A Corona Timeline

A semi-autobiographical account stretching from January to mid-March

• Detached disinterest. Something's up in China

• Ah yet another East Asian flu. Deja SARS

• Lots of Corona beer jokes. Hahaha

• Oh China...what's with the lockdowns! Will iPhone production stop? Will Apple stock sink??

• Travel restrictions to and from China! Washington state going crazy! Ooh exciting times

• Meh. This too shall pass. Warm weather is coming anyway

• But let's work from home: better be safe than sorry. Yay Netflix

• Spousal truces over who gets the study desk, who gets to take work calls loudly vs who needs to whisper

• Wtf just happened in Italy?!

• Fevered reading up on articles and analysis and data and charts and graphs and projections and predictions

• Holy moly! Markets in free fall

• Panic selling! (Of stocks)

• Panic buying! (Of masks)

• No bank runs (yet) but lots of grocery runs... Sanitizers cleaned out, wipes wiped out. F*ck it we have soap anyway

• Dang school are also closed now! So much for Netflix. Full on zoo mode at home

• Huh some pretty fun WhatsApp and Twitter jokes. Full on tragi-comedy

• Wade through the tons of spammy corporate emails... "You last used our product 4 years ago but we feel compelled to email you about the steps we are taking for your protection. Though we sell shoelaces". #FML

• Binge on chocolate. It's the end of the world anyway

• Guilt trip. Who am I kidding. The chocolate overkill is on me and me alone 

• Guilt trip #2: doctors and families dying in China and Iran and Italy and here I am wallowing in self pity and chocolate?

• No basketball. No F1. No tennis. Damn!

• No distractions: pure virus. Wake up to Corona news. Sleep to Corona news

• CAN WE STOP TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS? This news overdose will kill me before the virus does

• I am DONE reading; let's do some long overdue prep work. Why oh why didn't I get toilet paper like the others. Now even Amazon is all out of stock. Stupid stupid stupid

• No new news for 2 hours

• 12 hours now 

• ... 

• I can't stand the waiting. Bring it on Corona! Let's see this out one way or the other

• Utter resignation. Ennui. Take me already

• Shit it has hit the neighborhood! So much for the bravado

• The end is nea...ah...ah...ahchoo!

Real steel

I am currently reading a book called 'Man's search for meaning' by Victor Frankl, a Jewish psychotherapist who survived the holocaust. Though only 150 pages long, it's been a tough book to read for me, but also one filled with immense wisdom. Obviously the topic has made me think a lot of what should be the meaning of my own life. And just at this point, I have come across vastly contrasting approaches to how two highly successful people have tried to add meaning to their lives by helping others...

Before his fall from grace, Rajat Gupta was one of the world's most successful people in the corporate world. Global head of McKinsey for almost a decade, he also sat on the boards of the likes of Goldman and P&G, and co-founded the Indian School of Business. He also advised non-profit heavyweights like the Gates Foundation among others. Then of course came the fall - being convicted for insider trading and spending two years in jail. Last weekend I had the misfortune of getting snagged into what I will call this man's 'image repair yatra (tour)', when he was invited as one of the speakers at an IIT Bombay alum reunion. Now, everyone makes mistakes and I certainly don't want to appear holier than thou, but I found his approach very grating. He claims zero culpability for whatever happened, and paints himself as a scapegoat. To my mind two key facts seem to show how hollow that rings: 1. His fellow partner in crime Anil Kumar pleaded guilty! and 2. Rajat never testified in court, claiming the fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. I think if you aren't willing to testify in open court, then surely you are guilty. Having chosen against that path when the case was live, now he is duplicitous enough to claims in harmless social forums that he kept quiet at the time because of his lawyers' advice! I think real courage would have been to admit that he made mistakes, and then try to rebuild his life from there. But I digress - Rajat Gupta's white collar crimes or his response to the conviction is only tangential to my main topic.

The talk during the event veered to Rajat's philanthropic efforts, and the advice he had to the assembled alum. Obviously I had been fairly put off by Rajat's attempts to whitewash his reputation, so now to have to hear him preaching on philanthropy was a bit much to digest, but I was also put off because I recently read a powerful book by Anand Giridharidas called Winners Take All (must read btw!). In that book Anand ripped apart what he called a charade by the elites to change the world while only serving themselves, whether consciously or, if you want to be more charitable (if I may use the word), sub-consciously. Rajat's philanthropy efforts all fit into the classic flawed playbook that Anand described: pure advisory activities vs feet on street, shotgun application of the consulting toolkit vs a true emphasis on changing the status quo, a premature focus on 'building institutions' and 'scaling' without having first created a sustainable model, so on. Now, I do think that lots of times change can be catalyzed by throwing smart people (and lots of money) at societal problems, but often times the connection to ground realities is lost. But one point Rajat made in particular rang loud and clear in my mind: "education is the great leveler". Rajat brought it up in the context of why he co-founded the Indian School of Business (ISB). While I loved the concept of education as a leveler, and appreciate it the more I think of it, I just couldn't reconcile how Rajat believes that he is changing any underprivileged lives or 'leveling the playing field' by founding an elite business school that accepts candidates who are already at the top of the education / early career pile, and regurgitates them into corporate warriors who usually continue to have no impact on society or the underprivileged (fear not, I am myself a product of this system, so there is a good bit of self-contempt in there).

Dr Abraham George's philanthropy style can't be more of a contrast to Rajat Gupta's. In the outskirts of Bangalore, Dr George personally runs a school for the poorest of the poor called Shanti Bhavan. He is the headmaster and has been running the school hands-on for the last ~20 years, ever since moving back from New Jersey as a successful entrepreneur wanting to give back to society. His experience and struggles are beautifully captured in the 4-part Netflix documentary series called 'Daughters of Destiny' (do watch). Shanti Bhavan believes in starting at the primary education level, before under-privilege can start multiplying it's impact on children. They pick up kids from the lowest strata of society, e.g. 'untouchable' castes, in other words, educating children who were otherwise destined to remain poor and underprivileged. Giving them a true shot at lifting out of their generations-long inequality. The medium of teaching is 100% English - because that's how you get the right jobs. It's a residential school (kids stay on campus for the school year) - to ensure a fully immersive experience without distractions from the curse of poverty. The documentary highlights how much of a struggle it was just to launch and succeed at that one school, when Dr George is ever present and personally managing it. Do you think it would have been possible to launch a 100 such schools and truly maintained any quality / had real impact on the ground, if you had gone 'blitzing this space' as the modern philanthropist playbook suggests?

I think the Shanti Bhavan model requires real steel. It's not glamorous at all - no wining and dining wealthy New Yorkers trying to raise the next $100 million to pour into chasing the forever-elusive 'market sustainable' models, and no bandying about impossibly large impact numbers ("we changed the lives of 300 million people with our new model for XX"). Shanti Bhavan touches a 'mere' 24 lives per school year, but truly changes their lives and their life trajectories. And it has taken Dr Abraham George two decades of 100% involvement to get this far. But what a way to add meaning to his own life and that of so many others! Hats off.

PS: One could argue that me being an armchair critic of Rajat Gupta's philanthropy style is hypocritical - what have I done that I get to take potshots at someone who at least has done something? Maybe fair.

What Mexico's Roma taught me about India

I just watched Roma the other day and found it incredibly incredible. Yes, that incredible that it needed one too many incredibles to describe. Unlike other hyped up movies that disappointed me (cough Black Panther cough), this one delivered and how. What I found most notable was the breathtaking cinematography and sound. I have not watched such a beautifully shot movie ever, or one with more evocative sound. Evocative to me though it's set in Mexico of the 70s - because the sounds and sights of Mexico of the time do have parallels to India of the past. But it takes true genius to bring all that to life. Now, I am not a cinephile or anything close, so I am pretty sure there are other beautifully shot movies out there, but with the Oscar nominations for best picture, best cinematography, best sound mixing (and seven other categories for a total of ten nominations), others seem to agree that Roma does set a very high bar. And it's on Netflix so you have no reason to not watch! But movie making aside, what I did want to write about was the inequality and social order that the movie highlights. Warning: minor spoilers ahead.

Roma is primarily a loving look-back at the caregiver who raised writer-director-cinematographer-god Alfonso Cuaron, but it is also about his memory of Mexico in the 70s, and a general piece of art about nostalgia, family, etc. What I haven't seen talked about very much in reviews is how it's also about inequality. Cuaron definitely shows a clear contrast between the haves and have nots in Mexican society, and more hard hittingly, the contrast between owners and servants in the protagonist household, starting with the lavish owner's house versus the ho-hum servant quarter. Having grown up in India, no surprises to me that yes the servant class lives a very different life. But what I never realized was how hard coded the inequality was. That if you are from the servant class in India, you basically almost never manage to break into a different life. Maybe I was deluding myself all my life that in India you can get opportunities if you studied hard, learnt some English, and maybe got a break or two in life.

Well Roma ripped off all those delusions for me. That's because in Mexican society you can visually differentiate between the haves and have nots. People with European heritage are wealthy, have a lot of properties, go to all the right schools, get all the right breaks in life etc. And people with primarily indigenous heritage end up in the servant class or with much lower affluence. See Roma photo that shows the difference in ethnic background between the owners and the maid. No prizes for guessing who is who. And this isn't me speculating based on watching one movie. I have been visiting Mexico City frequently for work for the last year or so, and have observed this divergence first hand. Admittedly that isn't super scientific either, but various demographic studies do back up this fact of Mexican society - check out Wikipedia (EDIT: Cuaron himself talked about the state of Indigenous people in his Oscar winner's acceptance speech). All the movie does is to starkly bring Mexico's well-known inequality to life. And this unfortunate social status quo has been maintained literally for centuries. Think about that for a second. Millions of people have been born, lived and died over centuries, without ever managing to change their social station in life. And we were talking about equal opportunities if folks worked hard?

The difference in the owner versus servant class is visually stark in Mexico, but it's no less rooted in India even if less visually apparent (and hence easy to gloss over). Note that I am deliberately not using the upper class - middle class - lower class terminology. Too many of us Indians like to bucket ourselves into the ethically convenient category of 'middle class', thus absolving ourselves of any responsibility for how broken our social system is. All of us nice law-abiding not-too-wealthy middle class Indians who succeeded in life due to hard work and engineering degrees and IT jobs and whatnot, I bet that every single one of our families had servant help, typically in the form of maids who would clean our houses, do our dishes, hand wash our laundry, even clean our toilets. Maybe not full time like in Roma, but the concept and the inequality was the same. So while we celebrate the rise of India's middle class and our own personal middle-class 'honest' successes, do you think any of the children from our 'servants' ever had a chance in life? Maybe the luckiest and hardest working of them got to become a peon or bank clerk, but definitely not an 'officer' job. No sir, those are for children from English-medium-educated, 'nice middle class' families. Class systems are so deeply rooted in India that we don't even notice them most of the times. And English has become a convenient means of sorting the haves from the have nots. I will skip this convenient middle class terminology now and go back to owner class versus servant class.

'Servant class' Indians in police becomes constables, derogatorily called 'thullas'. 'Middle class' Indians write English medium exams and become police 'officers'

'Servant class' Indians in the armed forces become jawans. 'Middle class' Indians write English medium exams and become army / navy 'officers'

Neat appropriation of a colonial era class system by the caste system in the last 60 years since independence.

I am not saying that there is zero movement from servant class to owner class. There are stray successes that only highlight the exception, not the norm. Social and economic system based inequalities / injustices are so hard coded that we are thousands of kilometers from meritocracy while most of us may like to think we are just a couple of meters away. This isn't just Mexico (ethnicity based) or India (caste based), historical factors prove nearly impossible to wipe away everywhere in the world (e.g. race based in the US). Something that hopefully we will all keep in mind while celebrating the success of Roma.

Bonus read: Old but gold comic about privilege here

How car designs have aged

I grew up a big car buff and though the interest has waned a little over the years, I still take a keen interest in cars. Car design (exterior) has been a particular area of interest — there was even once a time when I seriously wanted to be a car designer and even sketched some designs. Having never trained formally in drawing, and not having a good eye for perspective, those designs haven’t aged very well, but that’s beside the point. I was recently reminiscing about car designs that I loved growing up (some of which have aged rather poorly and others that have only become more amazing over time), so I put together this post to do a retrospective on some of the notable designs in my mind over the last 20 years. I think this is especially relevant given many recent design trends (overdesigned cars, anonymous ‘Russian doll’ designs, cheap attempts to buy ‘presence’ with out of proportion grills, or just plain ugly designs). Not to say we are going down a bad design era (Volvo for one continues to knock things out of the park), but always useful to go down memory lane, no? I have given a scoring based on my memory of how I felt about the design at the time, and how I feel about it now.

Caveats

• Design is a highly subjective matter, so of course your mileage may vary
• I imagine I have missed a fair number of cars to the vagaries of memory (and to my specific exposure) so this is a rather random collection
• I worry that over time our exposure to cars on the roads in various levels of maintenance affects our views on the original design. So I tried to pull up brochure photos to try and show the designers’ original vision
• I have kept aside supercars and the like. The joy of spotting and admiring beautiful design in everyday objects is something different compared to drooling over million dollar cars (my opinion). Then again, not all supercars have great design so I will leave others to pick that thread up
• I only talk about design in a purely aesthetic sense here (design for the sake of design), keeping aside considerations like space / packaging, safety, etc.

So with all those disclaimers out of the way, here’s my list…

1998 Daewoo Matiz [Then: 9/10] [Now: 8/10]

I remember the first time I saw the Daewoo Matiz in a magazine pic of a pre-launch article. This was the late 90s and I was in absolute awe. The Indian car market was just opening up at the time and compared to what we had on our streets, the Matiz seemed like it had arrived from a completely different planet and era (dang I can’t find that original pic). The extreme cab-forward style, those perfectly geometrical headlamps, the cleanly proportioned body. It was like a new-age Beetle to my eyes. As fate would have it, the Hyundai Santro (aesthetics wise a relative ugly duckling next to the Matiz) won the market and the Matiz struggled for traction after a good first year or two. Over time the Matiz suffered on Indian roads with many ill-maintained examples being driven around or catching dust by the side (plus bad ‘facelifts’), and my fascination went down. But looking back at some original pics, you can see the design shining through. And evidently it was based off an Italdesign concept (read here)!

1998–2004 Honda City [Then: 10/10] [Now: 10/10]

These were amazing low-slung beauties. Clean lines but not at all boring. I loved both the pre-facelift and post-facelift models and still do. In my mind this was a great example of a facelift that moved the model into the future (jewel headlamps and tail lamps). And of course the overall package was amazing, not just the design.

4th gen BMW 3 Series and 5 Series [Then: 9/10] [Now: 11/10]

These cars used to set my heart racing back in the day and have become much-sought after collector’s cars now. Of course that has a lot to do with the engines, handling and all of that (a lot of people believe that BMW was at it’s prime in the 90s in the pre-electronics /mechanical era), but design has definitely played a role. Such well proportioned cars, clean lines, classic BMW angel eye headlights. Especially the E39 5 series has aged spectacularly. I am beginning to think of it as close to the league of the Jaguar E-type in terms of timeless design.

5 Series

3 Series

2003 Subaru Forester [Then: 9/10] [Now: 9/10]

I came across this beauty as the ‘Chevrolet Forester’ in India. Of course destined to fail as it didn’t have the presence or feel of an SUV. (Aside: did the Indian market change any bit in 15 years? The S-Cross still struggles with ‘presence’). But me, I just loved those proportions, that funky tailgate, that hybrid look of a station wagon-SUV. And maybe I have a thing for cars that look like Mark Wahlberg instead of John Cena (thinking of the CR-V and RAV4 progressions over years). The Forester has not beefed up too much in these 15 years, but it has indeed reached an awkward height visually, so lost a lot of the cool factor in my eyes, but Subaru’s Crosstrek has stepped in admirably.

2003 Porsche Cayenne [Then: 7/10] [Now: 9/10]

I think this will be a controversial one. No one seemed to like the first generation Cayenne. This beast of a design was not befitting a Porsche, they said. And Porsche has made subsequent generations less ‘in your face’ and more like a swoopy sports car but on stilts (which has made them lose character IMO — though the latest generation is getting a vibe of it’s own). Call me a hypocrite considering my views on the Forester / CR-V above, but I still love the butch first-gen and how it has aged. Maybe the design would have suited a Bentley more than a Porsche? Sure the front with the teary eyed headlamps was unfortunate like all Porsches of that era including the 911, but even that got fixed by a 2007 facelift.

Glorious First Gen

5th gen BMW 5 Series (2003) [Then: 9/10] [Now: 8/10]

I know everyone hated the Bangle designs, but I actually loved the 5 series of that era (though not the 6 or 7). Have mixed feelings about how this one has aged (brochures look great; on the road the cars look meh; side profile looks out of proportion now - especially the boot). I still rate it an 8 given how big a role ‘flame surfacing’ ended up playing in taking car design overall into the 2000s. Chris Bangle was definitely a visionary — but maybe BMW wasn’t the right brand for him?

2008 Mercedes-Benz GLK [Then: 5/10] [Now: 8.5/10]

This is an odd one. I hated the design at first — thought it was a poor translation of the boxy C/E design into an SUV. But over time it has grown on me massively. Unique design, sweet-spot size, shades of station-wagon / early Forester influence, stands out in a sea of anony-SUVs (including the successor GLC — swap out the badge on that one and no one can tell it apart from a Buick!). I think the GLK’s growing stature is just a darning reflection on the overall design evolution of this decade’s SUVs. The GLK is like the cool anti-establishment truck. Something a wealthier Walter White might drive!

4th generation Mercedes-Benz E class / 2013 facelift [Then: 6/10] [Now: 9/10]

I liked the 4th gen ‘W212’ E class but didn’t necessarily love it. And when the facelift came out, I was very annoyed that Mercedes-Benz had broken away from years of tradition and merged the dual headlamps into one. But I now eat humble pie. Perhaps it’s too early to tell, but I now think this entire generation is a classic. A unique low design, boxy yet sleek. I love both the pre-facelift Pontoon style rear fenders, and the post-facelift LED tail lamps. Compared to the 4th generation’s sharply individualistic design, I hate the latest E class anony-sedan design

Other notable mentions

2005 Fiat Punto aka Grande Punto (Giorgetto Giugiaro classic) and 2007 Fiat Bravo (Alfa Romeo masquerading as a Fiat?)

2003 Renault Espace (epitome of idiosyncratic French design that somehow just works). But maybe only on the outside. I know I am not supposed to review interiors, but what were they thinking with that dashboard?

Late 2000s Volvos (C30, S60, XC60, V60). Amazing designs that have aged decently if not spectacularly. Set the stage for the ‘Thor Hammer’ current gen rock stars

Animals and children

The other day I read 'The Crows of Pearblossom', a children's book by Aldous Huxley [minor spoiler alert]. I was curious to read it because of the author, whose dystopian novel 'Brave New World' I really liked. Apparently Huxley wrote this story for his niece, who was 5 or so at the time. Its a pretty nice story with many delightful instances of the protagonists having human characteristics (anthropomorphism). However, it was also a sadly typical tale where a carnivore (a snake in this case) is shown as evil.

That got me thinking, how important it is to sympathetically portray carnivores in children's books/movies. We are all intuitively driven to like 'cute', harmless creatures like rabbits or cows, and its also easy to show them as nice characters / heroes in our stories. Carnivores by dint of their diet, often end up playing the role of villains. They loom over the heroes of the tale, promising death or danger. Their personality then is also logically shown as dark or even outright evil. Isn't it ironic, given we ourselves as humans are biologically omnivores (I know many of my friends could possibly be categorized as pure carnivores given their dietary choices!).

The point is, though its easy as a narrator to show carnivores as the villains, are we not obliged to show them in a neutral / positive manner? Are we not creating an unhealthy fear / dislike for carnivores in our children by painting them black in otherwise shiny white tales? Think about it: children should be taught to be careful around carnivores like snakes, but why should they all consistently dislike snakes but adore say, sparrows?

Humanity has struggled with letting carnivores be in peace for a long time. Its almost as if we psychologically like to destroy other predators (especially apex predators like the big cats, wolves, or large birds of prey like eagles). Part of it is safety, but a lot of it is also just some primeval form of one-manship. Just look at all those photos of kings triumphantly posing with dead tigers. Given our own issues, isn't it time we stopped loading our children with emotional baggage about the supposed wickedness of carnivores?

Disclaimer: I am not saying we deliberately mis-portray carnivores in children's tales, just that we often take the easy route out when sketching animal characters, which ends up priming our kids poorly. Huxley himself idly made up this story for his niece one afternoon, which is quite fine for a one-off. Dreamworks' Madagascar is a good example where the storytellers explicitly played with the dynamic tension of having a mixed set of carnivores and herbivores in the lead cast (scene where Alex the lion starts to crave his friend Marty the zebra as a juicy steak). 

Take it, Tenez!

Nadal quits ATP role as Federer stands firm

Nadal and Federer have time and again sparred off the tennis courts too - in the ATP players council. The boiling issue has been whether players should be ranked basis their performance over the past 1 year (current scheme), or the past 2 years (proposed). For a change I have been rooting for the Federer camp. You see, I agree with Nadal's concern that the tour is too taxing on players as they have to trot around the world to a new tournament every 2-3 weeks just to maintain their ATP points. But while 2 year based rankings may improve the fatigue situation, they will simply not reflect real form and competitiveness of players. For example, ESPN analysis towards end of 2011 shows that, even after one of the best seasons ever, Djokovic would still have been No. 2 behind Nadal had there been a 2 year ranking! I say player fatigue and resultant injuries is a very pressing issue, but can't there be other ways to address it? Reducing number of tournaments is an easy yet difficult-to-implement one, so maybe they should increase the profile (and awarded points) of mid-rung tournaments. That way top players will know they can get better returns on their efforts by choosing all Grand Slams, a few mid-rung events, and only a few lower rung affairs. Others can choose a more grueling mix if they please, with only limited chance to leapfrog higher ranked players purely on the basis of higher appearances.

But wait, isn't that what the ATP is already doing with its ATP Masters series of titles? :)

PS: All this reminds me of the ICC cricket rankings. I was wondering why India did not become No. 1 in ODI rankings even after lifting the World Cup in 2011. The team has of course gone into spectacularly decline since. Did the Reliance ODI Ranking predictor know something we didn't?

PPS: The title of the post 'Tenez', points to the origin of the sport's name. From Wikipedia: "It was not until the 16th century that rackets came into use, and the game began to be called "tennis", from the Old French term Tenez, which can be translated as "hold!", "receive!" or "take!". An interjection used as a call from the server to his opponent."

Alma Matters

So I visited the IITB campus last weekend after so many years. Had been there to give an informal talk on consulting as a career option - you see, placement season is approaching. The talk was fine and all that, but I roamed around the campus after, and it just brought back so many memories. Nostalgia is so sad yet sweet. So many things have changed in my life in these last 5 years, and yet life on campus carries on just the same. 'Freshies' were running the gruelling 'crossie' race, sophies were graduating to badminton and squash, messes were still dishing out insipid fare, and rusted cycles were still all around. A lot of infrastructure has also been added. Here are some pics: Picasa link

They are different...

Came across a very interesting ad campaign recently: the superbowl ad for the Chrysler 200. It uses the 'Imported from Detroit' tagline to appeal to American consumers' hearts. Very astutely done in my view, because a purchase decision can sometimes be strongly driven by what your heart says rather than your head. Especially for an automobile, which is very often an extension of a user's identity. Happy to note that the campaign won 5 Cannes lions.

There are also follow ads with the same theme which are available at Chrysler's official YouTube channel.

Also came across advertisements from Tata Steel which talk about corporate values instead of product superiority. Check them out here (the ads on TV are 30-40 second clips - this is the unabridged version I guess). Watch out for the messages in the end:

The reason I liked the campaigns is because through them, the respective companies are playing to their strengths and trying to connect with customers.

Boredom and Creativity

Interesting piece by Dilbert's Scott Adams on creativity and how its linked to boredom. I am not sure we can (just yet) draw implications of the lack of boredom to how society is stagnating, but definitely on a personal level I do agree that you need time on your own to be able to be creative.

On the one hand, being so tuned in to the world (smartphones, tablets, kindles, etc.) actually helps stimulate things in your head. At least someone like me, I observe things, and I think. The more external stimulus I get, the more my mind starts racing. So its good in a way. And most of the things that I have ever blogged about came to life in this fashion.

But that's only one kind of stimulus. When I try to embark on something different, something bigger, then all these devices become distractions. I am having to fight out time from my schedule so that I can complete that short story I have been writing. And also certain other heavy topics that I like to think about - such as economics - I need time alone to muse. Ever noticed how all your best ideas come about when you are in the shower or the loo? No? Well at least that's the case with me. Guess its something to do with lateral thinking. Your brain gives you the best solutions when its not directly thinking about the problem. New perspective you might say. Not just showers or loos, I am glad to report that long commutes also out work for me and my brain. So next time you are stuck in traffic why don't you put on some nice music on the radio and let your mind wander?

Before I close, let me mention that I do think the information 'overload' of our times can be quite dangerous if all you do is consume mindless, purposeless content. It is one thing to read all the latest gadget news through your smartphone, or download some great books over your kindle, but if all you do is watch lame youtube videos or countless movies or reality shows on television, then in my view you are definitely abusing the marvels of technology. In this battle between boredom and creativity, I guess there needs to be a balance between entertainment and education; information absorption and thought generation; too little free time and too much of it. Cheers!

(Yes I know the last line is a motherhood, thank you very much!)

Get out of my way!

Why do Indians honk so much? The honk is so integral to our driving that the average motorist would feel a sense of bereavement if he is made to honk less. The honk is second nature and fundamental right, righteous belief and ego masseur...all rolled into one. 'I honk, therefore I am'

To be sure, this is not a condition that afflicts only Indians. Motorists across the developing world share this annoying habit. You could say its a function of the more chaotic roads here, but you would only be partly right. There seems to be a fundamental difference in the way an average person approaches driving in the developed vs developing world...

In the civilized* world a honk is used very rarely, and only as a sort of emergency warning for others using the road, saying Hey! Watch out! In India too of course the horn is sometimes used to avoid accidents, but more than that, its used as a form of DEMANDING RIGHT OF WAY. Yes, most of the times you honk in India, you are just screaming out your demand...GET OUT OF MY WAY!

GET!

OUT!

OF!

MY!

WAY!!!!

Think about it. If you are speeding down a road and you approach a junction, instead of slowing down you just honk repeatedly. What you are saying is: I don't care about slowing down for you - I am just gonna honk hard and repel you away - well out of my way. Same holds if you spot a pedestrian crossing the road a few meters ahead of you and don't want to slow down, or you want to change lanes and can't wait your turn, or any of a hundred different scenarios where you just want to assert your right of way.

I have been cutting down on my honking over the last few months, and now there are instances when I can complete the entire 14km commute to work or back without honking even once. On some occasions there is indeed no way I can not honk, and I imagine this percentage is certainly higher than the equivalent percentage in a city like London or NY. But my honk rate has surely become 90 or 95% lower than my fellow Mumbai motorists. All this while being entirely safe - in fact safer! Because now I must slow down if I see someone in my way -> lesser speed implies lesser risk of collision.

But lets try and understand the psyche of a honker. There are many who simply haven't the exposure. They have learnt to drive on Indian roads, are taught to honk as often as possible, and simply know no other way. These folks can and will definitely convert into the non-honker types as India gets more civilized*. I am just one of them who has crossed over to the other side (hope you don't see this blog as some sort of higher-ground-taking).

However there is also the other type. The motorist for whom the daily commute is equivalent to a prehistoric battle of domination, and the road is where he gets to mark his territory. For this person, nay, man**, the horn is an ultimate tool of ego deliverance.

I can talk a bit about this whole ego thing for this guy, all the bluster and bravado, the need to prove something to the world etc. But I am just going to show you a gem of a comic instead:

Source: FlyYouFools. Check it out if you haven't already - every single comic. You will love it!

http://www.flyyoufools.com/page/53


Text below the comic: Now you won’t feel angry when the person behind you feels obliged to make you aware of the fact, that the light has turned green. This usually happens 534 microseconds after the change. Don’t feel rage. Feel sympathy for the guy.

I will leave you with one last thought. The extent of calm driving (and gigantic silencers) goes down as we move from the developed world to developing countries, and even within India it goes down as we move from a Mumbai to a Baroda to a Jalandhar. Its not just education or awareness - why do people from smaller towns feel the need to impose themselves that much stronger? Over to you.

Update: I have realized that for a peaceful, honk-free drive you do need a couple of factors to be in your favor. Most important being, you should not be getting late to reach someplace. Others may be person / situation specific?

*I know that's a strong word but well deserved in this context

**It is always a man so why implicate the poor women? To quote FlyYouFools again, 'Ever seen an over-honking, bass thumping, large silencer sporting woman driver?'

Winged happiness

I was working late in the night just now with the windows wide open when a bird flew in. I was shocked and quickly turned off the fan - thankfully he/she didn't fly into the fan. Then the poor guy (I will assume he was male) struggled for a while flying into the wall while I tried to direct him back to the window. He managed to get close to the window after a while but got stuck in a corner.

He was so beautiful and so fragile. Though he was small, I could see his chest throbbing while he frantically tried to get out of the corner. Each time I brought my hand close by to help, he would get all the more frantic. Eventually poor guy stopped resisting and accepted my help. And here comes the beautiful-est part of the incident...

He hopped onto my hand (index finger) and stayed put while I brought my hand near the window. Then, when he was facing the open window, he chose to stay on my finger for a while - perhaps he was catching his breath now that he trusted me. And only after a few seconds did he go off flying into the night sky, having left behind a fan (well, two, if you count the villainous ceiling fan).

His little feet perched on my finger brought back so many memories of childhood times when during summers, back in the village I would spend so much time playing with hens and chicks. Nature is so beautiful. If only we could take care of it better.

PS: I took a coupla snaps of the little guy while he was stuck in the house. Wont try to guess what kinda bird he was, but will upload pic soon :)

Zero is NOT equal to Zero

Its a long time since I have blogged about mathematics. Dont worry though, these are simple thoughts.

So what I want to talk about today is zero. We have been taught since childhood that Zero is a great number (invented by Indians no less, hence all the pride). Granted. We were taught that arithmetic was able to leap ahead because we gained the capacity to express large numbers using zero at the end (10, 100, etc.). So far so good.

But if we dig deeper, the function of zero which allows us to use a base-10 system is what we call 'Positional Notation' (see the link to understand better). In fact this Positional Notation applies for all other base systems as well. My grouse is, why the hell did the ancient Indians use the number Zero (as in, nil) as the positional notation instead of a brand new symbol - say, x? I (with my limited mathematical faculties, admittedly) don't see any reason why it makes sense for the Positional Notation to be equal to the number Nil. Lets see how things could have looked otherwise.

100 could be represented as 1xx

105 as 1x5

50 - 40 = 10 as 5x - 4x = 1x

50 - 50 = 0 as 5x - 5x = 0

(Here finally the zero appears in its true role - that of poverty - instead of masquerading as a multiplier, a giver of power!)

I continue to think: is there perhaps some mathematical reason why the positional notation needs to be the number nought? Perhaps 2^0? But the zero here is the number zero, not the positional notation. Cant think of anything else.

If I am right about this, then I am forced to conclude that the ancient Indians simply had an amazing sense of humor. They made a zero, the lack of something, a scarcity, a poverty, a failure, into the most important digit in math!

Pictured: Chanakya

The Tiger

The media is screaming out headlines to the effect the tiger population has increased by 20% over 4 years. And somewhere in the text the articles say ‘experts are questioning the conclusions’. Then the articles go on to mention that 288 of the 295 additional tigers accounted for, were actually counted in areas previously not included in the survey! Talk about the most misleading headline ever. Especially when you also read in the article that the tiger habitat has reduced from 93,600 to 72,800 sq.km in the same time.

Bravo. Disturbing news that the tiger has been pushed 20% closer to extinction has been repackaged to imply that the tiger is doing 20% better. Nincompoops.

All this talk of 1411 and 1706 also reminds me of Aircel’s outrageous campaign a while back: ‘Save our Tigers’. How in high heavens are everyday people expected to help in conservation of tigers?? The campaign helpfully mentions that one should blog about it and speak about it. As if the high decibel campaign wasn’t sufficient enough. Fact is, the Indian aam aadmi is not a threat to the tiger and increasing his awareness about the issue is not going to save the tiger. Such a campaign would be wonderful in China, that horrible land with an insatiable appetite for tiger parts. You could point out that increasing general awareness on conservation of the ecosystem is never bad. True. Just that this campaign reeked of sheer publicity and CSR hogging to me.

Note: Unlike the first half of this piece, the second half is written from the heart. So less robust an argument despite being more aggressive in tone.

Our bestial stamp on British cities

Awesome article!

http://www.livemint.com/articles/2011/02/24183416/Our-bestial-stamp-on-British-c.html

And now, a fun link!

Mystery Surrounds Nuclear Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

Read it, its too good.

EDIT: Scott Adams, Dilbert's creator has also covered the above link in his world famous blog. Read it here :)

World Press Photo of the year 1980

A starving boy and a missionary. (Uganda)

Foot for thought

So I woke up the other day and what do I see in the mirror, but my own feet. And I was surprised at how big they were (are). Well they have been that way for a while now (duh!) , but the image still got me thinking.

Did your mother also chase you in your childhood, going 'Drink your milk baba, else you wont grow tall!'. I dont know about you, but my mum did use to chase me, but I used to hate milk, and scoffed off the idea that milk would make me taller. It was all the genes, wasnt it? Drinking more milk aint gonna make a genetically short guy taller da.

Well thats not true. After all these years now I find out that nutrition has a large impact on how tall we get. Ever wondered why Westerners are taller? Its partly genes but also partly the fact that they get more nutrition.

Or else, ever wondered why we are by rule getting to be taller than our parents, and they themselves are usually taller than our grandparents (exceptions are few)? If this were to happen all the time shouldn't we all hit 7 or 8 feet heights in two centuries? Actually this generational height creep is only happening in developing worlds - not in the West. And that's because nutrition levels are still getting better in India. We are finally reaching our full height potential after generations of under-nourishment, but there is still probably a couple of generations at least before we tail off and stagnate.

Sadly, this height creep is not really happening for a lot of communities in India. I observed in Ahmedabad how sweepers and janitors are usually so so short. 4 feet tall and such. Casteism showing up its ugly head.

So, to come to the point, ie, my morning musing. Perhaps your feet and palms* grow as big as your genes define them to, but your body may or may not, depending on nutrition. So those with disproportionately large feet and palms (such as yours truly) just missed out, but perhaps their offspring will end up being tall if they listen to their mothers about milk! What do you reckon 0 aint that foot for thought?

* And something else too, I know you were thinking of that!

The center of the universe

I have often found it amusing when people say the *vastness* of the universe brings home to them the message that they are so small, their lives so insignificant. Truth is, even I find some of these things extremely spiritual. Stark landscapes like Kutch and Ladakh fascinate me no end. I am sure being in the middle of the sea with endless miles of water in all directions would also mess with my mind. And I dont understand why I feel that...that profoundness. But its there - and the feeling is STRONG.

However. Knowing that there are 10^gazillion stars in the universe does not make my life seem insignificant to me. For, I argue, I am at the center of my universe. I wouldnt care if there were ten thousand billion more people or worlds out there, after all my feelings and experiences are tethered to my life right? Right?

Actually, I am not sure. After all, (I dont know about others but...) I personally feel very strongly about a lot of things that do not concern my own immediate existence. Like justice to all human beings, par treatment (with humans) to all other creatures, no screwing around with nature, maintaining the heterogeneity of the world (the beauty in the diversity of natural landscapes, people, languages, music, professions, culture, everything!). These are things which are very dear to my heart. So what does it all mean? I think these issues convey a message. I think they show that my existence is much more purposeful than the pitiful hankering after a perfect life in my own private universe.

And this idea (if it makes sense), may fit in with Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism being the one religion, nay, way of life, that I respect immensely and am comfortable giving credibility to, even though I probably dont understand 90% of it. What I do understand of Buddhism is that we should stop caring for material possessions. And subsume the self. Because the Truth is that we are all one. We are not distinct from the world, we are the same as the world.

Now, I havent figured this out yet, but it feels right. I mean, I figure it HAS to be right, but I havent figured WHY it is so. Of course I am shooting in the dark having never read a serious spiritual Buddhist text. But for now, when I agree that I am the same as the world, the view disappears that I am the center of my universe.

Finally I revert to the opening topic of this post. Why I find it amusing when people say the *vastness* of the universe brings home to them the message that they are so small, their lives so insignificant. Perhaps its just the case of different strokes for different folks. Some core ideas, call them Fundamental Ideas (justice, equality, beauty etc)...these make my life feel small and insignificant. Whereas the vastness of the universe makes others feel small and insignificant. Ok, I give it to you guys.

Though I dont think the mystery behind my own feelings of profoundness when confronted with vastness / emptiness can be explained as awareness of just smallness or insignificance. It HAS to mean something. But I dont want to tear into it right now (or later). Its just sublime. Something to be experienced rather than cognicized about (which is just bald conjecturing).