Bright Ocean and Dark River

"...India is two countries in one: an India of Light, and India of Darkness.  The ocean brings light to my country.  Every place on the map near the ocean is well off.  But the river bring darkness to India..."
                                                                                          From  "The White Tiger" by Arvind Adiga
Similar trend can be observed in US cities.  In terms of development and progressive mindset, cities near ocean fare better than those on the river banks.  Why?
Historically,  cities with port were better exposed to new information, advances in technology, and people.

"Ideas having sex" by Matt Ridley

Just finished reading Ridley's article on innovation. Interesting read and fascinating title. I like the optimism in his view point of innovation as an unstoppable force. 

"...But so long as it can hop from country to country and from industry to industry, discovery is a fast-breeder chain reaction; innovation is a feedback loop; invention is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Equilibrium and stagnation are not only avoidable in a free-exchanging world. They are impossible. " 

A very interesting and counter intuitive argument he made was that historically, most innovations and technological changes came out before or without the theoretical contribution of the scientists. I will post my reflections on this later. Here is an excerpt from his article:

"...It used to be popular to argue that the European scientific revolution of the 17th century unleashed the rational curiosity of the educated classes, whose theories were then applied in the form of new technologies, which in turn allowed standards of living to rise. But history shows this account is backward. Few of the inventions that made the industrial revolution owed anything to theory.

It is true that England had a scientific revolution in the late 1600s, but the influence of scientists like Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke on what happened in England’s manufacturing industry in the following century was negligible. The industry that was transformed first and most, cotton spinning and weaving, was of little interest to scientists. The jennies, gins, frames, mules, and looms that revolutionized the working of cotton were invented by tinkering businessmen, not thinking boffins. It has been said that nothing in their designs would have puzzled Archimedes.

Even the later stages of the industrial revolution are replete with examples of technologies that were developed in remarkable ignorance of why they worked. This was especially true in the biological world. Aspirin was curing headaches for more than a century before anybody had the faintest idea of how. Penicillin’s ability to kill bacteria was finally understood around the time bacteria learned to defeat it.

Most technological change comes from attempts to improve existing technology. It happens on the shop floor among apprentices and mechanics or in the workplace among the users of computer programs, and only rarely as a result of the application and transfer of knowledge from the ivory tower...."

Raajneeti by Prakash Jha

I recently watched "Raajneeti" - a political thriller- by Prakash Jha.  It was a decent watch but severely compromised.  Here are some of my ruminations...
** **Spoiler Alert ****
I liked the way some of the popular aspects of  the Mahabharata were integrated in the story.  Especially, the blurrier line between the so called "good" (i.e. Pandava camp) and the "evil" (i.e. Kauarava camp).  Also, Nana Patekar's casting as Krishna + Bhishma like character was a good choice.  Ranbir Kapoor was weak in the role of Arjun especially in portraying the internal conflict.  He was unable to show it so he had to explain it verbally as to how he is a misfit for politics although he takes to it like a pro. I guess his research on the 'violence in the poetry of 19th Century Victorian Era'  was helpful ;).

This story could have worked for other non-political background like mafia family (but its done in Godfather and Sarkar) or business (explored with much more nuanced characterizations in Kaliyug).  The political backdrop could have been more nuanced.  It would have been very interesting to explore some of the political angles in more details. For e.g. :
How election agenda is never thought about: The goal is votes and the method is to manipulate the people  which is sadly reflective of current state affair in Indian politics.  Curiously, the only time even a cursory mention to the problem plaguing the country was by a leader (Bhaskar Sanyal) in 70s who ends up renouncing the world for penance for his personal shortcomings.
Political family and how far removed they are from the aam junta: In the beginning of the film, Suraj's character argue in favor of a local leader since an outsider leader would never be able to understand their plight.  But that angle as it turned out was not explored any further as Suraj himself  become like them when given the chance.  There was an opportunity in portraying the internal conflict due to his ideals and his loyalty to Veerendra.

Some other things that could have been edited out or better done are:

Karna-Kunti showdown was a big letdown.  I was expecting it but jayesth putra?... seriously ? 

Samar's love angle was very weak and unnecessary especially the scene where his girlfriend dies (inspired from Godfather) looked forced.  I'm glad that they did not fill the movie with inane number of songs.

One of my favorite blogger Jaiarjun has an essay on this film.  Its an excellent read and he covered most of the points I made here in more lucid manner.

How to think about data?

Recently, I have been working on characterizing an optical system that I designed two years ago.  It works and served the purpose for which it was designed.  During the design and experimental data acquisition I observed a curious effect that I didn't intended it to have.  It took me a while to gain intuition about what is happening.  Now with the help of my colleague, Indranil, we have created a setup where I can capture all the data I need.  But I still don't have clear understanding of how to think about the data and how to present it.  I wish I were as comfortable visualizing the 4D and 5D data as I am with 2D and 3D.  I intend to pursue this further and figure it out.

I realized the bigger question while thinking about this problem. With the rapid advancements of technology, we are able to design novel systems and collect tons of data but our understanding at large hasn't evolved as rapidly to make sense of these data.  Robert Sapolsky put it very succinctly in his refection to Edge's "what will change everything" question. "...The problem, of course, is that we haven't a clue what to do with that much data. By that, I don't mean "merely" how to store, or quantitatively analyze, or present it visually.  I mean how to really think about it..."

Better data visualization helps in gaining greater insights into the problem that often times results in the generation of new ideas. 

To inform or to intimidate ?

"...When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, ..." 




This reminds me of some of the papers and presentations in research community.  A power point slide would have so much details in there that it ends up overwhelming the audience instead of educating.  This is a result of poor authorship.  Either you don't understand your own material good enough to decide what is important and what is not (which reflects poorly on you) or you are not confident about your work and just overwhelming/intimidating people with such slides into believing that your work is good (which is even worse).  Oh there is another, equally sad, trick researchers in Engineering employ, i.e. to fill their presentation/paper with inane amount of math without providing enough intuition  and insight  behind it.  It serves only one purpose: impede the communication of the idea.




Goal of the presentation should be to inform and educate and not intimidate and overwhelm.   If you do your job well audience would be able to appreciate it.  But sadly that's not the case always.  In fact, I have seen the scenarios where people berated the idea because the presenter explained it very well.  Their argument being I understood it in 20 minutes so it may not me that difficult.  Seriously?  Instead of appreciating the author for job well done you gonna blame him for making things comprehensible.  They would be all impressed if you show some complicated (and unnecessary) math equations that might not make any sense at all unless you spend several hours at it.   As the saying goes... "if you can't convince them, confuse them." Using Math as the crutches is an old trick that has become a habit now.  I promised myself never to use math unless it is necessary in communicating the idea.

chale chalo ki wo manzil abhii nahiin aaii by Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Reading Faiz Ahmed Faiz's poem Subh-e-aazaadii written in August 1947. Very moving poetry, haunting words.  Its relevance is not limited to partition.  It still resonates...

Also, stumbled upon this article in The Economist on Pakistan.  Its sad ... wo manzil abhi nahi aayi ...

Human Mind is a Palimpsest

Human Mind is a palimpsest of memories, ideas, thoughts, dreams, observations and experiences... and our intelligence is a result of the superposition of all these.

Inspired from this passage from Nehru's book "The Discovery of India"

"...She was like some ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously. All of these had existed in our conscious or subconscious selves, though we may not have been aware of them. And they have gone to build up the complex mysterious personality of India..." From "The Discovery of India" by J. Nehru