Getting Lost

I love this feeling.

After some sweaty late night tennis, hop on the car, start the engine, knowing where I am and where I want to go (home), but nothing in-between.

There’s a compass.

I am terrible at directions.

So I just drive in the general direction of where I think home is (I can do that thanks to the compass), and hope I’ll eventually end up on one of the few roads I know, and I can get home from there.

I’ve done it a few times and I think I’ve taken a different route every single time. Oftentimes I don’t even know what direction I am driving without looking at the compass. When I reach intersections… well there’s a 2/3 chance of getting it right (assuming the target is in one of the 2 quadrants in front).

From South Arm to my house at Blundell @ Gilbert, I think I’ve even gone to Granville and back once (those are roads in Richmond btw).

The stars are beautiful, and there are very few cars on the roads. The silence is relaxing. I don’t mind driving a little longer.

Try it some time! (I can help you get lost if you want. I’m GOOD at it)

14 thoughts on “Getting Lost”

  1. LOL. I’m definitely the best at getting lost. I once ended up at the Greater Vancouver Zoo in Abbotsford when trying to get home, ie White Rock, from Langley…

  2. i don’t have a ‘getting lost’ story to tell atm, but i’m at work before you today=D!

  3. Really? I thought you would be looking for traffic patterns and finding the fastest way to get home.

    I always end up building a mental map so I can’t make myself get lost in Richmond (its been ingrained in my head since I came here). Unless there’s construction or detours.

    PS. NP-complete senses are tingling

    1. I have trouble even keeping track of the direction I’m going.

      It’s not NP complete if there is a O(1) way to find the lower bound of a path (right?).

      If we reduce the problem to rectangular grid, it becomes O(1).

        1. There’s no such a thing of saying “this algorithm is NP-complete”.

          NP-completeness is only used to describe the complexity of problems, not algorithms. If a polynomial time algorithm exists to solve an problem, then the problem itself is not NP-complete even though you can find exponential time algorithm to solve it.

          Since your way run in polynomial time, then the problem is not NP-complete.

    1. It could’ve been solved mathematically, but not algorithmically.

      As in, we can prove that with perfect play from both sides, result will be ***. But we don’t know how to generate moves for perfect play.

      Or it could just be waiting for you.

  4. I think you sound so professional that people are afraid to approach you. Try to act “stupidly” and smile more. Just my opinion. Hope you read this.

    1. I certainly do read this, and thanks for the suggestion.

      I don’t need to act stupidly, though. I am stupid by design :).

Comments are closed.