Negative stuff shouldn't be the first post that my visitors see for too long, so i'll just push the last post down with a longer post filled with positive and/or philosophical stuff. at present, i've got 2 pieces of positive news, plus maybe a few topics on my mind to discuss.
first piece of good news - my defense date is confirmed! it's set for 03 december, which is three mondays (or 19 days) away. suddenly, it feels like i've got a bit more breathing room to prepare my slides. current progress is about 30%. got the introduction and bits of chapter 5 done, so that leaves chapters 2, 3, and 4 to go. the main focus will be on chapter 3, since that's the chapter with one of the more significant discoveries. by this point, it's more or less in the bag already. but that doesn't mean that i can slack off in my preparation. the ideal (and expected) case is to pass it on the first try, but i've known of cases where candidates were asked to come back for a re-exam, typically after 2 weeks. i definitely don't want to be the first one from my lab to undergo that. as part of my preparation, i've also been wondering what kinds of questions the examiners might ask. there are two main categories of question - fundamental and technical. fundamental refers to the underlying scientific principles (eg. how does NMR work?) while technical refers to your research in particular (eg. why did you use these reagents and conditions for this synthesis?). both are equally valid questions, but personally, i think i'd prefer more technical questions since there's less ground to cover, and because i know the content better since it's my research. i'll have to prepare for fundamental questions too, since one of my examiners is a spectroscopist, and i have used spectroscopic methods for a large part of my experiments. definitely can't pull the wool over his eyes for questions related to his area of expertise. the other examiner is an inorganic chemist who does synthesis, so i guess that i should be prepared to justify my experimental/synthetic decisions as well.
the nice department administrator was very helpful in coordinating everything, and in getting the date fixed quickly. if there was one thing i would change, it would be the time of the defense. she scheduled it for 10:00am, which is kind of early. maybe it was out of her control due to the examiners' availability as well. but now that the time has been set, i'll have to go with it. 10:00am means that the defense starts then, and that i should be in school ideally an hour before, or even earlier. so tempted to just wake up super early to beat the morning rush. if all goes well, i should be physically out of NUS by 3:00pm latest, which means that i should book an evening gym session. it feels a little unreal, that everything is finally converging towards that day. i'll just have to do my best and let everything else happen naturally.
next, raiding has been going well. i actually feel challenged in-game, which is a departure from the routine grind. i mean, that's challenging as well, but for a different reason. raiding is more intellectually challenging, as you have to react to things that happen and make sure that you're dealing enough damage to the boss in the process. the challenge for grinding is in finding the determination to see it through, and not succumb to the boredom/repetition. we made good progress yesterday, clearing the first 2 fights pretty easily, and seeing the third fight's "enrage" - which is when you don't do enough damage by a certain time limit, and the boss just outright kills everyone - twice. we got the boss down to 11% health the first time, and 10% on the second, so that's a measure of progress too. we've found ways to deal with most of the earlier mechanics, and can consistently reach the 60% mark of the fight with everyone alive, unless someone messes up. it does happen, and i'm guilty of it too. most important thing is to be understanding, and not let frustration take over. after all, friendship is more important, right? i'm happy that we're still laughing and joking about most of our silly mistakes, though there are issues (like my non-optimal damage output) that are taken more seriously. on my part, i'm happy and relieved to announce that there's been improvement, as other group members have told me. i personally don't track my numbers, but i do my best to get my attack sequence right. i'd say i'm at 80% mastery, which means that there's still room for improvement. the annoying thing is that we have difficulty with the later phases of the fight. but in order to see and get practice on those later phases, we have to fight through the earlier phases first. and occasionally, we mess up and die early. on the bright side, that probably contributed to our mastery of the earlier phases. hoping that the trajectory of our progress continues, and that we can get a clear before the defense.
since my objective is to push unhappy content of the last post down, i guess i should blog about a topic upon which i have a lot of things to say. "why i won't have kids" was a choice under consideration, but i was afraid that it might be too long. so instead, i'll talk about marriage, and LGBT marriage too. i figured that my thoughts about this issue would hold more weight since i'm part of that community...but i could be wrong. disclaimer: everything here is my own opinion, you are free to agree or disagree as you wish.
in my view, there are two components to marriage. there's a civil/legal component, which helps in buying houses, wills, powers of attorney, all that stuff. apart from that, there's a moral/spiritual/religious component, or the "love and cherish each other till death do us part" bit which makes adultery morally reprehensible. personally, i'm not for marriage at all, be it same- or opposite-gendered. like i mentioned in a previous post, if a couple really loved each other, they would stick together regardless of how they are being perceived in the eyes of the law. to be fair, i do understand how a marriage certificate might provide "insurance" against cheating, as a deterrent by highlighting the commitment that was made, and by giving the non-cheating party the moral high ground and better negotiating power in the divorce.
while that is my view, i am also of the opinion that people should be allowed to marry whoever they want to...with one condition. namely, that the two parties to be married must be able to give informed consent. that's usually interpreted as being human, and of legal age, so that there won't be nonsense arguments of "oh so does that mean i can marry my dog/cat/goldfish?", or the issue of child brides and children being forced into arranged marriages with each other. it's amazing to me how some people can make such huge, inaccurate jumps in logic. makes me wonder if they ever really sat down and thought their arguments through. not saying that i'm the clearest thinker around, but i do do my best to catch myself on any logical failings in my thoughts. i've also read articles of people in japan marrying inanimate objects (eg. anime characters, holograms, inflatable dolls), which i think is harmless for the most part. after all, what's the worst that could happen aside from contributing to the declining birth rate? these people leave their assets to their "spouse", resulting in a messy legal battle among surviving relatives when the person dies. funny thought for this case though, the "spouse" also becomes an asset for distribution among living relatives! imagine inheriting your sister-in-law, and dumping her in your storeroom or something like that.
for me, i think that the civil component of marriage is more important, to the point where i can forego the religious component. maybe because it affects me directly, and i'm not religious to begin with. for instance, i will never marry a girl, so it's going to be difficult to get my own housing. and even if i were partnered, i'm not entitled to the various discounts, grants, and subsidies that married couples get from the HDB. of course, i'm not looking at tax relief that children provide, since that would be unfair as i don't plan on having kids. this inequality might lead to a larger societal problem, as some LGBT people who desperately want these benefits may just enter a loveless marriage of convenience and create more unhappiness all around. the more worrying part is that we would be unable to act on each other's behalf if either of us was incapacitated. it's not an issue if we get along with our partners' families, but in the not-unlikely case that there is disapproval/resistance, there can be all sorts of obstacles such as denying visitation rights, or even something as serious as not informing the partner that the plug will be pulled on life support. i really hope that this scenario never happens, but who knows?
the religious aspect of marriage doesn't really apply to me, but i do have thoughts on it as well. i'm not a religious scholar by any means, so please forgive any inaccuracies. one of my friends commented on a facebook post that religion is both communal and individual. two people may say that they are christian, but have very different perception of what "god" is. like, god may be a father figure to someone, a divine light to another, and a companion to a third person. we can't say that any of these are correct or wrong, since we don't have proof of god existing, or what form god takes. they may all be right for all we know! but yes, that's the personal aspect of religion. for the communal aspect, i think that while branches of the same religion may have differing teachings, there are some general beliefs that most people identifying with a particular religion can agree with. for instance, most buddhists would agree that buddha was a prince who gained enlightenment, while christians by and large believe that jesus died for the sins of mankind. unfortunately, i think only christianity and islam have anti-LGBT sentiments. even then, it's kind of a mix-up in christianity. some people i spoke with quoted leviticus, while others said that jesus would have loved everyone. again, not religious, so i don't know what's right here. i'm personally inclined to believe the latter, since it's more to my advantage. anyway. about religious (christian) marriage in the LGBT context. there's a fundamental conflict, it seems. like, you can't belong to a religion and only obey certain teachings. that's called "cherry-picking", and its presence in any argument kills it in my mind. so there has to be some fairness here. one of my friends said that you can't be LGBT and christian at the same time. again, i don't know how true that is. but if you really want a christian marriage, why not start your own branch of christianity? that's what england did in order to legitimize divorce, right? of course, it's not feasible in this modern world, but it was just an interesting thought to me. although i don't understand why someone would want to be a part of something that doesn't accept them as they are. i bet there are many reasons, like constant indoctrination since childhood, having large social circle overlaps with religion, circumstantial limitations, and stuff like that. of course, there are churches who are supportive, so maybe seek them out instead?
unpopular opinion incoming - unless it's a life or death scenario, people who are anti-LGBT should not be obligated to provide goods and services to LGBT people. there was this whole controversy in america about but a baker wouldn't bake a cake for an LGBT wedding, and even got taken to court because of that. if i were the couple, i'd choose to give other more deserving businesses my money. and even if the court ruled that the business had to serve the couple, i wouldn't trust them not to do anything funny to the cake. so for my own peace of mind, i'd definitely look elsewhere. unless that shop was the only vendor providing a really unique or essential product, but i can't imagine anything that doesn't have alternatives in today's world. maybe cheap medicine in a remote location, or some technology under patent? but yes, i hope that in this more enlightened age, such discrimination will die a natural (and quick) death by people choosing to take their money elsewhere. actually, i do respect the baker's honesty. it would be far worse if he had secretly sabotaged the cake.
coming back to singapore, there's been a massive push to repeal or modify section 377a of the penal code this year. that section has to do with criminalizing men based on their sexual preference, so we're still some way away from talking about LGBT marriage. but if i had a say in lawmaking, i'd choose a moderate middle ground. similar to the UK, i'd say let LGBT couples have civil unions, which gives them the same rights and benefits as married couples. in place of divorce, the union could be dissolved, but rules similar to those of divorce would apply with regards to division of shared assets and maybe custody of children (if present). whether religion factors into the union is dependent upon the couple and the religion in question, but it should not interfere with the civil and legal rights conferred upon the couple by the union. that seems like the best win-win situation to me, though i'm sure that extremists from both ends will find fault with it. the anti-LGBT camp will probably argue that it's the start of a slippery slope (which it won't be because of informed consent), while the super-pro LGBT camp will likely argue that a civil union is still not completely equal to marriage (which it isn't, but you can't force the issue). maybe both sides should take a step back when the issue comes up for debate.
right, i think that's enough pushing. hope that gave you an insight into my mind. the next 4 days are busy, with the extra learning lab meeting tomorrow, dinner with one of the chemistry guys on friday, driving duty followed by work on saturday, and another day's work on sunday. not to mention gym for tomorrow and friday, too. in between all that, i have to clean up the mess in the car (before saturday, likely tomorrow) and find time to finish version 1 of the slides (before next wednesday). should be doable. have to do a quick cleanup of my room tonight, and maybe vacuum tomorrow. all in all, i think there'll be plenty to keep me occupied.
-random thought of the day: Need to clean my fan too.-