I seem to have an obsession with the footnotes/fine print stuff ..
Heres what i found at the bottom of the cricinfo page ..
Top 5 player searches
Sachin Tendulkar - Chris Gayle - Graeme Hick - Virender Sehwag - Shaun Pollock
I can understand Sachin, Gayle, Sehwag --> basically indicating a substantial bias in the demographics of cricket following.
Pollock and Hick are absolute surprises -- who cares about Graeme Hick?? Probably the brits are more online-savvy than I imagine them to be .. but still the population would be dwarfed by a single indian metro following cricket online!
Maybe cricinfo being a uk site is fudging around with results to make the english better than they acually are in the true spirit of the uk media and their sportsmen.
Im stumped on Pollock -- dont think hes done anything worthwhile for a long time now and his position even within the SA team has been relegated to one of a supporting bowler/handy batsman rather than leading all-rounder, and hes clearly not raking up enough controversy like someone like warne :-) even while he isnt playing -- any one willing to proffer a reasonable explanation is welcome to do so..
Saturday, June 24, 2006
us soccer commentary
sucks bigtime .. dont know how long it will be before they stop using american sporting terms to describe soccer events (assist, turnover etc etc) "when in rome be a roman" -- please learn the proper terminology.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
via "the argumentative indian"
quote attributed to ram mohan roy :
"Just consider how terrible the day of your death will be.
Others will go on speaking, and you will not be able to argue back."
"Just consider how terrible the day of your death will be.
Others will go on speaking, and you will not be able to argue back."
no more reasons to fool around
they are here .. they have taken control .. no more reason for loitering around ..
hope the world is listening .. 'coz i am not hearing anything!
hope the world is listening .. 'coz i am not hearing anything!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
minesweeper and life
optimizing max/min X requires luck
optimizing avg X requires talent/hard work
elaborating: assume you want to minimize the completion time for a game of minesweeper. if your objective is to minimize your best completion time a good strategy is to click aggressively in the hope that you hit upon a lucky/easy configuration earlier and then you can click away to a glorious finish. on the other hard if you want the minimize the average completion time (assuming that not completing incurs an infinite penalty) the key to achieving this objective is to have talent/ and persist with tough configurations, whereas for minimizing the best completion time the best strategy is to be carefree with the clicking early on in the game.
optimizing avg X requires talent/hard work
elaborating: assume you want to minimize the completion time for a game of minesweeper. if your objective is to minimize your best completion time a good strategy is to click aggressively in the hope that you hit upon a lucky/easy configuration earlier and then you can click away to a glorious finish. on the other hard if you want the minimize the average completion time (assuming that not completing incurs an infinite penalty) the key to achieving this objective is to have talent/ and persist with tough configurations, whereas for minimizing the best completion time the best strategy is to be carefree with the clicking early on in the game.
Monday, June 12, 2006
ratings
sorry if im spoiling anything for anyone..
sorry for using this blogspace as a public scratch-space..
author, title, myrating (scale of 1--5 5 being best), two-second summary
vikram seth, suitable boy, 3, post-independence soap dragged to infinity
gabriel garcia marquez, one hundred years of solitude, 2, give people different names else history repeats itself
salman rushdie, shame, 2.5, not enough fundaes to appreciate pakistan's history
salman rushdie, midnights children, 3.5, post-independence india through the eyes of a sorry dude
salman rushdie, haroun and the sea of stories, 3, should have read it 15-20 years back
daniel keyes, flowers for algernon, 4, dumb-->smart-->dumb;smart aint good
robert kanigel, the man who new infinity, 3.5,
levitt/lubner, freakonomics, 3.5, correlation != causality
varian/shapiro, information rules, 3.5, economists are intuitive but highly repetitive
herbert simon, models of my life, 2.5, didnt try to be especially ambitious did whatever was the right thing to do at a given point in space-time
jhumpa lahiri, namesake, 3, nice story not enough fundaes to appreciate parallels
yann martel, life of pi, 1.5, arbit
paulo coelho, alchemist, 2, bordering on self-help crap
rk narayan, the world of nagraj, 3, timepass
rk narayan, mr sampath, 3, timepass
rk narayan, talkative man, 3, timepass
david davidar, house of blue mangoes, 3, first chapter reminds of ramarajan movie
anton chekov, collection of comic stories, 1.5, most of them are abrupt prefer roald dahl anyday
shashi tharoor,the great indian novel, 3, cute tricks in drawing parallels
mark haddon, the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, 4.5, scary similarities (minesweeper, emotions as being just reference models in brain, belief in MDL etc)
jerry seinfeld, seinlanguage, 3.5, nice collection of witticisms only caveat is it gets predictable after having watched (alomost) every seinfeld episode 5-6 times
hardy, a mathematicians apology, 3, interesting rant
will clarke, lord vishnus love handles, 1, masala
salman rushdie, satanic verses, 2, confusing
amartya sen, the argumentative indian, 2.5, repetitive number of theories is >> number of actual facts
bill bryson, a short history of nearly everything, 2, remember this quote from an eminent computer scientist "people can sell you fantastic stories by multiplying large numbers"
jared diamond, guns germs and steel, 1.5, it takes an academic to write a really really long book based on just one really really small idea!
malcolm gladwell, tipping point, 3, small hypothesis many anecdotes but nothing conclusive well written though
malcolm gladwell, blink, 3, decent attempt at trying to elaborate the mystery of intuition
gita mehta , karma cola, 0.5, absolutely arbit
keith donahue, stolen child, 1, requires tremendous patience to read this
unrated:
shyam selvadurai ed, storywallah
jerome k jerome, three men in a boat
sorry for using this blogspace as a public scratch-space..
author, title, myrating (scale of 1--5 5 being best), two-second summary
vikram seth, suitable boy, 3, post-independence soap dragged to infinity
gabriel garcia marquez, one hundred years of solitude, 2, give people different names else history repeats itself
salman rushdie, shame, 2.5, not enough fundaes to appreciate pakistan's history
salman rushdie, midnights children, 3.5, post-independence india through the eyes of a sorry dude
salman rushdie, haroun and the sea of stories, 3, should have read it 15-20 years back
daniel keyes, flowers for algernon, 4, dumb-->smart-->dumb;smart aint good
robert kanigel, the man who new infinity, 3.5,
levitt/lubner, freakonomics, 3.5, correlation != causality
varian/shapiro, information rules, 3.5, economists are intuitive but highly repetitive
herbert simon, models of my life, 2.5, didnt try to be especially ambitious did whatever was the right thing to do at a given point in space-time
jhumpa lahiri, namesake, 3, nice story not enough fundaes to appreciate parallels
yann martel, life of pi, 1.5, arbit
paulo coelho, alchemist, 2, bordering on self-help crap
rk narayan, the world of nagraj, 3, timepass
rk narayan, mr sampath, 3, timepass
rk narayan, talkative man, 3, timepass
david davidar, house of blue mangoes, 3, first chapter reminds of ramarajan movie
anton chekov, collection of comic stories, 1.5, most of them are abrupt prefer roald dahl anyday
shashi tharoor,the great indian novel, 3, cute tricks in drawing parallels
mark haddon, the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, 4.5, scary similarities (minesweeper, emotions as being just reference models in brain, belief in MDL etc)
jerry seinfeld, seinlanguage, 3.5, nice collection of witticisms only caveat is it gets predictable after having watched (alomost) every seinfeld episode 5-6 times
hardy, a mathematicians apology, 3, interesting rant
will clarke, lord vishnus love handles, 1, masala
salman rushdie, satanic verses, 2, confusing
amartya sen, the argumentative indian, 2.5, repetitive number of theories is >> number of actual facts
bill bryson, a short history of nearly everything, 2, remember this quote from an eminent computer scientist "people can sell you fantastic stories by multiplying large numbers"
jared diamond, guns germs and steel, 1.5, it takes an academic to write a really really long book based on just one really really small idea!
malcolm gladwell, tipping point, 3, small hypothesis many anecdotes but nothing conclusive well written though
malcolm gladwell, blink, 3, decent attempt at trying to elaborate the mystery of intuition
gita mehta , karma cola, 0.5, absolutely arbit
keith donahue, stolen child, 1, requires tremendous patience to read this
unrated:
shyam selvadurai ed, storywallah
jerome k jerome, three men in a boat
Saturday, June 10, 2006
the trouble with consumerism..
In consumerist economies it appears that the price difference between perishables and non-perishables is neither non-existent or counter-intuitive.
in particular the price you pay for something is hardly ever appears to be the real cost of production or the amount of resource (natural/human) that took to produce the thing, rather the price seems to be determined by what the consumer is willing to pay for it. i do find it extremely odd that i can buy electronic equipment for the price of a meal!
somehow there is a marked difference between the cost of perishables and non-perishables in semi-socialistic economies.
i dont know if its because these economies deliberate add levies to "luxury" goods to subsidize the price of the "commodity" goods so that they are affordable to every one in society.
somehow my gut feel is that perishables (e.g. good) should be "cheaper" than imperishables (e.g. appliances, electronics).
im running a serious risk of mixing cause and effect here -- are the prices different because of the policies enforced or is it because my gut feel for price of production is inherently wrong?
in particular the price you pay for something is hardly ever appears to be the real cost of production or the amount of resource (natural/human) that took to produce the thing, rather the price seems to be determined by what the consumer is willing to pay for it. i do find it extremely odd that i can buy electronic equipment for the price of a meal!
somehow there is a marked difference between the cost of perishables and non-perishables in semi-socialistic economies.
i dont know if its because these economies deliberate add levies to "luxury" goods to subsidize the price of the "commodity" goods so that they are affordable to every one in society.
somehow my gut feel is that perishables (e.g. good) should be "cheaper" than imperishables (e.g. appliances, electronics).
im running a serious risk of mixing cause and effect here -- are the prices different because of the policies enforced or is it because my gut feel for price of production is inherently wrong?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
weird coincidence
spent the best part of lunchtime today ranting to a fellow inmate about the futility of most of the work we do .. out of nowhere decided to spend the energy gained from the lunch in spewing a lot of venom on absolutely miserable undergrad "research" if i may abuse the word and how not a single soul cares about it ..
and to my absolute astonishment i get a mail from this dude (?) in france asking about this long-forgotten paper from the above-mentioned undergrad "research" and if i could provide him the implementation of the same ..
well, the quality of the work in question is in no way going to be altered by this anomalous request from the french-dude
i was really tempted to write the dude an elightening, life-saving mail on why he shouldnt be wasting his time on this piece of crap, in the end professional etiquete demanded that i just write to him with an apology that i had no clue where this implementation was rotting right now ..
asides:
either someone overheard our conversation and is playing a mighty-mean trick on me (unlikely..) or i should be using my telepathic talents to better use in the future.
and to my absolute astonishment i get a mail from this dude (?) in france asking about this long-forgotten paper from the above-mentioned undergrad "research" and if i could provide him the implementation of the same ..
well, the quality of the work in question is in no way going to be altered by this anomalous request from the french-dude
i was really tempted to write the dude an elightening, life-saving mail on why he shouldnt be wasting his time on this piece of crap, in the end professional etiquete demanded that i just write to him with an apology that i had no clue where this implementation was rotting right now ..
asides:
either someone overheard our conversation and is playing a mighty-mean trick on me (unlikely..) or i should be using my telepathic talents to better use in the future.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
how to make yourself better than the competition..
1. Change the bloody performance metric
If the competition beats you .. then simply report a different metric you are better at. Works amazingly well for research papers.. and recently I noticed that this holds true in the real world also.
e.g. Cingular the network with the fewest dropped calls -- of course if they dont connect you in the first place then the probability of dropping a call is going to be substantially lower than if you connected the call in the first place. Even within this narrowly defined metric, they still have the latitude to alter the definition as they please.
I have nothing particular against cingular just the first time that I have noticed this in mainstream advertising.
2. Put enough qualifiers so that you are the only one in the category ..
Get rid of the competition by defining your position in the market uniquely
examples in the auto industry -- e.g. the best entry-priced mid-size sedan in town, the best selling cars and trucks in north-western alaska etc etc
If the competition beats you .. then simply report a different metric you are better at. Works amazingly well for research papers.. and recently I noticed that this holds true in the real world also.
e.g. Cingular the network with the fewest dropped calls -- of course if they dont connect you in the first place then the probability of dropping a call is going to be substantially lower than if you connected the call in the first place. Even within this narrowly defined metric, they still have the latitude to alter the definition as they please.
I have nothing particular against cingular just the first time that I have noticed this in mainstream advertising.
2. Put enough qualifiers so that you are the only one in the category ..
Get rid of the competition by defining your position in the market uniquely
examples in the auto industry -- e.g. the best entry-priced mid-size sedan in town, the best selling cars and trucks in north-western alaska etc etc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)