man host conducted a brief interview, in which it was revealed that Tom Cruise spent a year and a half learning how to fully fly a helicopter for the new movie. Obviously he did all his own stunts as well. 

Cruise, in his mid 50s, with all the money and fame in the world, still found it prudent to dedicate tremendous amounts of hours to acquire a new craft. He could’ve easily pawn helicopter flying off to the stunt team but his dedication and passion wouldn’t allow it, and that I admire highly. I believe the challenge of life, aside from being gainfully employed to sustain ourselves and our family, is to be constantly learning new things. Tom Cruise gets that. 

I’m currently learning Korean - only reason I’m watching Korean television - and once I’m satisfied with my proficiency level (one is never truly "done" or finished with learning a language) I shall move on to attain another skill. A movement I hope to sustain, like Tom Cruise, well into my 50s and beyond.  

You know the Chinese always make good stuff. 

Landscape photography involves a lot waiting

The branch of photography I participate in is landscape photography, and the name of the game is waiting. Lots of waiting. To get the best light, to wait out strange weather patterns, and even the general public getting out of the shot, a hearty dose of patience is prerequisite to doing landscape photo work. 

And that can get tiring indeed.

Everyone knows the best light is the hours around sunrise and sunset: blue hour and golden hour, respectively. Getting shots during golden hour isn’t a problem because I’d simply stay out as long as needed. Blue hour however is slightly more difficult because the I'll have to break my circadian rhythm. Bad enough that sunrise is wicked early in the morning, but you have to factor in travel and setup time in addition to that, so obviously there's not going to be much sleep. 

In the trip to Korea last year, in order to get a sunrise shot up on this crater, we had to wake up at 3am because it took an hour to get to the location and another hour to hike up the mountain. Exacerbating the situation it was summer so blue houra was quite a bit earlier than it would’ve been during winter. Well worth the effort but I’m not sure I can do that constantly: I value a proper night’s sleep above a lot of things. 

So golden hour it is for me. 

Then I would pray the weather gods cooperates. This past weekend we wanted to take some sunset hour photos of the Golden Gate Bridge but San Francisco’s famous fog spoiled the party. The entire ocean-facing side was covered in clouds, not giving the sun rays a chance to poke through. Were I adamant about capturing this I would’ve needed to return another day under more favorable weather. 

It’s super time involving, but I love the solitude and peace when I’m out in the field, especially away from the bustle of the city. Something about setting up shop somewhere, music in my ear, and waiting for the perfect moment to appear before the lens: it’s thoroughly meditative. 

Perhaps instead of planing to buy another sports car I should instead purchase a rugged SUV and go overlanding for landscape photos. A thing to think about. 

When the sun isn't cooperating you go long exposure with an ND filter. 

It's all in the tires

This past weekend I did the usual driving on my makeshift simulator playing GT Sport. My absolute favorite thing to do - and just about the only thing I do these days - is drive the Porsche 911 GT3RS on the Nurburgring Nordschleife. Cumulatively since early Summer I must’ve driven around 200 laps on the 13+ mile circuit, which is a number I aim to get into the thousands.

For whatever reason, probably a mix of boredom and curiosity, I had the urge to sample another popular racing game: Assetto Corsa. The game also features the Nordschleife and the same model year GT3RS so I thought it’d be a bit of intrigue to compare the two titles. A hefty 25GB download and $40 dollars damage to the wallet later, for the first time ever I was driving a different game that isn't Gran Turismo. 

I really should’ve switched sooner. Assetto Corsa is absolutely fantastic. Graphically it cannot hold a candle to GT (zero attempt at photo-realism here) but on driving dynamics it’s a league above. For the longest time I’ve read about how the likes of GT and Forza are more on the arcade side than pure simulation, and that has been utterly confirmed within one lap of the Nordschleife in AC.

It’s completely down to the tires. GT’s physic engine is quite excellent in replicating responses and reflexes of a real car, and in that area it isn’t far behind Assetto Corsa. What AC revealed to me that was utterly lacking in GT is proper tire simulation. Tires in GT are standardized arbitrary values with no basis of correlation to anything realistic. High horsepower road cars in GT Sport are practically un-drivable even with traction control turned on unless racing slicks are put on. 

A Ferrari LaFerrari in GT Sport will roast its stock tires through the first four gears - highly unrealistic. Even the aforementioned GT3RS is unusable in first gear because it cannot find traction - unless I put on slick tires. 

Assetto Corsa has shown me the light: proper tire model is the foundation of a good driving simulator. AC replicates the actual tires of what a particular car came with from the factory. Select a Toyota Trueno Sprinter AE86 in the game and in the setup menu it’ll show it’s fitted with ‘Street 90s’ tires. A GT3RS on the other hand is shod with bespoke ‘Hypercar road’ rubber. Good tire modeling provides a tremendous amount of road feel and information transmitted through the steering wheel. Instead of relying on muscle memory I can now better react to the minute details of what the car is telling me. 

Playing Assetto Corsa has been a revelation. I don’t think I can go back to GT Sport, as incredibly beautiful and pretty to look at it may be (I’m going to miss the sunset flares and orange glow on the Nordschleife). AC is great if you’re like me and just want to get in a car and go: all tracks and cars are available right from the beginning. 

Cheers to many more miles to come. 

It may be a GT logo on there but it's all Assetto Corsa from now on. 

911 or bust

If you’re going buy a Porsche car, and you’re the type of person - like me - who can only afford one, the answer can only be the vaunted 911. 

I intend complete disrespect to the Boxster and Cayman. Indeed the duo may be the best most dynamically balanced sports car for any money.  What Porsche has engineered with mere MacPherson struts at all four corners is simply amazing. I definitely would not decline a go in a Cayman GT4 or a Boxster GTS. 

But it’s not a 911. Given an option between said Cayman GT4 or a poverty-spec Carrera, I’d pick the 911 every single time. The Cayman would be the better driver’s car, but for me it cannot hold a candle to the icon, no matter what extreme racing spec it comes in. 

You buy a Porsche, you buy a 911. 

We definitely shouldn't take into account what other people say, but let’s face it, Boxster and Cayman owners are looked at as people who can’t afford a 911. Just like Jaguar sports car buyers are people who haven’t got the money for an Aston Martin; an Audi is out of the price bracket? Buy a Volkswagen. 

It’s all a compromise. I don’t want to compromise. Because when we cheap out on lesser versions there’s bound to be disappointment down the road. The BMW M235i drivers looking forlorn at the M2 pulling up alongside. The flat-bill hatted kid in an WRX wishing he saved a bit longer for the STI. 

If I’m buying a Porsche, it’s got to be a 911. Not just a plain 911, but a GT3. 

Anything less isn't worth the pursuit. 

Nothing like heavy roadwork at 7 in the morning to wake up the neighborhood. 

You've lost me on cars as investments

Perhaps it’s my wealth level's (or lack thereof) inability to provide the proper perspective, but I don't understand people that treat cars as investments. 

Obviously I’m referring to the ultra rich that buy super expensive cars and then park them in climate-controlled garages, all in hopes of gaining significant profit some times in the future. The common Honda Accord us plebs buy is not an investment ever. 

I am speaking to the sort of well-heeled car enthusiasts that buy a limited-edition Porsche 911R for around $250K then promptly garage it. And why wouldn’t they? A delivery-mileage sample fetches $500K now; no telling how much that’ll go up given enough years. Naturally-aspirated 911s with a stick are a dying breed. 

My contention with cars as investment isn’t that it’s driving up prices: capitalism is the best economic system ever and the price anything rightfully ought to be what the market will bear. I complain about the same mechanism going on in housing speculation but unlike houses where you can always build more, there’s only so many Toyota 2000GTs rolling around. 

The issue I have is the utter lack of driving these cars. The point of ownership is completely lost to me once these investors lock them up to preserve miles. Can these people even call themselves car enthusiasts? A car isn’t a car unless I can drive it, and often. 

I respect the heck out of enthusiasts like Nick Mason who continues to drive his unobtanium Ferrari 250 GTO even though it’s worth deep into the eight figures. Car guys like Jay Leno who’s got a large collection but he drives each and every one, irrespective of what it’ll sell for down the road. 

If you're going to buy a car and just park it, why not invest in paintings or sculptures instead? At least those items would be serving its innate function. An automobile's innate function is to be driven and be on the open road. 

Congratulations, Tinder: you've made OkCupid embrace casual hookup sex.