VC. In Chicago??

The Rule of Four

Finished reading The Rule of Four a couple of days ago. While its an interesting book, I was disappointed.

People are comparing it to The Da Vinci Code but there are only few similarities. Both deal with hidden messages in old manuscripts/books. But while the Rule of Four goes much more deeply into the characters of the book, it gives little detail about the intricacies of the puzzles. It explains the first few "riddles" reasonably well, but then just kind of punts on the rest. I remember The Da Vinci Code gave much more detail on its puzzles, their background and how they were solved. Most of the puzzles in The Rule of Four boil down to finding an answer to a riddle (one word) from Renaissance literature and using it as a cypher to unscramble text. And the scope of the book is much more limited than The Da Vinci Code, dealing only with occurences on the Princeton campus (and the past life of 3 scholars) instead of Da Vinci's globe spanning story.

I guess that if people want more of a "personal" story, with interesting characters, then Rule of Four is probably pretty good. But if like me, you are more interested in the puzzles and the details behind them, then its disappointing.

Ugly Americans

Finished reading Ugly Americans by Ben Mezrich a couple of days ago. I definitely enjoyed it. Its a good book and I recommend it (as well as his previous book - Bringing Down the House).

He is a good writer and is excellent at making a true story seem very much like a novel. While I'm sure he takes liberties with many of the details (not only to make it more exciting but also to hide identities) I still trust we are getting the main ideas behind the story right.

My complaint with this book is that the last few chapters, everything the book is ramping up to, seem way too rushed. We get very few details of what happened and how it happened (e.g. how Malcolm comes up with the idea for the huge trade, how he actually executes it, how the Yakuza were involved, etc etc.). Again, I understand he cant explain everything without giving away his sources. But I was still a little disappointed by his quick treatment of these important points. (By comparison, Bringing Down the House had a lot more detail about key points. For example the methods used to count cards.)

But I still recommend it. Great story.

Politics

Just finished reading Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Some interesting things in the book, an entertaining read. Up to now, I havent had any interest in politics (and I dont foresee this changing at all). I think part of the reason is that I've been in a country for the last 10 years where I cant vote, and the stuff going on in my home country is too distant for me to get really interested. So I dont follow politics. And, because of that, I probably have a very naive view.

But I dont get why people get so polarized around party lines. Each party has good things and bad things, politically, ideologically, economically, etc. Why do many people just blindly stay to one side, no matter what? It doesnt make sense to me. The way certain things are portrayed in the book its almost like the two sides hate each other and will do/say anything to screw with each other. (Now, I'm not saying Franken does this - in fact I think he does a decent job of presenting things fairly. But again, I dont think I know enough yet to be sure he is being completely transparent. I guess the best thing would be to read stuff from the other side. But the truth is I'm not interested.)

In my naive view of things, both sides are on the same team. And they should act like it. People should try to do the best job they can for their country, tinted of course by their beliefs and views. If things work out, great. If not, they will be replaced sooner or later - after all it is a democracy. But this blind other-party bashing seems ridiculous to me.

The sad part is, if it doesnt happen in the US where there is a reasonable amount of transparency and a will to do what is best for the country, what hope is there for a place like Mexico where most public officials are egregiously corrupt and only interested in enriching themselves and their cronies?

Moneyball

Just finished reading Moneyball, by Michael Lewis. Lots has been said already about this book, but I just want to leave my initial impressions here. I think this blog will be a great way to keep track of books I read and make notes of what I thought of them and their important points.

First of all, its a very good book. Even for non-baseball fans. I dont care at all about baseball and still enjoyed it. The main points I have taken away so far are:

1) True analysis is very valuable and a way to distinguish yourself from the pack. And I mean analysis in any facet of life or business. I think most people are somewhat lazy in this respect (including myself). Those that take out the time to analyze the data and really figure things out will often create a competitive advantage for themselves. Reminds me of concepts seen in a negotiations class - there is no subsitute for preparation, knowing your position and your opponent's position better than even he knows it himself.

Beane and the Oakland A's exhaustivel analyzed the data available to them, as opposed to most other teams that rely on little more than gut-feel to select players. This resulted in a huge advantage.

2) When faced with a situation where you "cant win" because of certain constraints, change the rules/game. I know this is an old strategy/b-school thing. But still useful to repeat here. The A's cant compete against the Yankees' payroll. So in a way they changed the way they played the game - selecting players in ways no one else did and in the process outpeforming everyone else, at least in bang for the buck.

I also think there are great lessons in seeing how Beane went about negotiating with the other teams for players he wanted. Going into it he knew exactly what he wanted, what the other guys were thinking and what they wanted. He was much better prepared than the other guy and because of that often ended up "winning" the negotiation.