A R Rahman Show

An A.R. Rahman show was organized on Sunday night at Palace Grounds, Bangalore, and Times of India was one of the sponsors.  TOI today of course covers it in great detail.

 

Some excerpts: "all roads lead to Palace Grounds", "people flocked to watch", "the crowd felt special", "the view was spectacular", "larger than life", "turned the stage red-hot with his sizzling performance", "greeted with thunderous applause", "create a halo on stage", "spectacular interplay of light, visuals, and sound", "the techno… was wrapped in … singing and choreography", "the singers made it a point to include a message of anti-corruption (Anna Hazare)".

 

The rest of the review of the show is inserted as fillers in between these gushing phrases.

 

One of the tests I apply to see if any piece of text is full of fluff and vapid nonsense is to imagine replacing the main protagonist or event being described with someone or something else and imagining how it will read. In this article I could replace Rahman with Sachin Tendulkar, the music concert with the Opening Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games, and it still reads authentic – to the extent the above piece can be called authentic, that is.  Apply this test to whatever you read, and think about whether any piece of writing is worth anything if it passes this test. You will come across several such instances.

 

TOI is a sponsor for the event, and TOI covers the event later. The article reads like the adoring description of a devotee who has just come back from a darshan of her God, the Baba, and is describing the experience to fellow devotees. There is too much money involved here – how can it read anything else? The sponsors and the co-sponsors want their money's worth, and they want to convince themselves (and their bosses) that the event was worth the money spent. This article is more for the organizers to convince themselves that they did a great job and pat themselves on the back, than any real critical analysis of the show. Which is fine, the organizers are writing this for themselves, but what are we, the unsuspecting public, doing reading it? Think about it – many pieces of writing that cross your desk are likely to be of this variety.

 

Take the sentence "the techno…was wrapped in … singing and choreography (some words in between excluded by me)". The show is supposed to be a music show. We all know that all such shows are less music and more dance with choreography, so let us excuse that one. Now it seems that it is less about music and dance and more about "techno" – special effects, 3D, sci-fi, the works! Which is fine, but we will still insist on telling each other that we watched a great music show, and feel good about our support of music and all things musical!  You can see the same logic in different settings, different contexts all the time. A lot of the events that we are part of are characterized by such insidious shifts in objectives.

 

As to denouncing corruption, and supporting Anna Hazare, I am of course a whole hearted 100% supporter of the anti-corruption cause. I even lecture my family about it at dinner every day.

Google

There's a new meter that measures

The value or worth of anything.

Based on hits, and on-line searchers,

Google's is the final verdict.

 

The giant brain at internet's core,

Is fed by millions of mouse clicks.

With each click it gains in power

Gaining wisdom on what the world thinks.

 

It has eyes that scan the whole world,

And its ears where sounds emanate.

All this in bits and bytes is stored,

Which are matched in turn to patterns make.

 

The more it knows what people want,

The more it is wired to their thoughts,

The more it tracks things that leave their trail,

The more it comes closer to being God.

 

Omnipresent, due to the Net,

Beseeched by million supplicants;

Omniscient, since all knowledge leads

To, and through, its databanks.

 

Omnipotence, just a step away

From controlling the fates of people.

Google will control, we will obey,

In bit-sized chunks, give our lives over.

(written on 16-August-2009)

Tera Kya Hoga Kalia? - Solutions

The solutions to the problems posted on 23 March.

Thanks Mark and Abe for posting your solutions. You got the first six questions right.

The entire problem including the questions with all three levels included is given here as the Solution.

An exercise in probability theory

You are of course familiar with the Kithne Aadhmi The scene in Sholay.  For those of you who are not, this is how it goes.

Kalia and two others (they are not named in the film - let’s call them Amar and Akbar) are sent by Gabbar on a special assignment to liquidate Jay and Veeru. The three brigands are thrashed by our heroes and return empty handed.  Gabbar is not amused.  He lines them up in front of him and starts loading his revolver.

It’s the famous Hindi film revolver with six chambers.  Gabbar loads three bullets in three adjacent chambers.  He rotates the chambers effectively randomizing them. He turns and faces Amar, Akbar and Kalia who are standing in that order respectively.

The plan is simple.  He will point the gun at Amar’s head and pull the trigger.  He will then proceed to Akbar and do the same.  Kalia is the last in line, and he will do the same to Kalia.  He will not randomize the chambers between shots. You are now at the point where he is about to start this famous Bollywood version of Russian roulette.  You are part of Gabbar’s gang and you are also the bookie.  You would like to offer odds to the rest of the gang.  Before that, however, you need to calculate the odds.  So you take out your pad and proceed to calculate probabilities for the following possibilities.  You had better be right, since your money is on the line.

(Let us assume the three bullets are loaded in Chambers 1,2, and 3. Chambers 4,5, and 6 are empty – Gabbar will start at any chamber (with equal probability) and shoot consecutively (without randomizing in between shots) at Amar, Akbar and Kalia respectively)

1. Before the shooting starts: What is the probability of Kalia dying? (1/2)



2)      After the first shot: if Amar is dead, what is the probability of Kalia dying? (Since Amar is dead, he died from one of Chambers 1,2 or 3. The next shot will thus be 2,3 or 4. And the shot after that meant for Kalia will be 3,4 or 5. 3 has a bullet, 4 and 5 don’t. Hence 1/3)




3)      After the second shot: If Akbar is dead, what is the probability of Kalia dying? (you don’t know Amar’s fate) (Akbar was shot by either 1,2 or 3. Kalia will have to deal with 2,3 or 4. 2 and 3 have bullets in them; 4 is empty; hence 2/3)

4)      After the second shot: If Amar and Akbar are both dead, what is the probability of Kalia dying? (Amar and Akbar were shot by “1 and 2” or “2 and 3”. So Kalia will get either 3 or 4; 3 has a bullet, 4 does not. Hence ½)

You also know that Gabbar is an avid gambler and likes to play cat and mouse with his victims.  He has already told you his alternate game plan. After the first shot, Gabbar might give an option to Akbar to choose whether he wants Gabbar to randomize the chambers or not. In such a case:

5)      In case Amar is dead, what would Akbar choose? (Amar got hit with 1,2, or 3. Akbar will get 2,3, or 4 which means 2/3 probability of dying. Whereas if he randomizes, there are 2 bullets left in six chambers – chance of getting killed in 1/3. So he will choose to Randomize)

6)      In case Amar is alive, what would Akbar choose? (Kalia will get one of 5,6 or 1 – chance of getting killed is 1/3 if he does not Randomize. On randomizing the chances of getting killed are half since there are still three bullets left. Hence he will choose not to Randomize)

Akbar happens to have an M.Sc. in statistics and hence is likely to be very logical in his choice.  He also wants to live if he can help it.

Now that you have calculated all the above, imagine another scenario, where Gabbar is going to randomize after every shot.  In such a scenario:

(Please refer to the excel file in the link attached – the solutions below refer to it
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13302699/KAT%20solutions.xls.xlsx)

7)      Before the shooting starts: What is the probability of Kalia dying?

[Outcomes 1+3+5+7 = 25/72]

8)      After the first shot: if Amar is dead, what is the probability of Kalia dying?

[Amar dies in outcomes 1 to 4, of which Kalia dies in outcomes 1 and 3. Hence (2 + 8)/(2+8+10+16) = 10/36]

9)      After the second shot: If Akbar is dead, what is the probability of Kalia dying? (you don’t know Amar’s fate)

[Akbar is dead in outcomes 1,2,5 and 6. Of which Kalia dies in 1 and 5. Hence, (2+6)/(2+10+6+12) = 8/30]

10)     After the second shot: If Amar and Akbar are both dead, what is the probability of Kalia dying? [1/6]

Self Delusion

Now that the Indian team has won the World Cup, there will be a spate of articles trying to analyze the victory. But before getting into that, we need to savor the victory, don't we? The whole nation is into a self-congratulatory mode, exulting wildly at the win. The players are being wined, dined, feted, hoisted, hosted, and generally smothered with attention. Every word that they utter is noted down for posterity. The fact that posterity lasts for a very short while in the modern age is something that we should not think too much about.

 

I have nothing against the victory. I think the players have done a great job and we need to be proud of them. But stepping back a little bit, there seems to be a little bit of perspective required somewhere.

 

All articles and interviews aim to get some insight into what got the team where they are today. What is the secret of their success?  And this is where it becomes very interesting. From whatever I am able to gather, the secrets of success as divulged by various members of the winning team are: Sachin Tendulkar, hard work, Guru Dera Wala Baba, Sachin Tendulkar, commitment and focus, dedication, planned and targeted preparation, Sachin Tendulkar, an excellent coach, hunger for victory, discipline, Sachin Tendulkar…

 

If the stock market goes up by 700 points today, the newspaper headlines say that it is due to a stable situation in the US, less than expected bad news from Japan's nuclear disaster, positive outlook for the Indian economy, stable government at the Centre, etc. If on the other hand the market goes down by 700 points, the newspaper headlines will say that it is due to worsening inflationary outlook, bad news from Japan's nuclear disaster, price of oil, situation in Libya, increase in commodity prices, etc. Depending on what is the event that happens, the right set of reasons is chosen.

 

The analysis of the cricket team's victory also seems something like that. We know that victory requires one part each of hard work, commitment and focus, dedication, preparation, coaching, hunger, discipline, and five parts of Sachin Tendulkar. Why did we need to play the entire tournament to know that? And how come these conclusions are being touted as great insights?

 

No one bothers to ask why it is that the other teams lost when they too had all the above, perhaps more than one part each in some cases. (Actually, I know the answer to that one – they didn't have Sachin Tendulkar!). Or why we got knocked out at the league phase the last time around, when we had all the above ingredients in equal measure?

 

Not just in cricket or the stock markets, but in every area of life, we tend to justify our views and biases, based on analysis carried out on hindsight. Only those things are allowed to insert themselves into reckoning that fit in with our preconceived notion of the world. The results from the analysis in turn bolsters our conviction in our own arguments. Everyone thinks alike and there is immense pressure, both overt and subtle, to agree to what is the obvious truth. The more we analyze in this fashion, the more we are convinced that we are right, and the more self righteous we become. Cricket and stock markets are just examples; the malaise is spread much wider.

 

And we happily wallow in self delusion. It's not a bad way to be. At least we are happy!

Captain Cool

The whole nation accepts him as leader,

Perhaps as one who was born to lead.

He rose up from the small towns of nowhere

to captain the Indian cricket team.

He heads a team that is full of titans,

with egos fed on adulation.

To them, he is first among equals,

and they acknowledge him as their captain.

He is bold, but not seen to be reckless.

He is cautious, but surely not feckless.

He is rustic, in a charming way,

and suave, at home in any ambience.

He seems to hold his head under fire,

not carried away with every current.

In stormy seas, he has his own anchor,

which seems to moor him, and give him strength.

No one in India is acknowledged,

as completely as undisputed.

What is his appeal that they hold him

high and shower him with their esteem?

If it's hopes of a nation he carries,

he does not let the burden show.

Just watch him, taking to the shadows,

after every brief moment of triumph.

Dinesh Gopalan

4 April, 2011