tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75576513627697026612024-03-14T08:42:54.458+05:30Ugly, but BearableAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-22389948435870771292011-10-28T00:22:00.000+05:302011-10-28T00:22:16.020+05:30Good News! OR A blog about a tweet about a Google Reader post<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A long time ago, a year and a week, to be precise, I posted the following <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/uglybutbearable/status/27878715093">tweet</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
OK after talking to <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="beardedbrain" href="http://twitter.com/#!/beardedbrain" rel="nofollow" style="color: #2fc2ef; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap;"><s style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; opacity: 0.5; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; white-space: normal;">beardedbrain</b></a> (and<a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="rhymedpeanuts" href="http://twitter.com/#!/rhymedpeanuts" rel="nofollow" style="color: #2fc2ef; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap;"><s style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; opacity: 0.5; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; white-space: normal;">rhymedpeanuts</b></a>) I think if I ever get married I shall notify people on Google Reader.Just because.</blockquote>
Ladies and gentlemen, consider me a man of my word. I'm getting married next April! The exact dates and other details are still being finalized, but what with Google considering removing the social features in Reader <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/10/world-surprisingly-angry-about-end-google-reader/44109/">sometime soon</a>, I figured I'd drop a note now.<br />
<br />
That's pretty much all I'm willing to divulge on a public blog for now, but I can promise those of you that I know personally that I will be in touch soon via phone and/or email with more details. For the rest of you, um, thanks for reading, but I'm kind of private about stuff like this, y'know? I hope you understand.<br />
<br />
And now, we return you to our regular programming...<br />
<br />
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-65283421767007291452010-12-23T01:39:00.005+05:302010-12-23T01:56:08.496+05:30First comes dictatorship, then comes marriage...<div><div>Having hit the age of 28 a few weeks ago, I have now crossed that stage where my parents (and various other relatives and family friends) keep asking me when I'm going to get married and am now at the point wherein said elders (and some youngers, I might add) have decided to take it into their own hands to find me a wife. Now I'm not much of a fan of arranged marriage, both conceptually (too loaded in favour of the guy, etc) and practically (I've lived away from home for over 1o years now and move in a different social milieu from my parents, so it would be pretty difficult for them to find someone I would have independently chosen), but I've gotten tired of fighting the idea outright. Instead, I've given in to allowing them to start looking, while using equal parts of rational discussion and emotional blackmail to ensure they stick to some basic principles while choosing. I'm hoping this will buy me some time, and also put to the test an important principle in economics. That's right - I'm actually trying an experiment, so if I get married in the next 6 months, consider me a martyr to science. Or, at least, social science. Allow me to explain:</div><div><br /></div><div>(A quick word before I start: kids, don't try this at home!)</div><div><br /></div><div>It helps that my parents are actually pretty nice about this whole thing, wanting to take into account each other's opinion as well as the opinions of various friends and well-wishers, not to mention my own. If they were more dictatorial, of course, I'd have been married by now. So, anyway, what this means is that any decision that gets made in choosing a potential mate involves aggregating the opinions of a whole lot of people. I suppose I could hold more sway over the final decision by getting more involved in the selection process, but I find it somehow weird, not to mention time-consuming, to sit in judgement over random women based on what they (or, more likely, their parents) have written in a profile on shaadi.com or some such site. So instead I've traded that dubious 'right' for the moral high ground, from whence I only look on smilingly at their efforts, asking only that they follow some simple principles:</div><div><ol><li>That if they decide that they prefer Girl A to Girl B and in turn prefer Girl B to Girl C, they ought to prefer Girl A to Girl C (where A, B and C are of course hypothetical)</li><li>That their preference of Girl A over Girl B should not change if they come to the conclusion that Girl B is after all a better choice than that other girl D </li><li>That if everyone whose opinion seems to matter prefers Girl A to Girl B (say), then collectively they ought to state that preference; And finally, </li><li>That the final choice should take into account everyone's preferences and should not be imposed on the basis of one person's opinions</li></ol></div><div><br /></div><div>Now all this might seem only like the decent and sensible thing, and you might wonder why it would prevent me from getting married in the next couple of weeks, leave alone six months. And well you might, if you haven't studied much economics. </div><div>Because, ladies and gentlemen, the above conditions are all part of the wonderfully named '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem">Arrow's Impossibility Theorem</a>' (sounds like something out of a geeky superhero comic, no?). Formally, Arrow's theorem states that if there are 3 or more alternatives and 2 or more decision-makers, no preference aggregation rule exists that would satisfy the conditions of unanimity (condition 3), non-dictatorship (condition 4) and the independence of irrelevant alternatives (condition 2). Alternatively, it can also be stated as: any preference that aggregation rule that respects transitivity (condition 1), unanimity and the independence of irrelevant alternatives is a dictatorship (i.e. it cannot meet condition 4). Or, to put it simply, yours truly can stay single for a while longer while appearing to be a reasonable and logical young man. </div><div>For those of you who want a more detailed explanation of the theorem, good old Wikipedia has a good explanation of this including a pretty neat proof, so I'll just point you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem#Informal_proof">there</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>There are of course a few quibbles that may come to your mind. Firstly, people obviously still get marriages arranged, even reasonable people, so there must be some way around the problem. Usually that happens because at some point a few decision-makers decide that they've had it with trying to get consensus and make a choice i.e. something like a dictatorship (or at least a marital junta of sorts) gets formed. What that usually means is that while a few people get the power to decide, it appears that everyone's choice was taken into account, including the person getting married (though everyone outside the junta is actually being over-ruled). Here's where a bit of emotional blackmail helps - by claiming to cede my right to choose, I'm basically in a position to ensure that no-one else plays dictator either.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>The other possibility is what might be termed a '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAOLOGGftTY#t=04m45s">cake or death</a>' case - if there's one option that's obviously better than the other(s) so that everyone's rooting for it, then it basically means that everyone's preferences are identical, and there's actually a consensus and I have to get married. But that would just mean that I have to marry someone who's so awesome that she impresses my parents and extended family, all of whom have higher expectations than I do, and she's willing to marry me. Well, I guess one could settle for that, I suppose.</div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-36020274509638557222010-10-05T01:48:00.004+05:302010-10-05T03:06:11.879+05:30On borrowing books versus buying themUsually, I end up deciding on which books to buy based primarily on 5 dimensions - learning/self-betterment, overall entertainment value, my current attention span at the time of buying, signaling value and cost-effectiveness, though not always in that order.<div>Let me explain them further:<br /><div>A. <i>Learning/self-betterment</i> relates to what I expect the book to teach me, either by introducing me to something new (like say <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius" title="Marcus Aurelius" rel="wikipedia">Marcus Aurelius</a>' Meditations) or to expand my knowledge on something I have some idea about already (e.g. various pop-econ books I've accumulated through the years). It typically relates to non-fiction, though some works of fiction have probably gone a long way in helping me define my world-view as well.</div><div>B. <i>Overall entertainment value</i> relates mainly to how well-written a book is and/or how much the underlying ideas may tickle my mind. This usually helps when choosing what works of fiction to buy. It's worth considering since I rarely re-read books anyway, so a good writing style may leave as much or more of an impression than the plot (some of Wodehouse' lesser works provide good examples of style trumping plot by a fair distance).</div><div>C. <i>My current attention span</i> is defined by how busy I am, and what other books I might be reading at the same time. If I'm already reading something fairly heavy, I might consider picking up something that's easier on the mind, to read in the loo, say, or late at night before I finally go to sleep. </div><div>D. <i>Signaling value</i> is sometimes a factor, though I try not to give it too much weightage. this is basically related to deciding whether owning/showing off a book could affect other people's perceptions of me. Now that I have loads and loads of books at home, this isn't much of a concern when considering individual books, though sometimes I admit it can play a role when deciding what non-fiction to buy, in terms of 'if I take this book to office and leave it casually lying around my desk, will that make people think of me as an intellectual, or as a pretentious so-and-so?' Come to think of it, given that I did a Masters in Econ whereas most colleagues are engineers and/or MBAs, both the above views are probably held already, so the additional book won't shift opinions at the margin. This probably is a vestigial trait left over from having posed on main corr at various times in years past with a wide selection of books from the Stephen's library.</div><div>E. <i>Cost-effectiveness</i> - This may seem like a vaguely heretical idea for a lot of book-lovers, but every once in a while when deciding between 2 books, I end up considering which one offers greater bang for the buck, so to speak. So, for example, when <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman" title="Thomas Friedman" rel="wikipedia">Tom Friedman</a> came out with '<a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat" title="The World Is Flat" rel="wikipedia">The World is Flat</a>', I figured that his 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree' was selling at a much cheaper price but still gave an introduction to the same broad set of ideas, and bought that instead. I got half-way through it, decided that he didn't really offer much in terms of points A,B or C above and only partially helped with D, and didn't bother reading any more of him. Saved myself some time and money in the process. Similarly, I've quite often considered picking up new pop-econ books only to leave them back on the shelf for a while until the cheaper paperback comes out. Admittedly, with my credit card and Flipkart at hand, I'm in danger of now being much more profligate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, that was all prologue to what is really the point of this post. I've just signed up as a member of a library in my neighbourhood, and as a result it got me to thinking how this changes the way I choose what to read. Since the cost of membership has already been paid, I no longer have to worry about E so much, nor even D. I can instead choose to balance factors A, B and C, which I think is quite freeing. Since the fees are more easily perceived as a sunk cost in this case, I can opt to quit reading books without feeling guilty, and I can hopefully read across a wider range of genres that might interest me. At least, that is, until I run across cute women in the library whence the impulse for D might kick in and I suddenly reach for Kahlil Gibran.</div><div><br /></div></div><div>Until that happens, I'm open to suggestions from loyal and not-so-loyal readers on stuff I ought to attempt reading . <a href="http://www.shelfari.com/joechristy/shelf">This might give you an idea</a> of the stuff I typically tend to read, in case you're wondering. Drop a comment or two. I might even write about the books if I like (or dislike) them. I know, I've promised this before as well, but this time I really mean to do it. Dependent on points C and D above, of course.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Bonus book review: </i><a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-QWwYMsB4" title="Sheena Iyengar discusses her book, THE ART OF CHOOSING" rel="youtube">Sheena Iyengar</a><i>'s 'The Art of Choosing' is a good read if you're interested in topics related to choice, limited rationality, etc. all discussed with a certain amount of nuance and a few Indian anecdotes.</i></div> <div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top:10px;height:15px"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" alt="" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=ee180b1b-fec4-4c67-aa6f-9627baf36a4c" style="border:none;float:right" /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-46428472594500911882010-09-03T23:45:00.006+05:302010-09-06T20:24:09.031+05:30Match-fixing and the Market for Lemons<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">As you most probably know, this week has been a bad one for cricket, what with the spot-fixing controversy and all (see Cricinfo's full coverage </span></span><a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/infocus/content/current/story/infocus.html?subject=4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">here</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> if you have been blissfully aware so far). The news was especially sad because one of the players accused of spot-fixing is Mohammad Amir, easily my (and everybody else's) pick for the </span></span><a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/475695.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">emerging player</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> this year. Anyhow, to deal with the shock and the pain, I figured I'd try and come up with a flippant pseudo-economics-based post on what can be done about match-fixing etc. While I was still formulating my ideas, Cricinfo's excellent </span></span><a href="http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2010/09/cricket_feels_b.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Surfer</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> blog pointed me to this article by Malcolm Knox on </span></span><a href="http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cricket/2378-out-damn-spot-fixing"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Back Page Lead</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, which sets up a pretty nice segue into some of what I had to say:</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">If bookmakers are stupid enough to take spot bets that are fixed, and players are corruptible, then the result will be that the bookmakers will be stung often enough to refuse taking such bets. If the Pakistan players are corrupt all or most of the time, the market would have become a sham and would have ceased to exist. The fact that the market does exist tells us one thing: most of the time, the players are trying their hardest. When they are not, they are choosing their moments selectively. Otherwise there would be no bookies left to fool.</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Now before I get into what I had to say proper, there's something that Malcolm doesn't get exactly right (which was also pointed out by one of the commenters on his blog): bookmakers don't usually get on the other side of a bet. They're supposed to set up a market by setting the odds of a particular result and finding two entities who are willing to take either side of a bet, with the bookie usually earning a decent fee from both, and the winner of the bet taking the money. (Note:In a way this is not unlike an investment bank helping to set up a securitization deal by putting together say a bunch of mortgage-backed securities from one set of lenders and getting a rating agency to assign a rating, like a set of odds, that define how risky the resulting CDO's tranches are, and then selling said CDO tranches to some other chump and taking a hefty fee in the process, thus getting a fixed payoff while leaving the buyer to face any risks involved in the deal. Of course, the last few years saw the i-bankers believe their own spiel and holding on to said CDOs, eventually bankrupting their parent companies and more. Sadly, bookmakers seem to be more aware of the risks involved in their bets than i-bankers.) (Note: the previous note was drafted just to show that I've recently read Michael Lewis' 'The Big Short' and now feel like dissing a few i-bankers).</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So anyhow, what Knox should have been worrying about is not the bookmakers but the punters who are willing to take the other side of the bet for a spread-bet, even though there was the possibility of fixing. My own guess is that most punters don't take up just one side of one bet - they too would make a string of bets to hedge against losses. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Now one of the factors that would actually encourage punters to think that the bets are fair and they can easily hedge, would be the belief that most players are honest, and the bad ones are weeded out. A life ban for a player who cheated, in this case, could plausibly encourage more betting! How? Here's my pseudo-econ explanation: </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Way back in 1970, George Akerlof came up with a seminal paper on asymmetrical information called 'The Market for Lemons' (</span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">wiki</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> link). The idea there was that in a market where the sellers of a product -specifically, used cars - knew more about the condition of their cars than buyers. Since buyers were unsure of the quality, the average price they would offer would be lower than the price of a well-preserved used car would be. Now this would in turn mean that the sellers who actually have good used cars would not want to sell at a lower price, which leaves only the sellers of badly-maintained cars willing to sell. This in turn would reinforce the buyers' belief that all used cars are bad (lemons), and would drive their price lower, and so on and so forth in a vicious circle. Now in cricket, we have the opposite situation. Life bans for cheaters would signal that those who are left are quite probably honest which means that the events that are being bet upon aren't fixed and are instead decided by a combination of honest effort and chance. </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Here's one point where perhaps i-bankers win back a point: if the punters had Phd-toting quants assisting them, they might have more rationally looked at the events of the past and calculated a probability of any given player being dishonest and factored that in when making a bet. However, since most punters are also (probably) die-hard fans, they would confidently (and somewhat irrationally) assume that all players not yet caught are completely honest.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Which brings me to a discussion of the players themselves, and what might be a way of setting punishments for cheats. Knox rightly points out that the bent players don't always cheat, but rather, would pick the moment when they can let their standards slip. We could probably make a conjecture of what the decision-making process in this case would be. Since players stand to gain both money and reputation (which can help if they want to cheat later), they (at least, not the smarter ones) would not cheat in the bigger marquee events - the World Cup, say, or the big Test series. The best occasions are in inconsequential tournaments and matches (think Sharjah and other cricketing backwaters) where the spotlight isn't very much on the players and fans may be more forgiving of a 'loss of focus'. Admittedly, those who got caught were those who cheated at more marquee events (Cronje's Test, this England-Pakistan series), which only goes to prove that they were either a little too greedy or too naive.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So what does this mean? Well maybe instead of an all-or-nothing approach - a life ban or a clean chit, how about handing out graded punishments? Perhaps we could ban players from certain forms of the game for a given period - no World Cups and Tests, but they could be allowed to play first-class cricket and T20 and tournaments-sponsored-by-cell-phone-companies, perhaps. That way, the players with tarnished reputations know that if they want to keep going at quite possibly the only job they know, they will have to play twice as hard and honestly. At the same time, the average punter will know that there are more players who have been dishonest in the past involved, they might actually think twice about taking on a bet that sounds too good to be true. Which might in turn bring down the amount of betting.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">On then to another important aspect of cricket: the fans. Would they want to watch games that might involve players with dodgy reputations? Probably not. Maybe (hopefully), we would we see a flight to quality, with people opting instead to see stuff like Test match cricket for the spectacle. Rather than fill up the calendar with hundreds of meaningless ODIs, we could have more series that are eagerly awaited (and monitored) and which actually linger on in our collective memories. More discerning viewers might also mean that broadcasters might have to improve the quality of their programming - more </span></span><a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/249886.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Michael Holding</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, less </span></span><a href="http://www.good-length.net/2010/03/sidhuism-back-in-ipl.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Navjot Sidhu</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, for instance. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So all in all, win-win then. We could make </span></span><a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/475717.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">something really positive</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> out of all this, if we just give it some thought.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Yeah right, who am I kidding. </span></span><a href="http://prempanicker.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-wellspring-of-corruption/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><a href="http://prempanicker.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/out-damned-spot/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">sucks</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">UPDATE: K very astutely pointed out in the comments that I hadn't explained the link between match-fixing and the market for lemons too well. I've elaborated a little further in the comments. Going by what I've said, it struck me that the ICC and various administrators would be analogous to used-car salesmen. Which seems about right.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 22px; font-family:Arial, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:15px;"><br /></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-10175809516851616022010-07-26T01:09:00.003+05:302010-07-26T01:50:09.473+05:30Christopher Nolan, Chronicler of the Broken-HeartedSo, I got around to watching <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/">Inception</a></i> yesterday, and while thinking about the plot and reading a few of the reviews of the movie, it struck me that a lot of Christopher Nolan's movies <i>Memento</i> onwards seem to deal with the same sort of male protagonist - white, heterosexual, broody, bit of a loner, doing some kid of work that's illegal or at least unconventional - and said protagonist is usually trying to deal with the end of a relationship (mainly romantic, though <i>Insomnia, </i>which I never got around to seeing but which I looked up on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/">IMDB</a> for this post, deals with the end of a different sort of relationship). In fact, if you put the movies in chronological order, you get something like 'The 6 Stages of Dealing with Break-ups' as visualized by Christopher Nolan. Consider:<div><ol><li><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/">Memento</a></i>: Having just seen the end of the relationship, the male protagonist (henceforth MP) is filled with anger at the world at large, generally withdraws into himself and his memories of the relationship he had, and is so caught up in the past that he is hardly aware of the present.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/">Insomnia</a></i>: Haven't seen the movie, but the title fits. </li><li><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/">Batman Begins</a></i>: The MP decides that he must try to get back together with the woman by attempting to become a better person. He picks up a few new hobbies, spends time with a few male friends (mainly Michael Caine), tries to feel better by working out, eating right, and asserting his alpha-male-ness</li><li><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/">The Prestige</a></i>: MP is still troubled by the end of the relationship, although it's been a while since it ended. He is desperate to find a clear reason, and someone other than himself to blame for the collapse. He throws himself into his work (mainly with Michael Caine), has a dalliance on the side, but deep down is still really pissed-off</li><li><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/">The Dark Knight</a></i>: Much time has passed, and although the MP still has a thing for the woman and is hoping his new hobbies will prove that he's the guy for her, he sees that she's moved on. He decides to be the better man, supporting her and the new beau (of course by the end of the movie, the new beau is at the <i>Memento</i> stage) (And yes, the mentoring from Michael Caine continues)</li><li><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/">Inception</a></i>: Although the woman is no longer part of his life, MP still has memories of their relationship, and realizes that deep down he blames himself for the fact that it ended. The only way to move on is to forgive himself, which he eventually does, and thus finds peace. And, need I say it, there's more Michael Caine here, although fittingly, since the MP realizes that he needs to look within for peace, he needs less of Caine's mentoring at this point.</li></ol><div>Going by this evidence, I expect the next Batman movie to involve Bruce Wayne deciding that he's had enough of getting into relationships that end messily and cause a lot of pain to all involved, plus he's really busy with work, and so he's going to just get hitched to a nice, homely girl. Chosen for him by (you guessed it!) Michael Caine.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-32555554670020082512010-07-11T20:43:00.003+05:302010-07-11T20:53:40.941+05:30Ain't No Dancer<div>He felt like he'd been woken from a deep sleep, his mind still groggy and his body stiff, unmoving. He tried to recall what he had done the last night, the last few days, to end up in this sutation, but he couldn't remember. His thoughts were caught up as if in a fog, moving around his brain slowly, feeling their way around. He tried to open his eyes, but hey refused to respond to his thoughts. It struck him that he might be in a dream, that his body was stil lasleep but his mind was somehow conscious. And as that thought seemed to gain a foothold in his mind, the fog again seemed to get thicker, darker, until what little consciousness he had drifted away, leaving behind a dull numbness.</div><div><br /></div><div>The numbness slowly gave way to a dull pain, then a sharp, prickly sort of sensation as he perceived what seemed to be a bright light, though he realized that his eyes were still shut. It was as if the light bypassed his eyes entirely and projected directly onto some point in his head. He tried to move, to make some noise, shout for help, but he couldn't hear anything. And then the light went out.</div><div><br /></div><div>He sensed a throbbing somewhere in his head, and slowly he discerned that it was as if he was hearing a sound, or a series of sounds. And as he became more conscious of it, he realized that there was a pattern, a tune to it. He could almost recognize the song. And as the recollection of the song slowly started coming back to him, it also brought with it memories. The music stopped, then started off again, a different tune this time, loud, raucous, building up to a frenzy. He recognized the song, could even piece together some of the lyrics, and found himself anticipating the shout at the end of it with a sense of buried anger. And as it came, it brought with it memories of who he was, of what he'd done.</div><div><br /></div><div>Watching the scans, the RA immediately sensed he was onto something out of the ordinary. He'd been doing cryonic reanimation research, or thawing-out psychos as they called it in the cafeteria as a wry nod to the typical test subjects, for a year now, and this was beginning to look like the real deal.</div><div>"Well?", his supervisor asked.</div><div>"The scans show some activity around the amygdala and the insula, it's a bit like when we did those scans for the god project. It's like our test subject here's experienced some kind of epiphany, but it seems to have made him angry. Like, real mad. Though I'll need to analyze the scans in more detail to see what exactly happened."</div><div>"OK. I guess I'd be cheesed off too if I woke up 10 years later and found that my brain had been cut out and frozen. What set it off?"</div><div>"So I was running through the standard sensory stimulation tests, only this time I thought I'd try more appropriate cultural references to see if they rang a bell, so to speak. The profile they gave us said he was born in the first half of the 20th century, so I figured I'd try playing him video and music from around the time he'd have grown up."</div><div>"Interesting", and then, looking at the heads-up display, "so the subject seems to dislike the, umm, Beatles, huh?"</div><div>"Well the real jump in activity seems to have been kicked off with just one track, actually."</div><div>"Yeah? Which one?"</div><div>"Something called 'Helter Skelter'".</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>__________________________________________</div><div><br /></div><div><i>I'm strangely embarrassed to have written this, but also quite tickled by the idea. </i></div><div><i>Thought it up while sitting through yet another power cut (thanks, BESCOM). It was inspired in part by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/magazine/11cryonics-t.html">this</a> NYT article. Incidentally, I remember a Roald Dahl story that was somewhat similar, of a prof whose brain gets preserved along with one eye, and his wife takes him home. Anyone remember the name of that story?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-22977141432997166772010-05-29T13:57:00.002+05:302010-06-01T00:01:52.929+05:30What are you laughing at?Humour me a little.<br />First, watch this:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZAGzflibn-E&hl=en_US&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZAGzflibn-E&hl=en_US&fs=1" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Now, grab a pen and paper, and watch the whole thing again, and write down what you thought was funny about it.<br />Here's my (incomplete) list:<br /><ul><li>The phirangi women dancing - brings up the Indian fascination for white skin, but at the same time it's also funny to see that these particular women are almost dowdy and behenji-esque in their dress - one of them's even wearing a kurti! - and dancing style</li><li>The dark-skinned Uday Chopra lookalike's moves</li><li>The silly hat the main guy wears to off-set his bushy Mallu moustache<br /></li><li>The fact that it's a Mallu song but the refrain is in (slightly messed up) Hindi<br /></li><li>All the disheveled guys in the group dance scenes who look like they've had a bit too much of Old Monk and Hercules the previous night and couldn't be bothered to take a bath</li><li>The credits - Babydoll Productions, Writer's Forum Alappuzha etc</li><li>The fact that they're absolutely sincere about the whole thing - there's something tragicomic about people trying their best to do something and yet appearing as complete losers<br /></li><li>The comments - if you're Mallu and have a decent grasp of Mallu abuses, the comments are quite something<br /></li></ul>So now if you've put together a list, let's move on to the third part of the exercise: try to list out <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> you think those things are funny.<br />Putting on my pseudo-<a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/bio">Hansonian</a> (and maybe even pseudo-<a href="http://millenniumhand.wordpress.com/about/">Han-san</a>-ian) hat, let me try to put together some of the reasons why I think this might be funny (again, an incomplete and possibly not completely thought-through list) :<br /><ul><li>The sense of superiority that comes from looking at people who are trying their best and whose best is not very good, whereas one ('I') could obviously do better if one were to just put in a little effort - case in point: the Hindi pronunciation, the sucky production values, the jerky music<br /></li><li>The 'there-but-for-the-grace-of-god-go-I' aspect, where one ('I') knows that one may not have done a much better job and is glad that the camera was trained on them and not on oneself, which lends a sense of relief and hilarity (this combines with the earlier point, since one can say, 'what losers for allowing themselves to be caught on camera'). Case in point: the dance steps. I am ever-thankful that back when I was in college there weren't too many camera-phones around to record me dancing at 'Do Re Mi'.<br /></li><li>The incongruities - Bushy moustache-meets-funky hat, dowdy phirangi women dancing, Mallus singing in Hindi (do not bother bringing up Yesudas, you know what I'm talking about here), Babydoll productions and the Writer's Forum being thanked - it's quite a mind-meld</li><li>Contextual humour - knowing Malayalam helps to really understand the depth of feeling in the comments, and anyone who's come in contact with Mallus would probably get the humour in the hatted guy's facial hair. I wonder how funny non-Mallus, or for that matter non-Indians would find this video<br /></li></ul>From the above list, I'd say I almost feel a little guilty about the first point, since they really, sincerely, think they're doing something good. And yet, if they were doing this ironically or as a parody (a la Borat or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TojTlYNNm9w">Wilbur</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyeJ2dhtvjQ">Sargunaraj</a>) it probably wouldn't be as funny.<br />So what do you think? What were you laughing at? Leave a comment, please.<br />And if you want homework, analyze <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsha6OeCIII">this</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-45506555896532413882010-04-21T06:11:00.002+05:302010-04-21T10:13:03.254+05:30Five Books I wish I'd read when I was youngerIn response to my post inviting ideas for more blog posts, Murthy suggested that I do the Tyler Cowen thing and list out the 10 books that have inspired me the most. Now I'd already done something similar on Facebook many months ago thanks to one of those tag things from Han, so that didn't seem like something worth rehashing. So instead here's a list of books that I wish I'd read when I was younger. Some of these I have gotten around to reading only in the recent past, while others I've only read in part or not at all, and the longer I delay getting around to reading them, the more I find that I can get by (and indeed have gotten by) passably without reading them or that my attention span is now too short to attempt picking these books up at this point. I dont think these books would have brought about any life-altering changes in my own personality (which is fine, since I quite like who I am), but I feel these would have been good reads at some point, for various reasons. So on with the list:<p>1. Godel Escher Bach, by Douglas Hofstader - Just as something of a geek-culture touchstone this would have been worthwhile to read and subsequently name-check (note: especially useful when having slightly tipsy Econ PhD-applicants explain computability problems to you), and it also seemed to cover a lot of things that I've never been able to get a real handle on - music, math and art, but also deeper stuff about logic and so on which I only get a peripheral idea about through Wiki-trawling. I haven't read it yet so what little I know about the book too is from Wikipedia and by word-of-mouth, so maybe I'm building it up to be bigger than it is, but given its sheer size itself, it'll probably be a while before I work up the nerve to read it.<p>2. The Return of Depression Economics, by Paul Krugman - Krugman came out with the first edition of this book way back around the time when I was in college, so it was a little silly of me in hindsight to wait until 2009 to read the updated edition. It wouldn't have transformed me into an economics wunderkind, but I guess it would have helped relate what I learnt in class to the real world, which, hopefully, would have made me pay a wee bit more attention. Instead I did the Delhi Times crossword, doodled or wrote atrocious schoolboy poetry and eventually had to relearn economics via pop-econ books and blogs. And of course Wikipedia.<p>3. The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant - I had a copy of this when I got to college way back in 2000 and tried manfully to read through it before getting lost somewhere in the discussions about Kantian thought. I did pick it up again in my 3rd year to refer to for an assignment on Hegel and Dialectical Materialism, which I must admit was probably the best tute I ever wrote, but after that I let the book go again. Maybe I should have started with 'Sophie's World' instead...<p>4. The Argumentative Indian, by Amartya Sen - This started off as an OK read, but every time I picked it up it reminded me of the absolute mind-numbing horror that was my Social Choice Theory paper at D-School, and the thought that our primary reading material for the course was Amartya Sen's drier theoretical work was enough to prejudice me against him forever. Someday, perhaps, I might be able to get over it and give him a fair chance.<p>5. Basic Econometrics, by Damodar Gujarati - considering that I've been working in analytics for almost 5 years now, I have to admit that my knowledge of 'trics and stats is a little shakier than I'd like it to be. 'Gujarati' is something of a ready reckoner for most people working in the analytics sector in India, and although I bought myself a copy in a fit of work-related enthusiasm many moons ago, I'll admit to having opened it only sparingly since then.<p>So that's my list. Murthy, Han and Kanishka, consider yourself tagged. Anybody else want to talk about the books they wish they'd read, feel free to blog about it and leave a link in the comments below.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-90015503128313153882010-04-12T00:41:00.003+05:302010-04-12T00:55:13.469+05:30I've started, so I'll finishIn my last <a href="http://uglybutbearable.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagining-ant-god.html">post</a>, I spoke about one way to think about the possibility of God's existence, and I stopped short of talking about how that meshes with my own day-to-day life as a Catholic. As I had said, I don't have it all figured out, and there are obvious questions that come up on why I continue to identify myself as one, as illustrated in <a href="http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=3208">this comic</a>.<br />I think that part of the reason that I self-identify as a Catholic is simply that since my parents are staunch Catholics and brought me up as one, I choose to stick to the label and explore the more personal aspects of my faith within it, rather than trying to make a clean break from it. I'll admit that if they had been part of some other religion or denomination I would probably have accepted that label willingly too. At the same time, one aspect of Catholicism (as I've experienced it) that I think helps make it easier for people to stay within the fold is that it does not require or expect followers to know or read the Bible in much detail (some of the more evangelical types do make the effort, of course). Other denominations (and a few other religions) require greater knowledge of their sacred texts and consequently a stricter, possibly more literal-minded adherence to them. There is a lot more focus on rituals and symbolism in Catholicism, and I feel that they allow for more individual interpretation - for example, some followers may have a favourite saint whom they hope will intercede on their behalf.<br /> Along the same lines, I find going to mass an interesting contemplative experience, where I can follow my own train of thought while participating in the overall proceedings. Being a creature of habit, I find it easier to be contemplative in church than in most other environs, especially when thinking about my own limitations and errors. At the same time, participating in the service along with the congregation is also something of a soothing experience, making you feel that you are part of a greater entity than just yourself. I think a similar feeling of belonging would also arise from <em>jagrans</em>, retreats or Buddhist chanting. The need to belong is, after all, part of the human essence.<br />In terms of my personal faith independent of the church, I will admit that I've found it difficult over the last few years to think of a way to properly engage with God,especially since I broke up with someone I was very close to. It called into question what I would consider the standard approach, where we as humans expect something like a quid pro quo relationship, exchanging prayer and supplication for specific outcomes that we desire - 'Not on our deeds, but on your grace, O Lord, though if you could help me out on this small matter, I would be eternally grateful and will light a candle to symbolize this'. Insofar as I do get around to praying these days, it usually revolves around expressing gratitude, and rephrasing what is essentially the Serenity prayer to fit the minor hassles of life- 'God grant me the wisdom to know that there is very little that is entirely under my control, and grant me the serenity to accept that; and perhaps you could grant courage to those who would use it better than me'.<br /><br />I know the above is neither comprehensive nor entirely convincing, but that's because I've never really contemplated my faith in too much detail either. Deep down, I suspect my spiritual beliefs do get captured by the following lines which appear at the beginning of Vonnegut's 'Cat's Cradle':<br /><blockquote>'Live by the <a href="http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_livebythefoma_archive.html">foma</a> that make you brave and kind<br />and healthy and happy.'<br />-The Books of Bokonon 1:5<br /></blockquote><br />Did I mention that I sometimes think that God has a sly sense of humour?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-83760823805243847962010-04-07T11:03:00.004+05:302010-04-07T11:20:15.114+05:30Imagining an Ant GodA few days ago I asked readers of this blog for ideas on what they'd like me to write about, and my cousin Nikhil suggested a post on my religious beliefs (or lack of them). Now that's a tough one, since I find that, for the most part, the best way to retain one's religious beliefs is to not think about them too deeply. What I'd initially planned to do was to just record myself talking about this for a while and then post it as an ersatz podcast, since that would also make it a 'stream of consciousness' type post, which is also something that Nikhil asked for. However, I ended up recording myself at about 2.00 AM, which meant that I wasn't making too much sense when I was talking. Plus I usually sound like a 15-year-old with a blocked nose, and since the whole thing revolved around God and so on, it basically sounded like someone getting doped out of their head and talking nonsense. Not the sort of thing I'd want to post, thank you. Which brings me to this post. Hopefully the meandering prose sounds sufficiently like a stream-of-consciousness narrative so I can tick that off the list as well and not make up something to project my consciousness as being sufficiently arty-farty. <br />Now on to the topic at hand. I guess when talking about my religious beliefs, I can split the narrative into two posts detailing firstly, how I think about God at a broader rational(izing) level and, secondly, how that relates to my day-to-day life. Let me admit now itself that the links there are tenuous and the arguments inconclusive, and it all eventually comes down to belief and force of habit, so if you're hoping for a cogently argued piece on why everybody should go to church on Sunday, you may as well quit reading now. Consdier yourself warned.<br />When I was in school in Cochin, we used to have a weekly class on the Gita, taught by the Biology teacher who, incidentally, was an Ottamthullal dancer in his spare time (true story, though I'm a little hazy on whether it was Ottamthullal or Kathakali). One of the few things I remember from that class was that, during a discourse about God's existence, he said that the only people who have a complete definition of God are atheists, because only if you have a complete definition can you put it to the test and then say for sure that God does not exist. That's not entirely true, but I think it is a good way to start thinking about how the way we think about God is constrained by the limits of human comprehension. <br />Consider this: let's say you have a whole bunch of ants sealed up in an ant farm so you can observe them, but they are pretty much oblivious to the existence of the world outside of the farm. Assuming those ants were developed enough to think about these things, how would they think about a god in this case? Being at the top of the food chain within the farm, they'd probably assume that god was very much like themselves. The funny thing is, as the owner of the ant farm, you could pretty much play god with them if you felt like it, but they'd still think of you in ant terms - perhaps as a deity with six legs and magical pincers or something, until you revealed yourself as a human, at which point they probably would not even be able to comprehend your existence in non-ant terms. <br />Now that's not a great thought experiment, but what I wanted to bring out was that we as humans are far too vested in trying to think of god in strictly human terms, with broadly human motives and human emotions. Remaking god in our own image, as it were. And yet, if god as an entity really exists, it seems to me that he/she/it would be far too complex a being for us to wrap our minds around, far more complex than the idea of a human being would be to an ant. When we do prove that our earlier beliefs are wrong, that only demonstrates our own small-mindedness and ignorance. This doesn't prove that God clearly does nor does not exist, it's just saying that thinking about Him/Her in terms of human logic may not provide a sufficient answer. It then comes down to a question of belief or faith. <br />However, if god really is so complex, it does make it tougher to assign emotions or motives. We would like to believe he has a soft spot for us, but the ants in our hypothetical ant farm might also believe the same thing about the humans who own the farm. This is one of the things I definitely haven't figured out completely yet - how to engage with this idea of God. After all, if I don't know if there's a plan or what that plan might be, I may as well live my life assuming that there's no plan, or at best, that I'll play just an incidental role in any larger plan.<br /> <br />At this point, things get really murky, so I'm going to stop for now, and in my next post I'll try to cover how I try to engage with my religious beliefs on a day-to-day basis. <br />Right now I need to go get a haircut.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-88120963116381253332010-03-30T00:41:00.000+05:302010-03-30T00:54:23.122+05:30Now taking RequestsWhat with work getting more and more hectic and my comp crashing and with the IPL, I haven't blogged in ages. There are a couple of half-formed posts in my head, but I'm probably going to let them swim around for a bit till I can type them out on a comp instead of on my phone, which is what I'm doing for this post.<br />Instead, to spur myself into writing something and to see if anybody still bothers to read the blog, I am going to steal an idea from Tyler Cowen and invite regular readers to nominate topics they would like me write about. Obviously, since I am nowhere near being the sort of stud that Cowen is, I hope the topics will revolve around stuff where it makes sense to have me write something original, rather than pasting stuff from Wikipedia or something. Also, since I'm typing on my phone, stuff that doesn't require me to type out long essays would be preferable.<br />So far I haven't really established any particular tone or style for this blog, so hopefully this will give me an idea about what sticks with the regular readers, and what aspect of my writing sucks. Let me know what you think.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-46421603178519176702010-02-24T01:48:00.002+05:302010-02-24T01:55:22.939+05:30Buzz, I'd like to meet your uncle, GGRemember what life on the web was like in the years before Google became a verb? Back before Orkut Buyu-how-many-Ks-in-kkoten supposedly set out to find his lost love through social neworking, before Mark Zuckerberg supposedly screwed-over a bunch of other Harvard-types to start a site for college kids to ogle at other college kids, before even stuff like Friendster and what not, there was the mailing list. Thanks to e-groups (later Yahoo! Groups) and such-like we tried to keep in touch with friends from school that we'd left behind by signing up for the batch mailing list with much enthusiasm. Similarly when trying to find people with similar tastes or hobbies, we would again sign up for a mailing list. I, for example, was on the mailing list for something called Quiznet for about 9 years, though I stopped reading the mails after 3, and another poetry mailing list called the Wondering Minstrels, which sadly seems to have stopped sometime in 2004 or so.<p>Now those mailing lists weren't perfect, but they had some redeeming features-they were strictly opt-in, there was a clear reason for their formation (better than, say, being defaulted the 'India' network on Fb), they were reasonably simple to figure out if you knew how to use e-mail and the rules for posting and moderation within the network could be tweaked by the users themselves. Set against that was the pain of having loads of unread mails cluttering your inbox, including flame-wars, personal mails because people replied to the group instead of the sender and even the odd out-of-office auto-reply. Even today, most of the mails in my Gmail account in the last 6 months seem to be from members of a particular mailing list that I'm part of.<p>So now that Google's come out with Buzz and the initial enthusiasm has worn off, I find myself wondering why they didn't try integrating Buzz with Google Groups. Instead of opting users into one universal social network they could have provided a platform for multiple overlapping networks. People could choose which networks they wanted to join, what permission levels they wanted to set for the group, and they'd only need to share something once to the group. Instead of receiving 10 emails from members of a group with the same attachment being forwarded around with new comments, you could have just one instance of the item, with comments tacked on. Want to keep your work contacts different from your other friends? Set up different networks. With opt-in, there'd be less chances of twitter-style bots. And instead of those irritating messages on fb about '1 new survey for you to answer' etc, Google could simply show some discreet adwords on the side tailored for the network, similar to the ads shown within Gmail (maybe network members could even choose to some extent what types of ads they want to see=> more targeted ads =>happier marketers and customers).<br />It wouldn't necessarily be as flashy as facebook, but it could lead to more communicative networks, with more useful information.<p>Not to mention, it would reduce the chances of my being woken up at 1.00 AM because a new mail hit my phone, informing the mailing list that _______ is not in office right now and will be out on vacation with limited access to his e-mail, but we can contact his colleague _______ for any urgent matter.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-47400349738690873552010-02-12T14:43:00.004+05:302010-02-12T14:58:26.680+05:30A little Hemingway in the afternoonI just started reading Hemingway's 'Death in the Afternoon' and came across this sentence:<div><blockquote>However, if I had waited long enough I probably never would have written anything at all since there is a tendency when you really begin to learn something about a thing not to want to write about it but rather to keep on learning about it always and at no time, unless you are very egotistical, which, of course, accounts for many books, will you be able to say: now I know all about this and will write about it.</blockquote>I think that 'tendency' is also partly why I blog a lot less these days - as I've gotten more aware about the world in general and about the skill involved in writing, I end up spending more time reading others (and sharing a lot of what I read online through <a href="http://www.google.com/reader/shared/04264804845961571288">Google Reader</a>) while discarding most of my own output as being not very good. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-78388080738367791522010-01-19T01:43:00.004+05:302010-01-19T01:50:03.841+05:30Big Mama's HouseWe interrupt this not-so-steady stream of blog posts to bring you two very important bits of news:<div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Firstly, the proprietor of this blog has gone and bought a flat in Bangalore and is now slowly coming to terms with his debt profile and the intricacies of plumbing. Once that is done, more regular blogging <s>will</s> may resume.</li></ul><ul><li>Secondly, and more importantly, this blogger has been informed that he will become an uncle sometime this year. Yay me! Or rather, yay my sister and brother-in-law. </li></ul><div><br /></div><div>That is all. We now return to our regularly scheduled lack of of original programming.</div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-487310057291924472010-01-08T23:34:00.003+05:302010-01-09T02:11:20.915+05:30Why Twitter is like one of those Morning Walker thingiesYou know what I'm talking about - one of those machines that claim to give you all the benefits of exercise while you basically spend 15 minutes lying on your back twiddling your thumbs. If you're not in very good shape to begin with, you'll probably see some level of improvement for a week or two, but after that, you know you're lying to yourself, but you'll continue using it because it's still easier than, say, actually getting off your bum and working out.<div>Now I'm a pretty big fan of Twitter, for the most part, but the one thing I dislike about it is that it allows me to slack off on blogging/writing. Now this isn't how it's supposed to be. Twitter's supposed to actually help you write better, by forcing you to get concise and fit everything into 140 characters. Only I find that I'm not just writing <i>less</i>, I'm now also <i>writing</i> less. Let me explain - I like the idea of writing, and that's why I started blogging in the first place, but now I keep telling myself that if I am going to post something on the blog, it had better be good, or I shouldn't bother with it at all. Which eventually means that I hardly post that often on the blog these days (compare, for instance, the number of posts I did per month back in 2008 to the number I did in 2009). Instead, when I do feel the urge to express myself somewhat on the internet, I now type out a quick tweet and I'm done.</div><div>And then I go back to gorging at the all-you-can-eat buffet table that is Google Reader. I can almost feel my arteries hardening, metaphorically speaking. And so, since this is still January, I shall now make a resolution to write more, in terms of both, quantity and frequency, this year. Let's see how long that lasts.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-26349150822059671922009-12-01T11:42:00.005+05:302009-12-01T12:26:35.650+05:30How to 'Bangalore' Your Love-Life if You Live in BangaloreBeing a diligent denizen of the corporate world, every once in a while I surf the net for ways to make myself more productive and achieve a better 'work-life' balance (first thing I've learnt: surfing the net for that sort of stuff sucks time away from both work and life), I happened to read about Tim Ferriss and his book (and <a href="http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/">blog</a>) '<a href="http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/">The Four-Hour Work Week</a>'. There are some pretty fun hacks and stuff that he goes over while talking about 'Lifestyle Design', but what caught my attention was the section on 'Outsourcing Life'. An abridged form of version of the chapter, with a case-study, is available on-line <a href="http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/outsourcing-life/">here</a>. It's not just about out-sourcing your work or your appointments calendar, but also stuff like having bed-time stories read to your kids or even having someone else take up the effort of finding women online and setting up dates:<br /><div><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8mmLUUMHgKY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8mmLUUMHgKY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></div><br />Now while this sounds very cool, you've got to feel for the poor guy sitting in Bangalore who has to go through all those profiles and send out mails and stuff. After all, it's not like he'll be in a position to hand over his Orkut and Facebook profiles to someone in the Philippines or China, and he's too busy with writing code, setting up dates or running errands online to go hit on women himself. So if you're a good Bangalorean ITES employee, what do you do?<div><div>Mom-source the work, of course. Delegate all the work of finding the right girl to your mom (and if required, other family members) and let her handle the profiles on the matrimonial websites, the background checks, the meetings etc. You get a fully committed personal assistant and PR rep, so to speak, and all at the fantastic price of zero rupees. It also means that you don't have to spend time actually learning any social skills or etiquette. </div><div>Having delegated all that difficult work, you can then devote the extra time you've gained to all those exciting things you've always wanted to do in life, like drinking too much beer, nailing down the code for that pesky macro at work, or even proving conclusively to all those heathens on the the Cricinfo comment pages that Sachin Tendulkar really and truly is God. So what are you waiting for? Life, as John Lennon would have told you, is what happens to you while your mother is busy making other plans.</div><div><br /></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-76198496409078626982009-11-19T23:22:00.005+05:302009-11-19T23:48:56.539+05:30Lost in Translation, perhaps?Remember back when people <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/mumbai-slum-residents-pro_n_159916.html">kicked up a fuss</a> about how the 'slumdog' in 'Slumdog Millionaire' was a derogatory term and there were slum-dwellers who objected to being called 'dogs'? I remember thinking (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one) that they were making too much of a hue and cry over a stupid movie. After all, you'd think that people who don't like slum-dwellers would probably come up with worse epithets, and people who cared about them wouldn't be so insensitive, now would they? Well, think again:<div><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzSYam4OhNWsVr7eOFP2fdGUh5G4MQ5yBB7tZGLwYAoaHvRJs85dY1ox5tGhbBAq8l2QYGO72FBPSQV4-IC7kMpfgdzpU2im9vu3jCdglr2vlbq3eZBL2ruEaNlP48kwfX0FCYadGr4A8/s1600/SOSad.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 257px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzSYam4OhNWsVr7eOFP2fdGUh5G4MQ5yBB7tZGLwYAoaHvRJs85dY1ox5tGhbBAq8l2QYGO72FBPSQV4-IC7kMpfgdzpU2im9vu3jCdglr2vlbq3eZBL2ruEaNlP48kwfX0FCYadGr4A8/s320/SOSad.bmp" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405876568876665154" /></a><div>I saw this ad up on the Indian Express' site and took a screen-shot. That's actually an ad for the <a href="http://www.sos-usa.org/Pages/default.aspx">SOS Children's Villages</a>, a respectable (AFAIK) NGO that does <a href="http://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/What-we-do/Pages/default.aspx">pretty good work</a> for kids the world over. So why in the world would they call these kids 'real slumdogs'? Even if they wanted to tie their work in to the movie to try and get more donations, there's got to be a better way of putting it, right? Right? </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-70085257594134894512009-10-21T11:17:00.003+05:302009-10-21T11:30:55.233+05:30A Few Clarifications<div>It has recently come to my attention that my mom is now blogging (Yay Mom!), and therefore it is possibly only a matter of time before she finds out about my own blog (if she hasn't come across it already). As a result, I think it is time to make a few clarifications about this blog, specifically with regard to the title, since I don't want to have to answer questions along the lines of 'but <i>monae</i> why do you think you might be ugly..?'. As you might have gathered from that dashing profile pic on the side-bar, the title does not, of course, describe me, and was not ever meant to.</div><div>A further clarification: since I started using Google Analytics in April 2008, I've had at least one hit a month on average from someone searching for whether the word 'cute' means 'ugly, but bearable', and I can safely say that it does not (see <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cute">here</a> for details, or perhaps even <a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cut5.htm">here</a>). Having cleared that up, I will admit that I had first heard of the above bit of folk etymology back in college, and that's how I hit upon the title of this blog. The phrase 'ugly, but bearable', for the most part, serves well as a description of my outlook on life in general - <strike>shit</strike> <strike>crap</strike> bad stuff happens, but rarely is it ever overwhelming, and you carry on because that way hopefully less, or at least different, <strike>shit</strike> <strike>crap</strike> bad stuff will happen in future.</div><div>Now at this point I would have linked to my mom's blog as well, however, it seems that ever since I put up a post named '<a href="http://uglybutbearable.blogspot.com/2009/04/hep-aunties-of-khan-market.html">The Hep Aunties of Khan Market</a>', I seem to attract a few unseemly googlers looking for lascivious details on said aunties, and I'd rather not direct their attention towards my mother, or, for that matter, anyone else's.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-45644715239392648032009-09-08T10:04:00.003+05:302009-09-08T10:10:46.358+05:30G-Men<div>"Word on the 'stream is, there's going to be one of those high teas out int he suburbs this weekend."</div><div>"Bunch of stupid kids and pseudo-hippies getting drugged out and listening to crappy live bands. Gets on my nerves really."</div><div>"Think we should find out more, call in a bust?"</div><div>"Yeah, why not? Bunch of wannabes think it's cool to protest against the license fees and all, but cut their broadband for 10 minutes and they're screaming down the phone lines. And don't even get me started on those music-types. Without the fees, they'd be on the streets flogging CDs that nobody wants and holding down two jobs to survive, instead of relaxing at home and waiting for us to mail them their royalty cheques."</div><div>"I never really figured that out. You'd think they'd love the scheme."</div><div>" Not all of them. It's like the old radio stations, only instead of DJs, it's the algorithms that decide whose music is worth listening to. And it's a lot tougher to bluff the algorithms - you've either got talent or you don't. The computers aren't as taken in by sex appeal."</div><div>"Yeah, but that means that we basically get to decide who gets heard and who doesn't, huh?"</div><div>"Well, we aren't the Office of Online Guidance, Learning and Education for nothing."</div><div>"Funny, that. Back when my dad tried to join the company, I don't think he would have imagined things would turn out like this for them."</div><div>"Your dad was an Ogler, too?"</div><div>"No, but he did interview with them. That was way back, before the government took over and they changed the name to the recursive backronym and all that. Wonder who came up with that."</div><div>"So you're living your dad's dream, huh? Must be proud of you."</div><div>"Somehow, I don't think he had Assistant Manager, License Fee Collections, put down as the dream job for his son."</div><div>"It could have been worse, y'know. For instance, you could be a food safety inspector trying to figure out which of those regenerated meat things are halaal. That's some weird shit. Just thinking about it makes me feel icky - like it's some kind of immortal sausage or something."</div><div>"Hey it's not bad. I think it's pretty cool. Was planning on trying it out for a bit."</div><div>"You're going Ronald? Why? For that matter, why's it called reganism anyway, and not re-gen-ism?"</div><div>"Well, it's like veganism, only -"</div><div>"That's another thing I don't get. It's not like that started in Vegas or something."</div><div>"Probably because it sounded cooler than 'vedge', I guess. Anyway, I think the whole concept is pretty cool. Like, you get all the flavour of meat, without having to actually kill stuff, since it's all synthetic. It kind of fits in with our motto, actually. Don't be evil, and all that. Y'know?"</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>_________________________________________________</div><div><br /></div><div>Note - I was thinking of a story along these lines for a while, but it all fell together a lot better after reading <a href="http://www.steussy.com/blog/?p=1867">this transcript</a> of an interview between Krugman and Charlie Stross. Go read that as well, if you haven't read it already.</div><div><br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-36035252371539573112009-08-25T01:07:00.006+05:302009-08-25T23:04:15.271+05:30The Scariest Story I Ever Read/Spoiler Alert<p>For a while now, I've been trying to put together a story that starts: "The scariest story I ever read was 'Zuckerman Unbound' by Philip Roth". It's tough to do without making it quite obviously autobiographical (if I ever do put my <a href="http://uglybutbearable.blogspot.com/2008/02/plan-b.html">Plan B</a> into place, I might use it there, I suppose). That's because 'Zuckerman ...' isn't anything like a horror story. It's actually a tragicomedy about a Jewish writer who becomes famous for writing a novel full of sex and snide remarks about other Jews, and ends up being identified with the protagonist of his novel. Not something you'd normally consider scary, to be honest. Then again, I don't read scary stuff normally, so what do I know (come to think of it, I haven't even read any Stephen King).</p> <p>What freaked me out were actually two big plot points, which seemed to reverberate with my own particular context at that time. [Note: I suppose this is the point where I go 'SPOILER ALERT!']. On the one hand, there was this side character in the story called Alvin Pepler, who is supposed to have been a big winner on the TV quiz shows that were prevalent in the 50's (before being convinced to throw a round by the producers in a similar plot to what was covered in the movie 'Quiz Show'). Roth portrays him as this gasbag living in his past, defined by what happened to him on TV but also trying to escape it (I hope you see where I'm going with this). I read the book in my first year of college, when my identity was still defined to an extent by the fact that I'd been on TV and won the BQC. It scared me then to think of the possibility that my one big life-defining moment might already be behind me at the age of 18.</p> <p>The other big scary plot point, ['SPOILER ALERT 2!', if you will] was right at the end, when Zuckerman's father, who is dying, uses his last breath to abuse him for writing a book that basically brought shame to their respectable family and made fun of the community. This sounds almost maudlin the way I describe it here, and Roth obviously lays it all out better in the book, but it freaked me out even more. Back then I had pretensions to becoming a full-fledged writer at some point, and to have this whole potential future guilt-trip laid onto my sweet, family-comes-first Mallu Catholic soul was unexpected when I'd started reading the book. I knew I didn't have sufficient imagination to come up with an entire other world <a href="http://millenniumhand.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-postcolonial-object-or-hidden-among-the-cliches/">a la Tolkien</a>, but I could see myself putting out a decent stream of snappy farces satirizing the world around me. The thought of someone, and that too someone close to me, taking it all personally hadn't occurred to me, until then. Honestly.</p> <p>Of course, much water has passed under many bridges since the time I first read the book. For one, I'm now no longer known for being a good school quizzer and more for being an above average college one, among other things, so the ghost of Pepler doesn't haunt me so much. As I said, I've been meaning to write about the book for a while now, but lacking sufficient inspiration, I whacked it from my parents' home last time I visited and re-read the book on the flight back. I'm glad to say I found it a much more fun read this time, and not as scary. Then again, that could be because I'm growing old and giving in to convention anyway, so there's less likelihood of giving offence. Come to think of it, that's a scary thought too.</p><p>UPDATE: Added in links, and due attribution to <a href="http://millenniumhand.wordpress.com/">Han</a>. Also, if you're interested, here's a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/11/specials/roth-zuck.html">review of 'Zuckerman Unbound'</a> from the NY Times. And finally, here's a list of 15 books that I like, which I put together because Han tagged me on <a href="http://www.new.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=118683906821">Facebook</a>.</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-84725293138265172492009-08-04T01:09:00.007+05:302009-08-04T01:44:29.848+05:30'Forever' Means 'I'm Willing to Play this Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma Game Indefinitely'<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-size:85%;"></span></span></p><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-size:85%;"><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">While killing time on Google Reader, I came across two posts, one on </span><a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/07/what-defines-the-swedish-soul.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Marginal Revolution</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> and the other on </span><a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/06/signals-are-forever.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Overcoming Bias</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, on relationships. They got me thinking about this idea I had a while ago about how it might be fun to apply the game theoretic framework of the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Prisoners' Dilemma</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> to how a relationship might form and survive*. I finally got around to typing it up into a post (sub-scripts and super-scripts are killer), so here goes:</span></span></span><p></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">(Important Disclaimer: I'm not taking myself seriously in this post, and neither should you).</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Consider an individual </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> with a utility function broadly as follows:</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U(</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">)</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">= U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x </span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">if x is single, and</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U(</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">)</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">= U'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">if x is in a relationship</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Where</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U(</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">)</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">is </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">'s total utility (Yes, ok that's crappy notation, see disclaimer above)</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> is the utility that </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> gets from generally getting on with the day-to-day aspects of his/her life,</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x </span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">is the utility that </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> gets from generally getting on with the day-to-day aspects of his/her life when in a relationship, and U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">is the added utility that </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> gets from being in a relationship</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> because the other person commits</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">.</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Assumption 1: Consider that committing to a relationship usually involves some sort of change in one's daily routine and possibly even more sacrifice, so we can assume that usually,</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x </span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">> U'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Although, one would presume that</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">> U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">(call this presumption 1, if you will; without this presumption, of course, further analysis would be meaningless)</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Now consider another individual, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, with a similarly formed utility function V(</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">) with components V</span></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></span></sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">,</span></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">V'</span></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y </span></span></sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">and V</span></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></span></sub><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></span></sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">.</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Assuming that </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> and </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> are of the right gender to suit their respective orientations and are open to getting into a relationship, a one-off encounter between them could be considered within the simple Prisoner's Dilemma framework as follows:</span></span></span></span></p><table width="100%" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><col width="29*"><col width="41*"><col width="82*"><col width="104*"><tbody><tr valign="TOP"><td rowspan="2" colspan="2" width="27%" bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background-position: initial initial; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p></td><td colspan="2" width="73%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></i></span></span></span></p></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="32%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Commit</span></span></span></span></p></td><td width="41%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Defect</span></span></span></span></p></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td rowspan="2" width="11%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i></span></span></span></p></td><td width="16%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Commit</span></span></span></span></p></td><td width="32%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> , V'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ V</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></sup></span></span></span></p></td><td width="41%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, V</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ V</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></sup></span></span></span></p></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="16%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Defect</span></span></span></span></p></td><td width="32%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> , V'</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><sup></sup></span></span></span></span></p></td><td width="41%" bg="" style="color:#ffffff;"><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; "><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> , V</span><sub><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></sub></span></span></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Here, since the bonus utility ( </span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R </span></span></span></sup></span></span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">or </span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">V</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></span></span></sup></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">) </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">comes from having the other person commit to the relationship, if either party defects but the other commits, the defector gets the bonus but not the one who commits. Think of this in terms of the committing partner having to make sacrifices but not getting much of the rewards from being in the relationship. Obviously, then, as long as assumption 1 above holds, both </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> and </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> would defect in a one-off encounter, as in the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classical_prisoner.27s_dilemma"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">standard single-iteration PD game</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, resulting in the two getting utilities of </span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> and V</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, respectively</span></span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. That's one way of explaining why it's very rarely that something like 'love at first sight' might happen (perhaps a relaxation in assumption 1 is required?).</span></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The single-iteration PD game can be extended by considering </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">iterative game play</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. Firstly, let us consider iterative game play with a defined number of iterations, say </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">t</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. If I remember my introductory game theory classes, this does not arrive at a 'satisfactory' solution. While both players may consider committing since it means that they can get higher gains, since the number of iterations is fixed, it becomes rational to defect in the </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">t-</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">th iteration and aim for the highest possible gain. But if you know that your partner is going to defect at </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">t</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, you could opt to defect at the (</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">t-1)</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">-th iteration itself, so you can try for the maximum gain in that iteration and avoid being duped in </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">t</span></i><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. Since both parties would think this way, they will end up defecting from the first iteration itself. Not very romantic, but then again there are very few cases where you'll find people getting into a relationship with a clearly defined end-date. (There are examples, of course, but I'll leave you to find them and post them in the comments. I would guess, though, that in most of those cases assumption 1 would not hold).</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">On then to the next case: the infinitely-repeated PD game. Here, if both the players profess undying love and commit to each other, they get pay-offs of </span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U'</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span></sup></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ U</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></span></span></sup></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> and V'</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span></sup></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">+ V</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">y</span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sup><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">R</span></span></span></sup></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> in each iteration. They can also set credible threats for the other player, so that any defection by the other player could be met with some sort of punishment- a consequent defection in the next </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><i><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">n</span></span></i></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> iterations, say, or a 'grim' trigger strategy where any defection by one player will be met with the other player also defecting for all further iterations. These punishments ensure that the players are better off committing instead of defecting in any one iteration. And how do both players knows that the game is infinitely repeated? By repeatedly asserting the same, and/or locking in the commitment through a contract aka marriage. In such a framework, then, as long as neither player defects, both will maximize utility for all future iterations – or, as they say in the literature, they go on to live happily ever after.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-style: none; border-left-width: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: initial; border-right-color: initial; padding-top: 0cm; padding-bottom: 0.07cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Homework questions (Answer in the comments, if you please):</span></span></p><ol><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><span><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">What happens if one person thinks that the game is infinitely repeated, and the other knows it's going to be finite? Read the </span><a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/07/what-defines-the-swedish-soul.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">post on MR</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> again. How would this analysis apply there?</span></span></span></span></p></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-style: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">How does the analysis change if we relax assumption 1? What inferences would you make of a person for whom </span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">U</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x </span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><></span></span></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><sub><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">x </span></span></span></sub></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">?</span></span></span></span></span></span><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "></p></span></li></ol><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">*Incidentally, I was considering naming this post '</span><a href="http://www.chakpak.com/movie/prem-qaidi/wallpapers-photos/1127"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Prem Qaidi</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">', but I wasn't sure</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"> how many people would get the joke...</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:15px;"></span></span></p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-51662293258523868792009-07-09T00:08:00.003+05:302009-07-09T01:43:55.291+05:30Writing UglyI wonder if there's a case to be made for grinding out a blog post every now and then, as a way of reminding oneself that it can be done. I haven't written anything for a while now, and seem to be averaging about one post a month of late. Not because I'm too busy or anything, of course, just that most of the stuff I start drafting out in my head doesn't meet my own standards for publication. If it isn't good enough for me to read, I reckon it's not something I want to share with anyone else. And that, I think, is really the cause for most cases of writer's block - the problem is not that one can't think of anything to write about, it is just that one can't seem to find the words to express oneself in a way that is gratifying. Maintaining some standards is, of course, necessary, but I do think that sometimes we end up putting too much thought into whether something is worth writing (and posting) or not. Which, if you think about it, is rather ironic when it comes to blogging, because the 'cost' to post one's writing is pretty low (mainly in terms of time rather than money) as is the 'cost' to others to read it. In fact, when I first started blogging, I tried to get a feel for it by checking out one of those 'how-to' type blogs that recommended that I just keep on posting whatever came to mind - with enough quantity, there was sure to be at least some work of quality. I don't think I followed that advice much, but I did manage to get a fair number of posts out of the way pretty quickly.<br /><br />But that was when I was still just enjoying the whole opportunity to write again and didn't care who read them. As I have become more conscious of the fact that some people actually read my blog (even if it was about 5 regulars and one or two misguided souls searching for naughty pics of aunties or whatever), I think I have become a bit more hesitant. I'm a lot more conscious of how potential readers might react or even if there will be a reaction at all. I find myself (sometimes) obsessing over whether particular posts got comments or not, or how new visitors arrived at my blog. Case in point: I'm now ruing the fact that I named a post "<a href="http://uglybutbearable.blogspot.com/2009/04/hep-aunties-of-khan-market.html">The Hep Aunties of Khan Market</a>", since I now get a few hits each month from the aforementioned MILF-seekers. Google Analytics is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard - it gives me more things to ponder about, like whether that person sitting in Bristol who visited my blog 3 times in the last month is someone I know who's just checking in (though I can't think of anyone) , or if it's a new reader who might like my style and who I need to impress even more so she'll keep coming back and may tell more people about me so I can slowly establish an empire of readers across the South of England (it had better be a she - I don't want to have to find out I'm wasting my time worrying about strange British men...). And all this for a blog that's just a side-project that isn't even going to make me rich or famous or anything.<br /><br />Of course, I was a worrier about my writing well before I started blogging. Back at College, I could only start writing my essays for tutorials after midnight, when I was just tired enough to not give a damn about how fruity my writing might sound. As a result, for the first 3 'tutes' I wrote for a subject called Comparative Economic Development I quoted, in order, Jesus Christ, Voltaire and Pink Floyd, because I knew that our prof didn't really care what the body of the essay contained as long as it started and ended well, and I actually got pretty good marks for them. I don't think I could have written any of those while completely in control of my senses, since it would have seemed too pretentious and cheesy for me to put my name to it (Yes, I know, trying to 'keep it real' in a tute is pointless, but so is reading an amateur blog so why are you here and what's your point?).<br /><br />Which brings me to today. I had to write an article on 'Value Addition in Challenging Times' for a newsletter at work (not quite, I grant you, '<a href="http://tmcq.co.uk/articles/what-the-well-dressed-man-is-wearing/">What the Well-Dressed Gentleman is Wearing</a>', but we all have to start somewhere), and after letting it slide for a couple of days, I finally ground out the first draft today. I wouldn't normally have thought of myself as writing a 'gyaan'-type article, so I basically imagined the sort of stuff that my former department head at the Bank would have liked reading, and put it down. And as a reminder of my old tute-writing days, I even finished it with a quote from Rahm Emmanuel (you know which quote I'm talking about). It may well be that tomorrow I will find out I have to re-write most of the article, but just the act of writing without judging myself too much was quite enjoyable. And that led to this post.<br /><br />Quite freeing, in a sense, like after when you've taken a satisfying dump. And now that it's done, I shall post it, and be done with it. Comment if you wish, I don't care.<br /><br /><br />Well, not too much, anyway.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-73406646108619701862009-06-07T23:05:00.004+05:302009-06-08T00:38:09.973+05:30Spare a thought for Stanford - and Subhash ChandraWhile Chris Gayle took the game away quite conclusively from the Australians<a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/wt202009/engine/current/match/355993.html"> at the Oval yesterday</a>, credit is also due to the lesser lights, Andre Fletcher and Jerome Taylor, who set the pace at the beginning of each innings with the bat and ball respectively. Watching them confidently put the Australians in their place made me think of the <a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/376602.html">Stanford 20/20 for 20</a>, when the Stanford Superstars, basically the WI team by another name, dismissed the English to win $20 million. That win was in turn set up by the Stanford 20/20 domestic tournament which helped to identify new talent and hone it through good facilities and coaching. Fletcher, himself, <a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/wiveng2009/content/story/395135.html">credits Stanford</a> with providing him the platform to showcase his skills, and still thinks highly of him, despite losing some of his winnings due to investments in the latter's firm.<div>Which brings me to Sir Allen. Despite the supposed Ponzi scheme and the obvious crassness of landing his helicopter at Lord's, it can't be denied that his money did help to bankroll a lot of whatever development there was in West Indian cricket in the last 3-4 years. Given how the WICB has been running things, imagine how much worse things could have been for cricket in the Caribbean (and consequently, cricket in general, given how popular a team they are). So perhaps the ICC should spare a thought for building up the game's base there, before trying to <a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/usa/content/story/402665.html">break into the American market</a>.</div><div>At this point, let me take off into the realm of wishful thinking/wild conjecture. I wish Subhash Chandra would get involved. Unlike Stanford, Chandra made his initial millions in more prosaic things like exporting rice and manufacturing plastic toothpaste tubes before setting up the Zee TV network which, in turn, begat the Indian Cricket League. Now that the ICL has been squeezed to within an inch of its life by the BCCI, it might be a good fit to see the whole apparatus shift out west. A lot of the Indian players have <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/back-in-the-rat-race/472454/0">resigned from the league</a> thanks to the BCCI's 'amnesty' and could all therefore be replaced by local talent, supplemented by the international players (admittedly not the youngest or brightest stars, but still useful) and guided by the coaches and support staff who have been persuaded to stay. Given that Zee has a <a href="http://www.zeetvusa.com/index.asp">presence </a>in the US cable TV market already, and the Caribbean is about 1-3 hours ahead in terms of time-zones, the games could readily be broadcast in the US too. That would seem to be an easier way to break into the market than trying to set up a league in the US with hardly any local talent and limited local support.</div><div>And since the league would (hopefully) no longer be perceived as competition for the IPL, perhaps it could finally get official ICC recognition. That would only be fair.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-51878837949755091162009-05-05T01:57:00.005+05:302009-05-05T02:18:54.863+05:30The IPL Workout GuideMost of us have probably given over our entire evenings these days to watching cricket on TV. But just because the IPL is on doesn't mean you can allow yourself to sit around and get fat and lethargic (that holds for you too, Jesse Ryder). While it may be impossible to resist watching the game long enough to go to the gym or go for a run, there's always the option of working out in the comfort and privacy of your own home. Here are some workout routines that you can follow without missing a second of the game. Whoever said watching TV isn't good for your health?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Little Master Fat-Blaster sequence</span><br />Sachin's managed to torch away all that puppy fat in time to replace it with a more age-appropriate bulge around the midriff and now, so can you! What's more, you can do that while watching him bat. Just follow this simple routine: Whenever Mumbai Indians go out to bat, starting from the first ball to the strategic time-out (or till Sachin gets out, whichever is earlier), get up and do 10 jumping jacks every time Sachin adjusts his crotch guard. On a good wicket, you should get in a pretty intense workout, enough to get you into fighting shape by the finals.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Sixers to Six-packs</span><br />Get down and do 6 crunches every time a batsman hits a six. Your abs will be DLF'ed in no time! Bonus tip: Do an extra 3 crunches if Mark Nicholas reacts to the shot with a 'You beauty!'.<br />Note: Beginners are advised to try this routine only when the Kolkata Knight Riders are batting, to avoid too much strain.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Avoid a Middle Order Collapse</span><br />Watching the Rajasthan Royals this year, you would have realized that no matter how strong you are at the top or the bottom, what you really need to win is a strong core. Try doing the Downward Dog pose every time the Royals lose a wicket between the 6th and the 15th over, and you'll have a core stronger than Mohammed Kaif's defensive technique in no time!<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Strategic Time-out Fielding Practice</span><br />Feel your blood pressure rising every time you see an anchor trying to make inane conversation? Don't let it get to you - instead, use it to improve your hand-eye coordination. Get yourself a (soft) stress-buster ball and try throwing it at the TV screen every time the anchor comes on. Give yourself points for every direct hit. For an extra challenge, try it when one of those <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/vodafoneipl">Vodafone ads</a> are on, picking up a particular Zoozoo for target practice. Not only will this improve your mood, it'll improve your fielding in the next weekend cricket game.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Too many Cricks, not enough info?</span><br />So you're cheesed off because you're still at work instead of home watching the game, and now that the <a href="http://fakeiplplayer.blogspot.com/">Fake IPL player</a>'s posts have become rarer, you're stuck with <a href="http://content.cricinfo.com/iplpage2/content/site/">Cricinfo Page 2</a> for your daily dose of 'cricketainment'. Try this simple routine: open up <a href="http://content.cricinfo.com/iplpage2/content/site/iplpage2/genre.html?genre=281">Tishani Doshi's column</a> in your browser and gently stretch your back and neck while reading, until you get to the first mention of any of the actual games or the fourth paragraph, whichever is earlier (usually the latter). That should get the blood flowing again.<br /><br />Please make it a point to consult your physician before trying any of the above exercises. Also, please don't forget to draw the curtains beforehand - you wouldn't want your neighbours looking in to see you ostensibly panting at Mandira Bedi, now, would you?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7557651362769702661.post-59105070186804980622009-04-25T02:00:00.004+05:302009-04-25T02:32:03.381+05:30How would you connect Flamingoes to Maths via sport?I've been sitting in the dark at home for the last half hour because it rained a fair bit here in B'lore and the damned electricity has gone out on my street. Since it is still to early for me to go to bed, I figured I'd finish up this post I drafted a pretty long time ago. In case it comes out incoherent or idiotic, please, blame it on the lack of electricity.<br />Somewhere in the deep recesses of Nanavati Studios in Juhu, or possibly in some archive of Big Ideas Pvt Ltd, there (probably) exists a tape that shows a geeky young boy, all spectacles and toothy grin, sweaty from wearing his school's full winter uniform including blazer and tie in the heat of Mumbai, trying to lip-synch to Toni Braxton's 'Un-Break My Heart', and actually getting the lyrics wrong, only to have it pointed out to all and sundry by Derek O'Brien. That was the Bournvita Quiz contest, 1997, and the boy was me, uncharacteristically exuberant because I actually knew the answer to an audio question. Thankfully, this was in the days before YouTube, so it's unlikely that too many people saw it then or remember it now. Besides, I won the quiz that year, so that was some solace. This post, however, is not about that story.<br />It is, instead, about quizzing in general, and what I've learnt about,and from, being a (fairly successful) quizzer since the age of 7. Of course, back when I started (the Maggi Quiz, 1990, I think), school quizzing was far more about knowing absolute facts than about being able to figure stuff out (the old BQC as it used to come on radio, for example, had Ameen Sayani hosting it and asking stuff like, 'What is the common name for calcium carbonate?'). It wasn't the most exciting stuff, but given that I was a shy, geeky kid, it was all good, since it allowed me to create a niche for myself.<br />Around then was when I learnt what to me is one of the basic tenets of quizzing, told to me by a senior who was pretty good in his time and, who I was told I bore a striking resemblance to (basically we were both dark-skinned and wore glasses, which is really all that everyone looks at). His insight was this: quizzing is all about educated guesswork. You can't know everything so you have to guess, but random guesswork won't help much either. The important thing is to relate whatever information you get with whatever you already know, and see what plausible answer you can make from it. That sounds pretty obvious, but for most school quizzers, it's not that simple - most limit themselves to what they know, passing on anything outside what they've learnt/mugged up. That, I think, is partly why so few school quizzers end up going on to become decent college-level quizzers.<br />At the same time, for educated guesswork to be successful, one also needs a basic level of knowledge on which to base one's guesses.That's another failing that a lot of school quizzers have (or at least used to): sticking to only certain sources of information and not being open to picking up cues in anything else they may see, hear or read in the process of getting along with their daily lives. One of the questions I remember answering from a school quiz is that the Yezdi 250D Roadking was the only production bike (in production at that time) which had the front and back wheels inter-changeable because they were of the same diameter. I picked that up from an Auto India article on which motorcycle would be perfect for the Indian Army. At another time, I remember kicking myself for not answering that the Beatles were the band that performed in Germany before hitting the big-time in England, although I'd read that in Frederick Forsyth's 'The Odessa File'.<br />A corollary to the above can be found in Sherlock Holmes' maxim: when you have eliminated all other possibilities, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. Quite often, once youve' arrived at an answer, you hesitate or second guess yourself. The link seems tenuous, or you cant' remember for sure what your source was, and then you botch it up. Consider this question that was asked in a quiz in 2004 (note: its' a Pornob question, so the provenance may be a little suspect):<br /><blockquote>'When 'Gandhi' was being filmed in Porbandar, the makers wanted to do an aerial shot of the city around the area where Gandhi was born; however, most houses had TV antennae sticking up out of them, which ruined the period effect. The makers therefore turned to someone who convinced the residents to remove their antennae for the shot within a day, in return for which this person gets a special note of thanks in the movie credits. Who was this person of influence? A name is required, not just a description'</blockquote><br />(Murthy, remember this?) The best way to tackle a question like this, is to work out who would wield such power in that area, but would also be famous or infamous enough to make this an interesting question.Power-wielders can be of various sorts - politicians, bureaucrats, gangsters, moviestars, what-have-you. The fact that the person got an immediate response from the residents would indicate that they either really respected the person, or feared them. The final clue lies in the fact that most people may not remember the name: politicians and movie stars whose names are easily forgotten do not make interesting quiz questions. That leaves an interesting possibility: a gangster. Which then leaves the question of which gangster was around in Porbander in the 80s who might be remembered in 2004. Well, there was this movie called Godmother that came out around then... Yep, that gives you: Santokben Jadeja! Ok, not everybody will get that, but I hope that helped to clarify the thought process that goes behind getting an answer like that.<br />Having mentioned Pornob, I come to the last of the points I feel like mentioning today: namely, the quizmaster. The fact is that most quizzers are incredibly cocky, self-absorbed pricks, who like to prove they are in some way smarter than everybody else. The cockiest of the lot become regular quizmasters, since it stokes their ego to stump their fellow quizzers . It is possible, therefore, to expungu that ego. There are mainly two ways for a quiz master to prove that he or she is better than everybody else: by becoming an expert in a narrow field and asking questions related to that field, or by asking questions that are tricky to figure out, but which seem fairly obvious once you know the answer. Therefore, knowing what a quizmasters' supposed area of expertise is can help: for example, there was this guy who mainly listened to Jim Reeves and other similar stuff as far as Western music went; therefore, for any audio question that had involved recognizing a voice singing vaguely cowboy songs I'd always answer Jim Reeves. Not only would I be right most of the time, the quiz master would be kicked to find someone else who (he thought) listened to the same music that he listened to! As for the second point, of making things work-out-able, it means that the simplest answer is usually the right one. This is especially true in TV shows and such-like, since the larger audience would get bored if the answers get too complicated.<br>This is why any question that Derek O'Brien asks which involves a number as the answer will almost surely be a trick one with an answer like zero or one.<br />Now, on to the question in the title of this post. I'm guessing a fair number of you would have figured it out, but for those who haven't, heres' more context: this was asked to me in a Sports quiz by a guy who was studying English (Hons) at that time. Go ahead, put your guesses in the comments (extra points for guessing the quiz master). As Holmes might say - you know my methods...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13798639260026686429noreply@blogger.com21