A Perfect Love

Much to the annoyance of friends and family, I am naturally nocturnal. In order to integrate into society,  I have made concerted efforts over the past few months to wake up early enough to greet the new day head on. Every now and then, though, I find my duvet far too soft, my sleeping posture far too perfect for this to be feasible. This was one of those magnificent days:

I headed down for what I conveniently call 'brunch'; though with the clock nearing 2 PM, it is what most refer to as lunch. On such occasions, living at home is wonderful. I come down to a sumptuous, healthy home cooked lunch by Nana with my Ammumma (grandmother) and Appuppa (grandfather) for company. It is days and moments like these I missed most during my time in the UK.

This particular day, however, my Ammumma was in a truly aggressive mood - she was having what seemed like a marathon argument with my Appuppa. Left, right and centre she was leaving no syllable unexpressed in explaining her reasons for current failings in Syria. People take guard, the house shakes and I prepare my stomach for the salad I will have to consume (far easier than not, given the circumstances) when my Ammumma is in one of these moods.

All through the 'blasting', my Appuppa listened patiently and calmly. He filled his plate with brown rice and daal whilst carefully measuring a reply; a key lesson I've learnt from my grandfather is to always weigh a response adequately before you unleash it (especially against such a formidable foe).

As a tense silence filled the dining room, I nervously filled my plate with as much salad as I could find and racked my brain to find a suitable conversation topic lest my inability to engage in conversation is my Ammumma's next target. In such tense moments, I've personally (painfully) learnt that making yourself the smallest target in the room is clearly game theory optimal (if confronted with flight or fight, there is no doubt in my mind what I would choose). My heart did go out to my grandfather, but right now - YOYO, Appuppa (You're on your own).

A few seconds of silence and then my Ammumma reached over and stroked my Appuppa's hand. Startled, he asked, "What, Rayma?" Quietly, my Ammumma responded with the kind of love I only know her to exude, "Nothing, Gopi. I just wanted to stroke your hand."

Just Walk Away

She was an annoyed teen; his constant smile had more milk teeth than not. Accompanied by a harried mother and a drowsy father, they were your typical Dubai airport transit family.

They are standing at the edge of two long, automated walkways, one in either direction. He challenges her to a duel: he’ll race her to the end and will do it on the disadvantaged walkway.

It’s evident to all she doesn’t want to do it. Her annoying brother, does he ever sleep? Why can’t he pester someone else? Why is /she/ his affectionately appointed best friend? Ugh, at the least, she can walk her way to victory. But she’ll have to walk back. Well, he’ll have to walk back too; that gave her some comfort. Bragging rights could be fun.

3. 2. 1. And they are off. Well, he is off; she casually strolls into the lead. He goes as fast as he can but a third into the race and he’s definitely losing. She allows herself a rare smirk; looking at how hard her brother is trying, her victory may be sweet after all.

From the sidelines, I was clearly rooting for the little boy with his heart on his sleeve. Run, Forest, Run! But there’s no way he can win, can he? Even if he has another gear, it’d be awfully close. What would I do? Personally, I’m far too lazy to challenge people to races. But if I did? Would a psych out work best? A distraction? There seemed to be no edge to gain, no way to win.

And then the boy just stopped. With palms and chin on the moving, ‘disadvantaged’ railing, he watched his departing sister with the best poker face I’ve ever seen. No smile, no laugh, no resignation, nothing; he just watched. Unsurprisingly, she was not as good at the poker face; it was a miracle the smoke detectors weren’t blaring. Unwittingly, she had forced herself into one of the most frustrating to and fro ‘strolls’ of her life.

The entire duel hinged on his unwavering thirst to engage and beat his sister; and like a skilled waiter pulls away the tablecloth, he had stripped this (his!) activity of his eagerness. He had flat out given up and quietly floated away towards his awaiting mother. She, on the other hand, had the kind of look on her face that was so priceless I’ll carry with me to my grave.

My ICSE/ISC upbringing requires every story to have a moral, a message; heavens forbid we share a story simply for the story. So I suppose the little boy’s message is that we aren’t always playing the game we think we are and that the best way to win some games is to not play at all (OR, pretend to and then sucker punch the older sibling with a big, jam bun!).

Corporal Punishment

From Wikipedia, so my sources are obviously legit:

"Nimzowitsch was annoyed by his opponents' smoking. A popular, but probably apocryphal, story is that once when an opponent laid an unlit cigar on the table, he complained to the tournament arbiters, "He is threatening to smoke, and as an old player you must know that the threat is stronger than the execution.""

I've been taken in by chess recently and when I came across this anecdote, the first thought that crossed my mind was the corporal punishment meted out in Indian schools. The term 'corporal punishment' adds a lot of underserving structure and civility to a teaching practice that is rooted in brutal dominance and chaos (but that's just me). But all children in India are exposed to this, some obviously much worse than others. It's still around because it works; it's incredible what you could get people to do for you if you put the fear of the lord in them.

At the heart of it, though, the efficacy of corporal punishment comes from the threat of further execution of it, and not from the literal execution of tempering the steel. What that leaves children (and eventually, adults) with is the Pavlovian urge to submit when facing the threat of physical punishment. Personally, I'm not a fan of training the future of my race to readily submit. As highlighted, that's a personal opinion. I think there are definitely some thought threads that are ready to accept a submission-prone proletariat; but I think it is highly unbecoming of the world's largest democracy, not to say counter productive.

(cue: drama) What is learnt may never be unlearnt.

It might sound dramatic, but I do believe 'un-training' years of a particular habit is extremely difficult.

I think it's interesting to see altercations between people in India - especially road rage incidents - the way one aggressor will violently raise his hand above his head in preparation to strike, take one step forward and menacingly bite his lower lip - the curious thing being that no blow is ever struck (well, sometimes at least). In a way, the aggressor is just trying to imitate what his teachers (or anybody in authority) did to him when they needed him to submit when he was younger.

(aside) I suppose sometimes we are merely reflections of past deeds. Or that there exists a learning morphic field around us. http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html


(aside: I wonder what happens to creativity in tasks that have potential corporal punishment payoffs)

There are many reasons why corporal punishment is still quite prevalent in India; none of them good. I don't think it's enough to just make it 'illegal' without addressing the issue at its core. Since schools are extremely well versed with (dis)incentives, we should be doing more to incentivise schools to stomp down on it.

Reality:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11617206

"Out of the 13 countries which were the subjects of the research, India was ranked third in terms of the estimated economic cost of corporal punishment."

"The study, Prevention Pays, found discrimination by caste and gender was the major cause of violence against children in India." Discrimination? Woah, whole new terrifying dimension. Though they do seem to be talking about 'violence against children' as a whole.

"Teachers tended to justify their actions by saying they were overburdened with too many pupils." I'm not even...

"The study found that even many students believed corporal punishment was sometimes necessary.

Plan reckons anything between $1.4bn and $7.4bn was being lost every year in India in social benefits because of school violence.

The cost is based on estimates of how the larger economy is affected by the impact of corporal punishment on pupils' attendance and academic performance."

Bahadur

I just walked out of Heathrow and was all set to get home in a nice, complimentary chauffeur driven car, a luxury possible thanks to the wonder of miles. I was directed to a man with a board that read 'Ravi-Chandar,' who helped me put my suitcase into the boot. I was on my way home.

I usually tend to strike up a casual conversation with the driver. I start with asking about what it's like to drive in the UK and take it from there. 

"So, do you like driving in the UK?"

"No, not really. Some people tend to drive because they enjoy it; it allows them to think. To me, it's just a way to make money. It's all financial."

He told me his health was very bad. He had a different job that paid great but he needed perfect health to continue working and he was shut down four years ago. He maxed out his cards and savings a year ago and spent the last of it on the car to make some money. He's waiting for his health to get better so that maybe he can return to his earlier job.

This man had shared something so personal with me and I was truly humbled. I took the opportunity to formally introduce myself and what followed next was one of the most inspiring conversations I've ever had.

He was born in Iran and his parents were very poor. He told me that his shoes always had holes in them and his feet were always freezing. But he only knew they were freezing many years later; cold was all he knew and his feet were how how he thought feet should be. That's all he knew and how can life be anything more than what we know?

When the Iran - Iraq broke out, he was called into the army. He served for 4 years on the front line. 

At the end of that, he moved to Tokyo and did whatever work he could find. He jumped multiple jobs, always moving to a higher pay grade. He said the best part, though, was how much he learnt and how it opened his mind. After working very hard for a few years, he returned to Iran. He had earned so much money that he had become a millionaire. He bought his parents a house and his brother two flats. He started a building business in Iran and became a multi-millionarie. 

He lived a good life for a long time but then some political issues arose that forced him to have to leave Iran very quickly. He had to leave everything behind; all his assets were locked up and he could take nothing. The most important thing he had to leave behind was his family.

He arrived in the UK with 20 pounds to his name. He was extremely hungry and had to choose between eating a McDonald's meal now and starving for a while later, or some how rationing out this money. He decided that he was going to get nowhere with 20 pounds and that it was better to eat now and figure out a plan on a full stomach.

Turns out, he did make a plan. He started working tons of manual labour jobs and was making 13 pounds a day. He didn't need much, though and this was more than enough for the time being. He then started switching jobs again, making more with each job. After years of hard work again, he had a really high paying job. He started a company doing what he knew best - building. The money was extremely good and again, he was a millionaire. 

Then, his health took a turn for the worse. He had some condition that caused him a great deal of pain; he spent his entire day in pain. He had to give up his company until he got better. After a few years of recovering, he had spent all his savings (family was back with him) and maxed out his credit. He bought a car and decided to take make some money off it until he got fully better. 

And so, you see, he didn't like driving because driving was just a way to get by until he can get his company back.

Ours was a conversation and didn't follow in the way I laid it out above. We talked about different parts of his life and more importantly, different parts of his views on life. I (now flippantly) mentioned early in the conversation that life seems to be like a roller coaster and he constantly worked that into how his life moved. He ended by saying that again, his roller coaster is at the bottom and it's time for him to work hard and go up again. 

We had an intense conversation and he shared much more. He did, however, mention that his sons get all the best shoes with no questions asked; he never compromises on shoes. I realised that I was fortunate enough to be in a car with greatness. 

The Fibre of Man

"Why are our politicians so corrupt?"

"Man, I hate my government. The people running it are inept and I can't get anything done without paying a bribe."

"Our laws are so archaic. We should change them! But our politicians, my god, they are so corrupt. Lets march instead of exercising our power to vote and influence government!"

(Sadly, people who say the last one aren't usually being sarcastic)

I don't really think we are sharing ideas/thoughts/feelings about our politicians that are founded in rationality anymore. Corruption is horrible, I agree. But really, if you think about it, corruption in a democracy is really a function of a bunch of apathetic, ignorant voters making suboptimal choices in choosing who amongst them gets the selfless, prestigious role of governing them. (Or, it is a result of man being fundamentally evil and the potency of power to reveal this - however, as cynical as I tend to be, this is a conclusion I cannot bring myself to believe).

I'm not a fan of bolding/italicising things, so when I do both, I'm clearly being desperate in making a point. The discussion revolves around us, the people, and the obvious realisation that politicians aren't extra terrestrial beings sent to rule over us. They are, in fact, us. These are people that we went to school with (possibly), lived in the same city with and possibly share lots of things in common with. They are us. They too enjoy biryani and hot tea on cold days. Actually, we should be electing people that are most like us and whose views mimic ours and hence, we can be best represented (lol,jk?). And we, Indians, as a people are inherently selfish. We have to be - it's a dominant trait in a severely resource constrained world. It isn't something we can wish away.

However, we believe that once we elect our government officials that they are to rise above their own selfish interests and instead, selflessly serve us while we ourselves go about living out our days in a our own hedonistic, selfish pursuits. This belief isn't rational. It's silly.

Instead, we need to make it the selfish interest of the people who go on to be in power to selflessly serve us. I believe we do that by not being apathetic and ignorant.

We make informed choices and thus, elect those into power who genuinely want to serve the people and are best suited for the job. We keep a close eye on them and constantly stay up to date on whether or not they are following through on their promises. And we care enough to weed out the bad information and focus on the issues that count; have the discussions that matter. And when someone messes up, even a little bit, we throw them out and start over. This might sound utopian, but it isn't - it's just how a democracy is supposed to function!

Corruption is horrible, bad and is presently crippling our standard of living. But it is merely a symptom and not the illness. I hate to say it but the illness is us.

The rape wasn't the first and sadly, it won't be the last. It's horrible because for those gruesome moments, we realised that we watched and did nothing. We could have changed the laws years ago to make strong disincentives for crimes against the brutality towards women. We could have made law enforcement better to ensure we live in a safer country. We could have helped her when she was most vulnerable and not just gawked. But we didn't, we gawked and we realised how pathetic our apathy had left us.

Man isn't inherently evil, though. India will shock itself away from apathy and through education, will liberate itself from itself.

A Tale of Two Teams

So, the other day, Rohan and I were feeling particularly buoyant and decided to play a game - we each pick the best 18 man football squad in the world without allowing the duplication of players. We played  RPS to decide who picks first and then we went sequentially.

I'm writing this blog post because the idiot that is Rohan believes that his team is better than mine. He's clearly delusional and usually, I'd let him revel in his delusions. However, I like to pick my battles - I'll let him believe that the world loves him, he's appealing to women and that he's remotely smart. But I will not let him believe his team is better. Either comment, or drop me a message if you think my team is better. If you think Rohan's team is better, reassess your life.

We each picked 2 goalkeepers, 6 defenders, 6 midfielders and 4 forwards. After we picked our squads, we played a game on Fifa :). It was legendary.


Nikhil's Team:

Goalkeepers: M. Neuer, P. Cech 

Defenders: T. Silva, D. Alves, Abidal, Lucio, Maicon, S. Ramos

Midfielders: Xavi, Fabregas, Schweinsteiger, Ribery, Robben, Cambiasso

Forwards: L. Messi, S. Aguero, D. Drogba, Robin Van Persie

Formation: 4 - 3 - 3 with a false 9. 


Rohan's Team:

Goalkeepers: I. Casillas, J. Hart

Defenders: A. Cole, Pepe, Evra, Lahm, Vidic, Pique

Midfielders: Iniesta, Bale, Xabi Alonso, Gerrard, D. Silva, R. Van der Vaart

Forwards: C. Ronaldo, C. Tevez, E. Hazard, Neeeymaaaaaaaaar

Formation: 4 - 3 - 1 -2

Ideally, I'd defend my team. But it seems unfair unless Rohan can defend his too, so I won't.

But I can tell you the result of the first game - we were high on adrenalin and I was too busy attacking to defend. Rohan took a 2 - 0 lead in the first half, Tevez scoring two counter attacking goals.

At the 60th minute, it was 2 - 2. Tevez went on to score 4 more goals - a double hatrick. Rohan still lost :)

Conversations with Ani

You said the youtube comments were procrastination. We generally associate activities that aren't conventionally productive to the self or society as ones that are pointless - thus indulging in them is procrastination.

But that requires us to set about understanding why productivity is important. It's important, I suppose, because we are genetically built to propagate and ensure the continuation of our genetic coding. When we're productive, we make our species more resilient. But what of it? So we live longer as a species? Towards what end?

We will one day die. We know this in our lifetime. So we keep ourselves busy till we die, and when we do, we smile thinking of how much more resilient we made our species.

We live in a world of probabilities and I can safely assume that the probability of the extinction of our species (and life on earth) is non zero. Perhaps infinitesimally small, but non zero. Given we're this resilient, I can again safely assume that we're going to persevere until we can't. In theory, life will exist for an infinitely long time. In this infinitely long time span, the probability of an event with an infinitesimally small chance of occurring is a certainty. Eventually, it stops. It could be the sun burning out, a meteor or just stupidity. It doesn't matter.

So given that there is this end (for us and our species), what is it that we do but procrastinate?

It sounds morose. I don't mean it to. It's only morose if you think of death morosely. I don't. It's inevitable. It's like a roller coaster ride that ends. Just because it ends, doesn't mean the ride isn't epic

MindSpeak

Thirsty.

Decent movie. Slow so far. Different telling of Batman. No. Definitely more about Bruce Wayne. Hm, it's not Batman's story, it's the story of a man. Anybody can be Batman.

Thirsty.

Guess I'll get up. Ugh.

Inox isn't shabby. Could be worse. Could be PVR.

Hm. Diet Coke or Thums Up?

Diet Coke is guilt free. But aspartame. Donald Rumsfeld lead the legislation of aspartame. History of not making the best moral choices. Higher blood sugar levels? Guilt Free.

Poda. Thums Up.

Sucha long line. Two tills. But only one open. Ugh. Inefficiency. I can do this better. Shouldn't I be? Invisibile Hand? Run them out of business?

Oo. My turn. Thums Up.

Pretty girl. What's she ordering? Pulpy Orange. Damn it, should have got that.

Why can't girls be witty and wry? Especially the pretty ones? Look at this one. Pulpy Orange. Who orders that? Ugh. I'm sure she doesn't even know the rules of poker.

Haha, he spilt his coke. Poor sap. Extra Large. Two. Haha. Don't laugh. Empathy. Buys his girlfriend Extra Large Coke. Spills it. Haha. Girls would never see the irony. They'd cry. And be sad. Gentle souls. Boring. This pretty one. No spice, I'm sure.

...

Oh my. That's quite a nice smile. Bittersweet. Pretty. Her eyes see the irony. What do I know? Maybe they aren't all vacant.

Pulpy Orange. Damn it, should have got that.

Why.

1. In our exams in school, why do we reward only answers and never questions?

2. When our parents say, 'We want to have a talk,' why do we always assume we are going to get told off for something? Why are we never wrong?

3. When did it become classy and acceptable for restaurants in India to say they don't offer carry bags for excess food on the table? Why do we allow it in a country where over 20,00,00,000 people will sleep hungry tonight?

4. Why do we ban the advertising of cigarettes and alcohol? Why do we then allow these companies to advertise music cds, parties and other promos in the name of the alcohol they sell? Why is surrogate advertising acceptable?

5. Why do we ban the commercial sale of hookah, but not cigarettes?

6. Why do traffic cops let drunk drivers back into their cars if they can pay the bribe?

7. Why do we start most conversations with people we've just met (or met after a long time) with, 'So, what are you doing with your life now?' (Or, 'Where did you study?') Is that really the question that will shed the most light on someone?

8. Why are we so quick to impose our own value judgements on everyone/anyone? Why can we not accept that different people are different and therefore will live their lives differently? (Live and let live?)

9. Why do we assume someone who plays Poker is a degenerate gambler while someone who plays Chess is a genius?

10. Why are the choices available to us in elections always a decision of voting in the lesser evil? Why do none of us in India grow up wanting to be a politician? Why isn't something being done to change it? (My Grandmother to me, 'Whatever you do with your life, don't join politics.')

11. Why can't moccasins be worn with socks? Why can't Devashish bluff more when we play Poker?



I'll probably write more about some of these questions/thoughts in time. For now, needed to get that off my chest.

How Eminem works at Burger King to pay his bills

Does the Entertainment industry still exist? Are Hollywood movies still being made? Are Bollywood? Are artists still recording their albums? And are merchandise still being sold? Do movie theatres still exist? And does HMV/Music World still record profits?

The answer to all these questions happens to be 'yes.'

Online piracy is bad if it leads to a reduction in the production of art: If artists feel they can no longer profit from their work, and hence lack the incentive required to actually produce it. However, I don't think this is the case.

If online piracy hurt these people financially as much as they claim (or so badly that we need to invoke the wrath of SOPA), then their industries would be dying. There should be less films made and less songs recorded. Instead, we have some dunderhead allowing Rebecca Black to make songs. There's still money to make, lots of it.

Last time I checked, Eminem wasn't working in a Burger King to pay his bills.

I don't really have the time/patience to look at figures, but I'm certain people in the Entertainment Industry are well to do. There's still money out there. In fact, I think there might be ever more money out there than they think.. But I'll get to that later. Before that, I must admit, the work of an artist is his intellectual property and he should be able to do with it as he pleases. I won't deny this. But just like how  boats changed the economy of natural resources, and the internet changed the landscape for outsourcing, the landscape for art has changed.

Artists still own their IP (Or if they sell it to large companies, whatever). But there are no personal canvases anymore. Imagine Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa on a public wall on the streets of Rome. It is still his work, but for all the world to see. He can't profit from it the same way as otherwise (by selling it), but he could still theoretically profit from it. When art is created today, it instantly becomes a stream of 0s and 1s. It moves at breathtaking speeds and jumps through all kinds of hoops. That is simply the landscape of the world today.

But there's still profit to be made, as long as the industry changes.

Remember that kid? That kid that would cry, grab the bat and storm off because he couldn't bat first? Entertainment Industry.. Don't be /that/ kid.

In poker, you are either constantly adjusting, or you're losing money. Every hand is different from the last and the games are constantly morphing. It might have been profitable to be a Loose, Aggressive, Fold Equity Loving, Bluffing Machine half an hour ago; but it may be that it is better to play Tight right now. If you don't understand that, and don't see it, your stack will be a lot like the wind (Gone). (Okay, I apologise. That was absolutely horrendous.)

Merchandise sales. Youtube channels with advertising. Exclusive/Additional content for die hard fans (who would pay). Allow the online community to take your work and make it viral (Remixes, and what not can sometimes be much bigger than the original. But will generate interest for the original).

I'm certain if I think about this longer, I could think of more ways to make money off products without actually /selling/ the product. (Ask RayWilliamJohnson, xkcd, southpark!)

I'm not really too worried either way. Even if SOPA is implemented, I'm confident the online community is up to the challenge. Adapt or die, something Darwin might have been proud to say. If they don't, I'm certain we will.

Why the Bangalore Shut Down Rule is Nonsense..

Note: This is long, but it is worth the read. Context: Bangalore has implemented a shut down rule of all clubs, bars, restaurants and other commercial establishments by 11:30 PM on the grounds of 'safeguarding our security'. Also known as the 'we can't do our job' rule.


You walk into the only coffee shop in the town. There could have been more, but that would have been wasteful, most of the townsfolk thought. One coffee shop for everybody's needs - efficient.

You say, "Can I get 1 Large Hot Coffee? Make it strong."

The barista says, "Suure, that'll be 50 million Zimbabwean dollars (why not?)."

You pay. You wait. After a while, the barista returns.

"Here you go! 1 Medium Cold Milk, as you needed."

"What! I didn't order milk! I paid you for hot black coffee!"

"I know. But you see, if we give you something hot, there's a good chance you're going to burn yourself. Why take the risk? We decided to make it cold. And coffee isn't the healthiest, is it? So we decided to give you milk instead. And portion control is the best way to prevent obesity - so medium instead of large! Hence, here you go - 1 medium cold milk."

Do you think you've been treated fairly here? If you don't think so, then I'm sure you agree the Bangalore Police don't really have a case for shutting down all commercial establishments after 11:30 PM. Let us look at their arguments and some key points closely:

1. "It is for your security. Our expert analysis tells us that more crimes happen at night than day! But if everyone is asleep at night - then no crimes, right?"

Well, good observation, Sherlock. You're right. Crimes do tend to happen more at nights. Generally, because there are /less people/ out on the streets at night. Impose a curfew, and in part, don't you leave citizens who are outside more vulnerable to attack?
Also, I feel like a few of my rights are being infringed upon here, as a citizen and potential business owner. And if it is for security, that's fine. But you have to prove how this makes things more secure.

Perhaps, they feel, everything depends on simply the absolute number of crimes. Lesser people outside at night and the absolute number of crimes might reduce. But the crimes/(no. of people outside) should surely be higher - thus making it more unsafe.

A city that doesn't sleep is far safer than a city forced to sleep at 11:30. Or so I think. I'll need to look into figures on this a li'l closer.


2. "We don't have enough police officers to monitor the city."

Well, should have thought about that before you took your cut from the taxes, eh? We pay taxes and the police have a monopoly over our security. It is their responsibility to prosecute those who commit crimes and prevent crimes from occurring as long as they don't interfere with our rights. They are welcome to issue a warning and if citizens still want to head out and party - cool. They'll police with as many police officers they want and do their best, resource willing. They won't be held culpable (they aren't) if a crime occurs, but they'll have to catch the culprit, set up strict punishments to act as deterrents and continue to let people make the choices they want to make to live their life.
(Ciggies aren't that good for us either. Ban them as well? Oh, can't. Marlboro's cash payment just came in...)


3. People who are going to commit crime aren't going to say, "OH! Dude, the cops said curfew. I guess we won't commit crime tonight. Let's pack up boys and hit the sack."

They will still be on the streets. And so will fewer innocents. Leaving innocents more vulnerable. More people around, more people awake, naturally, the safer the city. Citizen vigilantism is severely underestimated (look at Batman).


4. "It isn't moral to party or dance or drink alcohol or...um...dance."

Well, that isn't any of your concern, Mr. Police Officer. Your job is to keep us safe (refer to the above points), not to pass moral judgements on our lives. That job is reserved for the State Government. You see, we elect the State Government - they represent our views. If they pass a law saying it is immoral to dance and drink and live, fiiineeee - we asked for it, we elected them (and the electorate has spoken). But the man issuing these orders has not been elected into power. In some contorted way he is responsible to the CM who is responsible to us, buuuut, it is not his mandate to issue rules governing moral behaviour - that right is reserved to the State Government.


5. "All establishments must close. Oh. Except Empire. They can stay open. They serve food for people who need it in the nerve centre of the city."

Obviously not verbatim, but there was a notice passed around that said Empire Hotels can stay open later because, you see, Church Street is a busy place with lots of people who need to be fed. Of course, there are no other eating establishments on Church Street that can serve food. Of course, only Empire can cater to everybody's needs. Why Empire? Or rather, why only Empire? They did promptly revoke this, but it offers keen insight into the wallets...I mean, minds of our wonderful guardians.


6. This is horrible for business owners and the economy.

There exists a significant market for profit in a vibrant nightlife. In a metro like Bangalore especially. Business owners lose out, not just citizens. They're being robbed and don't know it. How can Bangalore be a city to live in when it's true economic potential can't be reached?

Who are you kidding, really? Security - hardly. Morality - you have no right. So then why does this rule stand? I don't want to believe it is fully constitutional (it'd break my heart; some democracy, some liberty).


The system is failing us. Sehwag for Prime Minister! 

Woof.

'Woof,' a friend of mine said to a puppy. Woof. She wanted to speak to it, communicate with it, understand it. Most would think that that's rather silly - haha, they'd say, a girl talking (barking) to a dog. And I admit, it paints a funny picture. But I think the idea behind it is rather noble.

Have you ever looked at a dog, and wondered what it thought, what it felt? Dogs always seem to have a face filled with deep wisdom, especially when their bellies are rubbed. But how often do we peer into their world, into anybody else's world? How often do we sit back and watch the world from the eyes of another, feel what they feel, hear what they hear and see what they see - four legged or two?

I don't think often enough.

But so what? Well, I think perspective is really important. I think the more perspective you have, the better. I don't think knowing only your perspective will ever be enough. I think you can sometimes learn things that will make you feel very good when you can see things from other peoples' perspective. But mostly, you'll understand where everyone comes from. So when you want to know how to make someone happy, or not make them sad, you'll know, because you can see things from their perspective. (I've used the word 'perspective' a lot, I know. I'm just driving home a point!)

You know the beautiful thing about a game like Counter Strike? When you're alive, it's a first person shooter. When you die, you can see things from the third person point of view, OR, through the eyes of another. The perspective (I should probably do a count on how often I use this word) that gives you when you're alive next time is fascinating, things are - but they are through eyes not only your own. (Deep, I know)

In poker, if you limit your perspective to yourself, you'll never win. Playing your cards is hardly important, playing your players is the key (God, how old is this rhetoric) - you need to get into the mind of your opponent, understand why people do what they do, and only then can you exploit that and profit. And everybody likes profit, baby.

I'll tell you how. Ani used to play straightforwardly (I use the phrase 'used to' lightly - he plays differently now, but I can't really say any better), when he was nervous (big hand or weak hand), he'd whip out his cellphone and text someone - so you'd know when he was polarised.
Nishant, on the other hand, sometimes picks up his big value chips if he thinks you're going to bet (and doesn't want you to), which tells me it is a good time to bet.
And Raashid, oh Raashid, gets this evil glint in his eyes when he wants to pull off some hero bluff.

You don't see these things if you're only playing your cards, your hands, your tendencies. You need to understand the tendencies of others, every now and then. You need to step outside the confines of your mind, your eyes and see the world not as you, but rather, as the world sees itself.

So the next time you see a girl barking at a dog, don't rush to laugh and point. Instead, take your time, understand how awesome she is for trying to understand, communicate; and theeeenn laugh and point.

Who is our best?

"Ronaldo is the best! He is the best! Luis Ronaldo, there was no defence that could contain him! Ronaldo!" Said a friend of mine, as he thrashed his arms around much like a 10 year old in a candy store. "Messi can't hold a candle to him, and don't even talk to be about the Portuguese Ronaldo. God. That other Ronaldo guy change his name. Luis Ronaldo is the best!"

This outburst, of course, was my fault, because I love to poke a response like this out of him (it really is amusing to watch). But this got me thinking, who is the best? Or rather, why is it that it is rarely black and white, in anything in life, that we can agree on who the best is.

And the more I thought about it, the more I got the feeling that what we define to be 'the best' is simply that which inspires us the most (or sometimes, that which we aspire to be). And we all find inspiration in different places - Some are inspired by the fact that Ronaldo (9) was a one man army, some by the genius of Messi at such a young age (I'll stick to football, for consistency). And the last thing any person wants is to lose their spark of inspiration.

I think we will protect that spark, no matter what. I have another friend who believed Ryan Giggs was a god. He is, on the football field, but he seemed to handle matters pretty badly in his personal life. And when my friend found out, she was gutted. And she should be, losing that spark is pretty horrible.

Ronaldo captured our imagination when we were kids - when Brazil played, the world watched. He was confident on the ball, he genius was remarkable. And he made quite the impression on my friend at his impressionable age. I know understand the fervour with which he defends his hero, his 'best.'

And the wonderful thing about poker? You could be the best and never know it. It is a game where the obvious effects of variance are so easy to see- you could be the greatest player ever, run bad, and quit (or be lost in the Micros). But we still have players we consider to be the best. And what do we base this on? Them actually being the best? More likely, I think, on the type of player we aspire to be. I started out thinking Doyle was the nutz, then Ferguson, then Dwan, then Ivey and now, Hellmuth? (Naaah)

So the next time you're fighting over who the best is, ask yourself how they inspire you (and, if you're in the mood, how your friend's best inspires him), and you might take away more from the slugfest that is going to ensue.

And atleast there's one thing we know for sure..
Sachin is the best :)

U and You

Andres Carvajal. That's a name I cannot pronounce, but one I will not forget. He was my Mathematical Economics 1A lecturer last year, a module that focused on Decision Theory and Game Theory. Fascinating, right? I thought so too. The exam, however, wasn't as fascinating. But that's another story.

Why do I bring him up? Because one day in class he taught us the Mathematical concept of 'Independence' (I won't bore you with it), and then went on to criticise it and show how it wasn't a great assumption. Then, after teaching us Nash Equilibrium, he proceeded to tear it apart and tell us that he didn't much care for it. And all I thought was - Woah! You can criticise mathematical concepts? Woah. You can criticise anything.

And those lectures got me thinking about Utility - essentially, economics lingo for happiness; and Utility Functions - essentially, all the factors that influence your happiness; and us economists like to believe that rational people (hah!) do their best to maximise their utility subject to constraints they face (that's really everybody's motivation).

Fairly straightforward, right? You do what you can to make yourself happy. But do we really know what makes us happy? Economists will sit and assume certain things that they think will make you happy, but really, that's just approximations. In truth, I don't believe we ourselves know what makes us happy all the time (we know certain conscious things that make us happy, but then there are sub conscious things which we act on, but by definition, don't consciously know). Makes sense? We want to be happy. We act to make ourselves happy. But we aren't always conscious of the things that make us happy.

I believe the one thing Economists got right, though, is that life and its decisions is about maximising our happiness.

So really, our utility functions are very vague, abstract entities. Rarely are they quantifiable and are highly dynamic in nature, changing constantly. So here's my poker example of this thought:

If you assume that everybody who sits down to play poker is only looking to maximise the amount of money they are going to win, then you're wrong. Truth is, different people sit down for different reasons with different motivations. Let us take 2 people, A who plays poker /only/ for money, and B who just plays poker for a variety of reasons. Let us say they are both contemplating raising, their thought processes (conscious and sub conscious) would look like this:

A: raises for value/protection, to bluff and steal, for image

B: raises for value, to bluff, to impress the really cute dealer chick that just sat down, to get back at that guy who bluffed him, to be baller and say, 'all in.'

Now if we analyse the way these two play poker (when they raise), we might find many spots where B makes -EV plays (burns money) as compared to some of the plays A makes. But has B made a mistake? No. He's simply maximised what is important to him. He hasn't really played it wrong, he just cares for different things. He might not even consciously know that he's flexing his biceps when the dealer chick sits down, but flexing maximises his (emotional?) EV (actually, Expected Utility).

And what does that mean? That economists over simplify; that utility functions are nearly impossible to define; and that whenever you do something, you do it because you think it'll make you happiest (short or long run, depending on whats important to you).

So really, in a convoluted sort of way, I'm saying that we shouldn't second guess ourselves and the decisions we make. Try and understand why you made them (jump into your sub conscious, a la Freud), learn about you and don't regret anything - you maximised your utility (subject to what you knew then about the world and you).

So when you're broke, and lying in bed, and wondering why you shoved all in pre with 7-2 off, know that you did it because doing it made you happiest then. And maybe, just maybe, that cute dealer chick thought you were quite baller for it.

Stable State - Alone?

This rather geeky Economics professor of mine was spouting random thoughts one class. Talking to us about economic thought, he was analysing relationships, people and social interactions. So, in typical Economics fashion, he built a model: He assumed our stable state in life is being alone - we enter and exit relationships but essentially, we're always alone. He then began examining the nature of relationships, how long they last and the amplitude and frequency of oscillations (I warned you, geeky. Also, quite possibly one of his friends just suffered a break up of sorts.)

His economic thought didn't make me think as much as his assumption. Which, after I gave a bit of my own economic thought to, I decided to disagree with. Our stable state is certainly not us being alone. In fact, through most of a human life, we rarely are alone. We're born onto this planet connected to our mothers, we're taken care of by family (and society), and most of us learn to take care of ourselves, to take care of our own someday. The stability of our state, in many ways, is determined by the number and strength of the bonds we keep to those closest to us.

I only harp on this because off late, I've been wondering whether or not the most crucial aspect of life is being independent. And learning to being comfortable in solitude. And in some ways, it is. But only in a trivial sense, it shouldn't really be practiced a lot. It's important to be independent so that if a strong relationship fades away, you are strong enough to reinvest in another (knowing who you are). I don't think one can ever be truly satisfied or happy being alone.

Poker analogy (I apologise): It's like being properly rolled for the game you're playing in. If you lose your stack, you shouldn't bat an eyelid when you rebuy. And your bankroll shouldn't really inhibit you from stacking off in stacking off spots (game - relationship. bankroll - independence or knowing yourself. You get the point).

And the fear of being alone is pretty high up in the list of things people fear the most. It's right next to spiders, snakes and the unknown. And with fear, comes insecurity. And with insecurity, I've found, comes drama. And barring Gaga, nobody likes drama. (Did I just make a Gaga reference? A part of me just died)

And those who are genuinely comfortable being alone are such a small proportion of human kind that they're like Argon- they don't really count.

I think life would be easier if everyone just accepted this. Figured out who they are. Figured out who they want their relationships to be with. Don't really care if they don't fit in with everyone. Because they do fit.

And when things don't work out, blame it on variance, keep calm and rebuy.

Should we ban casinos?

He's a taxi driver. In many ways, he simple isn't happy with the life he leads. Last year, there was a report on a tabloid on how a 60 year old lady made millions on a jackpot she won. Imagine her life now, the article wrote. That was last year, and he hasn't made his million since.

We go to the casino to fill us with a sense of excitement that we lack in life. And sometimes, dangerously, to find a miracle cure to some of our monetary problems. There's nothing wrong with having fun, and I definitely believe we should have the autonomy to make our own decisions. But should we be protecting the most vulnerable? The ones most likely to lose and lose big at a casino?

First, the facts. No floor game in a casino is beatable. In the long run, everyone except the house is a loser. In the short run, you can ride the variance train up, or usually, down. The casino makes its own rules - if it finds you can beat a game, like Blackjack with counting cards, you're disallowed from playing ever again. So the premise is this - everytime you step into the casino, you have to play in -EV spots; you will always lose money.

So then, why do people play? For some, it's about the entertainment, the thrill. It'd be hard to call these people irrational because on some level, they don't excessively risk themselves and they do find value for their buck. But for those who come to make some money, I think we have to term them irrational for whatever reason.

There are 18 red spots, 18 black spots and 1 non colour spot. I tell you, we'll spin the wheel, if it comes on the colour you choose (red or black), I'll match your bet. Else, you lose. Over the course of many spins, you will always lose because of the 1 non colour spot. Yet people play this and play it for extended times. They take sub optimal gambles consistently over large sample spaces genuinely believing they have an edge. When they lose, they chase their loses. And their wins only reaffirm their misguided faith that the game is beatable.

For the truly irrational gambler, a casino will ruin his life.

So the question is, as I see it, to protect the most vulnerable in our society, does it make sense to curb the rights of the rest?

Well, let's look at the argument for keeping them around - casinos exist because people like to gamble. If you remove a casino, it doesn't remove their innate need to gamble and they will continue to, in backalleys and with crime syndicates - how will be protect our most vulnerable then?

Also, as mentioned earlier, we can't be told what we can or cannot do (or can't we? We ban drugs and underage drinking and a whole load of other things to protect us from ourselves).

I guess, I'm at odds. My mind says we need to keep them around. My heart, however, sees the taxi driver's mortgage on the next spin.

Well, gentlemen, place your bets.