LawMan introduces himself...

Former Lawyer in Private Practice. Holder of degrees in Law and Economics. Now teaching Law and Economics somewhere.

LawMan's Dogs

LawMan's Dogs
Killer Beasts Doing Breakfast

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Only the bad stuff: a review of the Roborock S7 Max Ultra’s negative aspects

If you wish to find out more about the positives of the Roborock S7, don’t read on.  This review will just focus on the negatives. Here’s the truth:

1. No doubt you’ll read in the positive reviews about the Roborock’s supposedly high tech sensors.  These so-called hi-tech sensors are the fake deal, not the real deal. Why? When you actually observe the Roborock in use, you’ll find that benchmarked against much older vacuums such as the Samsung Powerbot VR9300 (launched at CES way back in 2016) - the Roborock has really not evolved much at all, and may even be worse than Samsungs a whole generation older.  The Roborock relies on bumping in to things to navigate around; so does the Samsung.  The Roborock claims to have a LIDAR to more precisely identify objects - this leads to pretty maps with a lot of apparent detail, but in practice the Roborock just continues to find its way by bumping into things - probably more often than the Samsung, which seems to make more or better use of its built-in camera to avoid obstacles.  As for object identification, it's going to make a lot of silly mistakes, like mis-identifying my arm with "89%" certainty as a piece of fabric.  The maps the Roborock makes look very pretty and detailed with lots of lines and shapes compared to the bare Samsung maps - but the Samsung never needs a new map made every few weeks or months. The Roborock's maps are good to start with but eventually, over a period of weeks or months of everyday use, the Roborock loses its place - it starts to go into places where it is not supposed to, and the cleaning history starts to show that the Roborock needs remapping (recalibration).  In other words, the Roborock starts to wrongly place itself on its own map.  Eventually the Roborock will start to move into no-go zones, past invisible walls marked on the maps it created weeks or months ago.  This happens even if you take good care not to move the docking station, and to clean the sensors regularly.  So you'll find yourself instructing the Roborock to re-map your house and you'll have to reinsert all the no-go zones and invisible walls anew.  A real waste of time.  Roborock is good at advertising fluff, a lot less good at matching that advertising fluff in real operations.

2. Accessories like the side-brush are really optional. The Roborock side-brush doesn’t really sweep, try it with-OUT the brush and you’ll see there’s no difference in terms of what actually gets sucked up when the Roborock cleans the room.  I’m not even sure if the main brush makes any difference - ultimately, the mopping function and the suction are what matter to make the vacuumed space clean.  So with the Roborock again, it’s marketing fluff and not a whole lot of substance - they could have just dispensed with  the brushes, the vacuum would work just fine.

3. Cannot manage unevenness like a door-railing set in the floor.  The wheels get stuck. No better than generations of robot vacuums before it. I’m not talking about ledges, which earlier generations of robot vacuums also avoided.  I’m just talking rails set in the floor for sliding doors.

And that’s it! The 3 main negatives with the Roborock S7 Max Ultra.  

Current as at February 2024. 

Monday, December 25, 2023

The Straw Man and the Famous Last Words Response

Straw Man argument: that billions of people celebrate the birth of Christ but don't think Jews lived there before 1948.  Post-er quotes the source as "Evangelical Bible.com". 

Indignant, ignorant, downright insulting response to me simply pointing out that it was a Straw Man argument: Matthew 26:33-35.  Really??!!  It's silly!

Saturday, May 13, 2023

How to win debates while preventing solutions to real problems

Some guidance for so-called leaders: in order to defeat an opponent offering an actual solution to a real problem, first:

1. Pretend that you wish to engage him/her in rational debate with a view to improving the quality of the solution. Start slow and easy, polite and "helpful". 

2. Define the problem in such a way that your debating counterpoint becomes the issue to be resolved - not the real problem.  Debaters know this tactic - it is usually the first priority of the first debater on any debating team - define the topic in such a way that your side will win the debate. Never mind the real problem that prompted the debate in the first place, that is not relevant because the aim of the hypocrite is always to win the debate. Fight on the Definition, Never Mind the Solution! 

3. Salami-slice. Once the misleading definition has established the false premise necessary to win the debate, build upon it by slicing the opponent's points of evidence away - bit by bit.  Slice them off by arguing that they are not really evidence of the real problem. For example, argue that the ultimate effect of various multiple actions should be ignored. Ignore the underlying intentions of legislators when they mount multiple indirect attacks on the rights of a particular group, where a direct attack would immediately be seen by other lawmakers, judges adjudicating disputes and the general public audience for what it really is.  Instead, argue that superficial, asserted, stated or claimed, top-line intentions are all that matter.  Ignore underlying motivations or the big picture that ties seemingly disconnected attacks together. Argue that indirect attacks are not attacks at all.  Argue that they are simply irrelevant to the "real" problem - which you yourself had earlier defined such that it is **not** the real problem. By this method, the opponent's evidence - though overwhelming - can be whittled-down bit by bit into a tiny core that you will ultimately invite the audience to dismiss.

4. Mount the in personam attack but call it an attack on the merits.  An in personam ignores the merits of the issue - the real problem - and in this sense builds on the misleading definition of the real problem by adding on a layer, that attacks the personal characteristics of the opponent.  For instance, call him insane, or stupid, or some combination of both.  But say that there is evidence of that insanity or stupidity other than the fact that the opponent dares to challenge your misleading definition of the real problem.  Put up little cherry-picked moments - gaffes - from the opponent's life or career as evidence of an unsound mind, while ignoring the overwhelming mass of those other facts that point to a long, distinguished, and currently still high-achieving and very sane and intelligent life of your opponent.  When it is pointed out that you are engaging in an in personam attack, claim that you are discussing the merits of whether or not your opponent is fit to challenge anything or anyone, based on evidence.  Make it an issue of the current debate although it did not start that way.  Strenuously try to make it seem that there is evidence for rational discussion, as opposed to the naked personal attack that it is. If assertions continue that this is just a personal attack masquerading as a rational discussion of the merits of your opponent's sanity or intelligence, mount a further personal attack: "I cannot believe that a person of your eminence, experience, education and/or intelligence cannot follow my very simple line of reasoning, supported by evidence.  Do you not understand the true meaning of in personam?"  In other words, double-down on the in personam angle of attack.

5. Never, ever, let your opponent have the last word.  Ever.  Always take the last chance at the microphone.  This is critical!  Recency effect means, your audience is more likely to remember the last words they heard compared to the words they heard earlier, all other things being equal. 

6. Invite your audience to join in the ridicule, have a good laugh, and walk away.  Hands down. Always send a message of good cheer - even though winning the debate delays or prevents a real solution from ever being implemented to a real problem, with all the negative consequences for real people who were hoping for more from their leaders.

QED.


Saturday, November 27, 2021

What is a good lawyer?

What is a good lawyer?

Is s/he one who:

  • never admits that s/he could have made an error
  • never admits any prejudice played a role in his/her reasoning
  • ends every debate with something along the lines of:
    •     you are an idiot
    •     why can you not see my simple point
    •     I cannot believe how you can be so dense
    •     And I thought you were smart.

... and other similar "compliments"?

In my life, I have met lawyers like those.  They think they are better if they know how to put down their opponent, by any means fair or foul.  They define being good - in effect - as always having the last word in anything like a dispute - whether it is a friendly debate or a more high-stakes contract negotiation or appearance in court.

So! In my by now quite long life, I have even been criticised by opponents as someone who should change his diapers - but they themselves do not seem to realise the stupidity of telling someone to change his diapers, because anyone old enough to change his own diapers has to be smarter than the baby that the opponent telling him to change his diapers wants him to be.

But also in my by now quite long life, I have learnt that there is no need to respond in kind.

A good lawyer - indeed, a good person, whether also a lawyer or not - is one who knows his own worth before God.  I need no mere human - least of all any member of this "2nd oldest profession" - to decide my own worth.  And that goes for various aspects of my own worth, such as my own intellect and sense of values.  When you have been around long enough, achieved enough, helped enough, built enough - you realise that when others mount such attacks upon you, they tell you more about them than about yourself.

And so, a good lawyer is one who is confident enough in himself to simply ignore, for being beneath his dignity to respond, ad hominem attacks mounted by the desperate and the insecure.

In the end, res ipsa loquitur.  My record needs no defence or embellishment; my facts tell their own story.  Let attackers insult; for that is all they know how to do.  That is why, in fact, they insult; they can do no better.

A good lawyer is one who does not behave like many lawyers.  Let them be "lawyers" and use their "lawyerly" (shark-like) debating instincts, their abilities to use words to harm.  Let them believe that words do break bones.  I prefer to use my training and talents for other, higher purposes.  Let the ad hominem wordsmiths gasp for air in the dust storm that life shall leave, especially, for them. 










Sunday, March 01, 2009

Stupid Assholes

Enough said.

Mistake in gazette, Christians still can’t use ‘Allah’

KOTA KINABALU: A Feb 16 government gazette lifting a ban on Christian publications to use the word “Allah” will be rescinded.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said a gazette would be issued as early as tomorrow to cancel the earlier gazette.

He told reporters here yesterday that there were mistakes made in the drafting of the Feb 16 gazette which stated that Christian publications could use the word “Allah” provided the words “For Christians” were clearly printed on the front cover.

“The government’s stand on the ban has not changed.

“There is also a judicial review challenging the ban,” Syed Hamid said.

He said the government had no intention of pre-empting any decision of the courts on the judicial review brought by the Malaysian Catholic church publication, the Catholic Herald.

Acknowledging that more care should have been taken, he said since mistakes were made “we will now have to correct them.”

Syed Hamid said a gazette to cancel the Feb 16 gazette is needed to clear any misunderstanding over the matter.

Apart from the word “Allah”, the ban for the Christian publications also covered the words “Kaabah,” “Solat” and “Baitullah”.

The ban on these words are not aimed at preventing other religions from being practised.

It is just that the government wants to avoid any confusion, Syed Hamid added.


Friday, February 13, 2009

Geert Wilder should not have been banned from the UK

Now, this is ridiculous.

Is the UK for "free speech" or not? Exactly what are the boundaries? Looking at my last post, I think it's pretty obvious that there are some pretty woolly thinkers in the powers-that-be that regulate free speech in the UK (yes, oh come on, "free" speech is regulated everywhere).

Wilder's video, as I have said in earlier posts, doesn't actually contain any fabrications or lies.

It contains statements and multimedia equivalents (ie. videoclips) taken out of context. Wilder has not invented statements from the Koran; he's merely extracted them for his own purposes.

Similarly, the videoclips were not staged for Wilder's camera; so, unlike the proverbial fire in the cinema, cited by a "brilliant" minister of Her Majesty's august government (Mr Miliband also said: "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land.") - as an example of a situation where the UK government would not allow the freedom of speech to prevail, there IS repeat IS a fire here - there is no lie in that sense. The statements Wilder actually made in Fitna are "true" - no fabrications.

The only dispute is over what you, the listener, make of that fire - is it the kind of fire that makes you run for the exit, ie. you agree with Wilder, or the kind of fire you will simply stand on to put out, ie. Wilder is exaggerating or otherwise putting the wrong spin on the observable facts.

In other words, the proper response was to allow plenty of equal time for Wilder's opponents to justify their stand.

Banning him shouts one thing loud and clear: there is no effective or proper logical response to Wilder that will appeal to the listener's good sense; Wilder is essentially correct in what he says, and therefore the only way to win the argument with Wilder is to shut him up and deny him the right to put his views across instead of replying him point for point.

Let's put my point another way, linking back to my earlier post: if saying God Doesn't Exist is not a violation of norms where freedom of speech in the UK is concerned, what exactly is wrong with saying that the Muslim God is a God of Violence? I mean, in neither case is anyone saying: Kill All the God-Believers, or, Kill All the Muslims, although that may or may not be an implication from the statement. It is merely another opinion, no? Why allow one and ban the other? Is the lobby group against Wilder more powerful than the lobby group against Atheists, and therefore more successful? Is this the real truth behind the matter, Mr Miliband? Is the deciding factor exactly who and how many you think might be offended by the statement rather than the quality of the statement itself?

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Why the Atheist anti-God campaign is so offensive.

I was intrigued by this which I saw on the BBC website:

Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus


"A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with an atheist slogan proclaiming "There's probably no God".

... The advertising campaign is backed by the British Humanist Association and prominent atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins.

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: "I have difficulty understanding why people with particular religious beliefs find the expression of a different sort of beliefs to be offensive.

"I can't understand why some people seem to have a different attitude when it comes to atheists."

I thought it would be pretty obvious why such a campaign would always be offensive. In a way I'm surprised it was allowed, because Britain does have hate speech legislation. It all depends on HOW you express your "different sort of beliefs" - and if it's just a BELIEF, ie. a normative rather than a positive statement (ie. one that can be proven true or false by reference to facts you can objectively measure), then you really shouldn't be surprised if those of a different belief group decide they aren't going to cooperate with you or be nice to you.

What would happen if I decided I was going to pay for an ad campaign to run on buses that said: "Cina Balik Tongsan" (Chinese Go Home) - in the Malaysian or Singaporean context - or, taking a religious (NOT ethnic) example: "Jews / Muslims /Hindus / Buddhists / Have Got it All Wrong, It PROBABLY Ain't Kosher - Come to Church on Sunday", or, perhaps, "The Law is an Ass - **Don't** Follow Law"??

The only reason why this British Humanist Association statement, which I found quite silly, was made: "some people seem to have a different attitude when it comes to atheists" - is because the atheist concerned doesn't consider religion to be an important part of a person's character or life makeup. It's a typical, insensitive, one-angled, not well thought-through kind of attack on other belief systems.

It's not different, in my view, from wondering why slagging the law off would offend lawyers, or slagging Chinese off would offend people who are Chinese, or slagging Judaism off would offend Jews.

Maybe the ad is some kind of joke, or half-joke - in which case, and this wouldn't be new, one person's joke is simply another's insult.

For instance, I'll always remember the year Andrew Leci performed at the Bar Council's Annual Dinner. His act was FULL of lawyer jokes, and by the time the end of the show was reached nobody was laughing, even politely.

I also remember Al Gore's Reformasi speech - in KL, as an invited guest of the Malaysian government, at APEC - when he was still the vice president.

Maybe Al thought he wasn't offending anybody except corrupt power-abusing politicians, but a lot of ordinary Malaysians got mighty upset and I recall personally writing and circulating a long email post "gor-ing" Gore on this, back then. One prominent Malaysian intellectual even took out a full-page advertisement in the newspapers on his own account to condemn our "good friend" Al from America.


Friday, January 02, 2009

Australian researchers claim breakthrough on dengue fever

Now why is it that a Malaysian or Singaporean research team didn't do this?

Was it just lack of money, or something deeper, more fundamental? Was it just luck, or some cultural or intellectual impediment? I'm thinking, did someone perhaps NOT think out of the box here? Because it seems to have not been a difficult thing to speculate that this could be a solution to the problem, and yet it had to be tested in Australia, a country only partially tropical, and certainly not under as big a threat from dengue as Malaysia and Singapore.

"SYDNEY : Australian researchers funded by US billionaire Bill Gates Friday claimed a breakthrough which could help in the fight against dengue fever by stopping the often deadly disease in its tracks.

University of Queensland researchers said they have successfully infected the mosquito which spreads the tropical disease with a bacterium which halves its 30-day lifespan, thereby reducing its ability to transmit dengue to humans.

Scientists hope their work will help halt the spread of the painful and debilitating disease which affects millions of people each year.

"The key is that really only very old mosquitos are the only ones that are able to transmit the disease," said researcher Professor Scott O'Neill.

"What we've done is put this naturally occurring bacteria into the mosquitos that actually halves their adult lifespan so they don't live long enough to be able to transmit the virus."

The research published Friday in the journal Science is the result of injecting 10,000 mosquito embryos with a bacterium that occurs naturally in fruit flies but has never been detected in dengue-carrying mosquitoes.

O'Neill said the test was designed to see whether the bacterium reduced the lifespan of the insects without killing them or preventing them from breeding and was able to be passed on to offspring.

He said while the laboratory tests, which involved researchers allowing the bacteria-infected mosquitoes to bite their arms because the species needs human blood to breed, had been successful, it would be several years before the technique would be tested in the wild.

"It's really a preventative strategy for preventing dengue fever outbreaks and what we've done is show that it's possible to be done in a laboratory," he told AFP."