Today while reading a story to kid got a totally unexpected question.
What does moon sound like? (मून चा आवाज कसा येतो).
I tried to make some believable sound (hushhh hushhh) . But he didn't like that sound. So he told me to ask Google home the same query - What does moon sound like?
Google home - like a dumb assistant it is instead of saying "I don't know about that" replied - "Sorry I didn't understand", despite it clearly hearing me correctly.
Trying to understand LinkedIn. Is it Social Media for people who want to seem smart?
Types of LinkedIn posts:
1. Direct Job Searchers (self-explanatory)
asking for cfbr
2. Achievement Advertisers (Talk about some recent paper/patent/product launch/certification and so on.
3. Freelancers/consultants/one person business people/Senior people in specific fields - Talking about their field of expertise (mostly technical or financial)
Some of them try to get new customers by making sure their posts contain enough cerebral spice to become viral.
4. CXOs - Giving gyaan and motivations
5. Analyzers (Not sure what's their job role) - They analyze various kinds of technical advancements/ businesses/government policies from all across the world. Try to write posts which reminds one of Malcom Gladwell, as if they have found some hidden connection which no one else has thought of earlier.
6. People treating LinkedIn as a Customer Care and tagging large companies. If post becomes viral, it will surely get reply and quick resolution.
7. Spam - HR people talking about how ideal workplaces should be
8. Spam 2.0 - Totally random (yet viral) videos or jokes
In general, purpose of any social media is for people to feel vanity + connection with others.
While searching for solution to mold at home, I came across a range of dehumidifiers. As per online reviews (Amazon, YouTube, Reddit), there are two good dehumidifier companies in India.
Both of them claim to make the best dehumidifiers in India, supply to food packaging, hotel industries etc. etc. They both are in the business since more than 20 years. I like to read stories of Indian manufacturers ("about us" section on their website) so I was feeling good that Indian companies are good at making these machines.
Below two are their compact dehumidifier models (for home usage).
I looked at the job openings at these companies, their LinkedIn profiles, I couldn't find any R&D centers or highly qualified engineers/researchers working for them. So I was amused. How are they making these machines with less than 10 employees on linkedin?
To my astonishment, I found the answer when I read the PDF manuals of these machines.
DeYe is the original manufacturer of both PowerPye and Origin compact/home dehumidifiers. In this context, it was quite funny that these Indian companies are competitors of each other, while selling products from the same manufacturer.
A few days ago I read the news that some students in JNU had burnt a copy (or rather a selection of 40 verses) of the text titled ManuSmriti. A student leader said -We essentially got printouts of around 40 verses from the text that we feel had extremely derogatory references against women and burnt them. Today is International Women's Day we thought this was the day when we should burn this text that contains highly derogatory remarks against women. By burning Manusmriti, we are burning discrimination.
I have not read the book in question neither do I know anyone in my social circle who has read it. According to Wikipedia it was used to formulate the Hindu law by the colonial government, so I assume it was held in high regards in those times.
After I read the news my immediate thoughts were – wait a second. Isn’t this an attack on free speech? Isn’t that what regressive groups and governments do? Try to ban books and burn libraries? How are these supposedly liberal students burning a book? I thought books were not meant to be burnt, even those who spread ideology that we oppose.
On further discussion with a friend it became clear to me that in this case it is not an attack on free speech. One might argue that burning Manusmriti is different from burning a library. There are many copies available, so it is not as if someone else will not have an access to it if someone burns their private copy.
A book is nothing but a physical form of someone’s thoughts/arguments. If we don’t like it, why read it! Why get angry reading something that we don’t like?
But let’s suppose that such a regressive book is followed by a large number of people. So it becomes important to not ignore it, but to spread awareness about the ill effects of book’s message. The best way to negate a book’s arguments is to engage in an dialog with the author. Now, Mr. Manu has been dead since hundreds of years, so that’s not possible. Next best option would be to argue with those people who hold the book in high regards.
One can also write another book, quoting problematic verses from Manusmriti and educate people about how it would be wrong if those verses were to be followed. One can give public speeches; write articles ... so on and so forth. I believe that many rational minded people have taken these routes.
Why then there is a need to burn a book?
People who follow the customs mentioned in the book, will not change their viewpoints just because someone else burned it. People who haven’t even read the book (but still follow its ideology) will not care, because they don’t even know that the book is supposed to be important!
What message does then burning of a book sends out?
I think, burning a book only tells us one thing. Those people who burnt it are angry with its content and do not know how to give a voice to that anger. They don’t want to engage in a constructive argument.
They think burning a few pages is enough to destruct thoughts. But they don’t know that an idea is more powerful than its physical form. Even if all the copies of Manusmriti were to be burnt, it will not make any difference in today’s India. People learn their “culture” from their parents and nearby social circle, and that knowledge gets passed on without reading anything.
There is another reason why thinking people should not burn books. It is because it gives an excuse to people from opposing ideology to burn books they don’t like. It sets a bad precedent in public discourse. Any group of people can burn any book – and say that we have destroyed it because we don’t like it. It gives people an excuse to not engage in a debate or dialog and just destroy whatever they don’t like.
A book in itself is more than its message. As a historical document It also tells us about the dominant viewpoints in a particular period of time. It tells us about the usage of language in those times. It tells us more than even the authors intended. I have been raised in an environment where even touching a book (even if it’s a film magazine!) with feet is considered ill-mannered. May be it’s childish but it feels painful that people don’t have respect for books and just burn it.
In my opinion, as a form of protest it is completely outdated to burn books. From an environmental point of view I would suggest people to delete PDF copies of Manusmriti on their computer instead. They can delete it as many times as they want without creating any pollution! So how about showing your anger through a simple Linux command ? :)
'You enjoy freedom of expression only because army guards borders'
Sure. That logic can be applied to any situation -
The lawyers who beat people in court premises - enjoy their freedom to beat others - because army guards borders.
Netas can freely do corruption - because army guards borders.
People can burn buses and demand reservation - because army guards borders.
See - how rediculous it sounds?
These days there seems to be a tendency among people to connect each and every event with Army and Jawans. Why is there a need to bring in army in any argument is beond me. Army
does not give us freedom, the constitution does. Army plays a vital
role, but my freedom does not come from army. In fact, Gandhi helped us
win freedom, without an army! Even if we lived in a state where army
lost wars (in which case I hope everyone who can, joins army) we would
still have freedom of expression. Sure, we will then have to fight for
it much *much* harder (lazily posting on facebook or writing blogposts is not enough), but we
will still have it.
People often say - don't say anything that
may demoralize army personnel. Well - is there a *need* to say anything?
Our newspapers are depressing enough already. I salute all jawans who
read our newspapers and don't get demoralized as it is.
Recently a post by a certain Dr. Rangwala got viral on Facebook. Later she wrote it as an article for Huffington post titled "My Husband And I Are Thriving Muslim Professionals In India. We Have Only Felt Acceptance".
First of all, it's a very well written piece. She describes how she and her IIT educated husband faced no hatred towards them for being Muslims. She questions the recent debate in the country on Intolerance, and calls it "fake". She spent first 18 years of her life in Kuwait and finds India much better in comparison.
One can argue about whether or not intolerance is increasing in the country, or whether it's only getting more "visible" these days. She says
An ordinary citizen like my husband and I are not facing any such issues, then what have they (the Khans) faced?
This is a valid question. It would be very interesting to ask our superstars what discrimination (if any) they personally felt over the years. But the underlying assumption here is that one can protest about something only when they are directly affected by it. In fact it is the duty of every citizen to to fight against any ills of the society, in their own capacity.When parliament members make statements that are hateful and incite violence, no person is directly affected by mere words. Still, they must be condemned. Why did so many people protest on the roads in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya case? They were not directly affected by it. Why then? My second problem with her post is the last two sentences.
How long can I expect majority of Hindus to tolerate this
nuisance? It's high time that Muslims understand the value of the
freedom and acceptance that we enjoy in India and if not, I pray that my
Hindu fellow citizens continue to keep their patience.
It is highly patronizing towards both Hindus and Muslims in India. It gives an impression that Hindus should be praised for not "rioting" and Muslims should not complain (about any actual discrimination they might have faced) because India is better than some other regressive countries. This is unfair towards people with legitimate grievances. It is like telling a married woman that her abusive husband is good because "at least he does not hit her, like some other husbands". Note - I am not saying that all Hindus are inimical towards all Muslims (and vice a versa). In a country of the size of India, one cannot assume *any* absolute generalization about society. In India you can be discriminated against on the basis on your gender, caste, religion, food habits so on and so forth. Instead of comparing our country with some regressive countries and being satisfied with it, we should rather strive for what is ideal. By all practical means, India may be a better choice when compared to Kuwait or other middle eastern countries; but that does not mean we are perfect. One cannot take either extremes. Dr. Rangwala's personal experience does not invalidate the hostility faced by some other sections of Muslims in India. We should be balanced in both criticism and praise of the Indian society. Shouting either All Izz Well or All Izz Hell, does not help. No matter which side of the debate you are on, once you talk in absolutes, the other side stops listening. Does that mean positive success stories of Muslims in Indian society, do not serve any purpose? Not at all. They should certainly be written and spread around, but not be used to deny some other unfortunate incidences that happen from time to time.
So today I was g-chatting with a friend on random things and suddenly the topic of TWMR came up. This movie has become talk of the town and everyone seems to like it. The movie is good overall. K was superb in the Haryanvi accented "duplicate" role. I almost didn't think that was double-role in initial scenes, it was a completely different character. The duplicate role was quite symbolic in that M realizes that even though the duplicate looks like T, he still likes T for what she is, personality-wise . On another note, both M and the purana premi shouldn't have fallen for the duplicate; if you were breaking up with someone it seems to be a very bad idea to pair up with someone who would remind you of them.
Nevertheless I wanted to grouse a bit.
First of all, T and M never logically discuss their bones of contention face to face. They start fighting at the start of the movie and reunite at the end, just like that. Just because they realize that they "love" each. It may be a momentary feeling. What if tomorrow they go down the same path? There is drama-rama-rona-dhona in the end, it's Bollywood after-all, but I wished there was some sincere rational talk as well.
I still doubt if T still completely likes M, may be she's now become more tolerant of his "boringness"? Has M changed a bit though? He still seems to be the same person fundamentally. So the movie lacks a satisfying end IMO.
Or may be they have both matured a bit unknowingly, without needing to explicitly communicate. Perhaps.
--
Reading The God of Small Things. Good book. Like the dry/dark humorous style of writing. Kerala is described in manner that might evoke nostalgia, even though you may not have been there before! I was a bit surprised when my friend told me that it was the only book she wrote. Then googled a bit about her life story .. very interesting. And here is how the book came about.
--
For a change, instead of a song I'll leave you with a Shruti Box recording.
I had recorded a short video while we were traveling by car in the ghats some days ago. Somehow I recorded it upside down and to my amazement, it looks much cooler that way. See for yourself! (Watch in fullscreen 1080p HD)
The sky feels as though it's a sea ..
--
Recently saw Piku. Shouldn't have made Amitabh look fat, it doesn't suit him. Good acting, esp Irrfan. Fav scenes - the one in which Irrfan Khan shouts Choop! when people around him are arguing - and the one in which the maid comes back to work at the end, what nerve she has! On a serious note, it's a breath of fresh air to watch a believable portrayal of a "normal" family. I still can't relate to Amitabh's character though, where do such ultra-crazy-liberal fathers exist?
--
this song is pure bliss and lull inducing. heard it four years ago. Vienna by Matt Costa.
Sick of reading gruesome news about acts of violence towards men, women and children everyday, I thought of a grand solution to this problem once and for all. No, it's not better laws and their strict implementation. Neither it is teaching the principles of Buddha and Gandhi to the masses, hoping that they will grow up towards non-violence. People can go astray anytime. I wanted a foolproof answer.
Steven Pinker says that human violence has surprisingly declined and
"we may be living in the most peaceable era in human existence."
But I think humans should strive towards taking this issue head-on rather than waiting passively for world-peace.
Gun rights advocates say "Guns don't kill people, people do". I agree, so let's fix the people.
Here is the plan. Study the brain activity during acts of
aggression/violence towards other living beings. Identify the chemical
reactions and then come up with a new medicine that would make anyone who is injected with it non-violent. Sure, situation of personal and group conflicts could occur any time, but no one ever has thoughts of physically harming another person. They could choose to communicate logically, communicate nonsensically, or choose not to communicate at all .. but no actual violence. No violence at personal level will "automatically" result in no violence at international level (no more wars with guns and drones). I think Bill Gates should fund such venture rather than anti-ageing research which I think has less of use to human race as a whole. Well, not really. Anti-ageing research is useful too, otherwise how will humans travel light-years of distances trying to reach newer planets without dying in between? But overall the problem of violence seems more critical and resulting in greater good to me.
I know, it sounds crazy. Brain is not a computer despite the similarities. The problem is not as easy as finding a bug in a piece of software and fix some lines of codes. But let's assume that through Herculean efforts, our neurologists manage to find a permanent solution to physical violence without side-effects on other brain functions. What will be the issues once that milestone is reached?
First, we need a plan to inject every human with this Medicine of Peace. Biggest hurdle will be to convince everyone to get injected. In today's times, some people don't even trust vaccines, so how can we hope they will trust this?
What would be main challenges any such peace-plan will face?
1. Violation of personal freedom
I agree. But there is no other way to fix this problem, is there? We have to collectively understand that however well-meaning a person might be, there could be times at which slip-ups may happen resulting in violence. Hence we need to temporarily give up personal freedom, for the sake of humanity.
Some people might argue that only known violent criminals should be administered this medicine. Kind of like "sterilization of stray dogs" if you pardon the example. But this will create problems for these persons when they get out of jail, unless they are well versed in self-defense. Other people could exploit them.
2. Rogue elements
Practically speaking it's not possible to inject every human at the same time. World population is 7.x Billion
right now and we don't have a database of all the people. Even if we
had a database of every country's citizens and each country manages to
inject every known person with it, there will still be a number of
people hiding and waiting for everyone to turn non-violent and then
attacking them for their own benefits.
Another possibility is that the politicians could form a nexus and make all the citizens non-aggressive and then commit a lot of crimes, because there will be no physical retaliation.
Both the situations can really be disastrous.
3. What about animals?
People might argue that if all the humans become non-aggressive, what if jungle/sea animals
take control of the world after observing that no one is trying to harm
them? Frankly, I don't think this will actually happen. Planet of the Apes will not happen because (IMO) animals don't have tendency to harm humans, as long as we don't disturb them.
4. Who will go first?
Obviously, Indian government will not allow administration of any such solution until Pakistan does it, and vice a versa. Only a stupid would want to send letters of condemnation when the enemy is busy firing guns. This diplomatic deadlock will not allow any progress towards this goal.
--
How to surmount these challenges? I can't think of any solution at the moment. Perhaps any such universal plan will have to take place after the next world war when our population has reduced to a large extent (I hope this doesn't happen, but WW3 is a real possibility) and people are more prone to act sensibly and easier to convince since their number is smaller.
It is super ironic that in order to have a non-violent society, we first need to have a massive war!
Besides the above issues there is one other crucial issue. Even though the anti-aggression medicine will make everyone non-violent, what if aliens attack us tomorrow. We can't sit defenseless. Brains should still be capable to use force in self-defense.
So may be making such a medicine and giving it to everyone is not a sound plan.
