Category: Life Ordinary

  • Facet

    Facebook’s policy changes a while back meant that suddenly,  the average user (as opposed to the technophile and conspiracy theorist) is raising an eyebrow, or both, depending on knowledge levels, at what it means to his privacy. This is not an indication of whether someone is below or above average, let’s not go there. Meanwhile, K and I have been discussing David Bond (Erasing David), which has to do with online privacy (though not in a Facebook context)  – how one man challenges experts from a security firm to track him down using information they can gain about him from the public domain, while he tries to outrun them.

    K noted that in the olden days, this notion of privacy didn’t exist, as everything was known to everybody. I agreed that in the new age, our connections are more, we include a lot more people in our lives, even indirectly, by just sharing our data online. Our work, lifestyle and advances in technology mean that we communicate more, meet more people, and yes, ‘friend’ them.

    It does good too, no taking away from that. Ironically, K and I know each other from work, from quite a few years back. We never interacted much then, and I was more pally with others in her team. I still remember, a couple of years back, when I met K and another colleague of hers in a shop, I chatted away with him, and rewarded K with a lousy smile. 😀  But these days, we have amazing conversations online, and I’m hardly in touch with her colleagues. Thank you Facebook 🙂

    As perhaps the first generation of Facebook users, we are in an interesting place (and time). I read “Chasing the Monk’s shadow” recently, a book in which the author retraces Xuanzang’s journey (we knew him as Hieun Tsang in our history text books) and it made me appreciate the value of the written word – especially when it resurfaces in a  different era.   It was in this context that I considered what really appears in our profiles on Facebook.

    (Generalising) We friend erm friends, but we also friend parents, siblings, relatives, acquaintances, and even random animals. We display our likes, dislikes, interests, information, and through our conversations, we add layers to this. But its amazing how, sometimes, when I ‘like’ something that someone has posted, and glance at the others who have liked it, I realise that I don’t know them. We’re connected by one common friend.

    The common friend, who I might know from college, and the other person might know from work. How much of mining would it require to unearth the nuances in the relationships between ‘friends’? Would it be possible to mine the fact that while I might make a smart alec comment on a person’s status, I might never have met him/her in real life? Would it be possible to mine the different persons we are, to different people, in different contexts. The worries, the fears, the quirks, whims and yes, likes, that we never express, the things that probably make us human – they exist in our minds. We only share a part of ourselves online. We are still strangers, sometimes even to ourselves.

    So yes, while all sorts of data from browsing history to buying habits are out there, maybe, in this hugely connected world, without the ‘real metadata’, in a way we are still disconnected from most of our ‘friends’… and the information gatherers? Since its slightly difficult to be like Schmidt (Google CEO), who infamously said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”,  I believe that we should be responsible about what we share (even if that’s in the form of a ‘Like’) online.

    So all I’m saying is, you can press that little ‘Like’ button below, and nothing catastrophic is going to happen… yet 🙂

    until next time, face off

  • Lost Shopping Destination

    L. I have loved Bollywood for a long long time. Though I’m more a fan of the ‘unBollywood ‘ movies (best represented by our poster child Abhay Deol)  these days, the first love retains its charm. I have written about this before, and am especially happy when I find others who share this interest – Mo, Meeta, TCP, and even Cyn, though elitist that she is, she  will never admit to watching the snake video multiple times.

    S. The interest, in my case, also extends to the fringe players in that field – remember Ramsay brothers, and that cool show called Toofan TV on Channel V, which was based on all the howlarious stuff that got made – desi Bond movies, snake movies, and yes, most importantly the sleaze genre, carefully camouflaged in horror/jungle  themes, and the resources for which were awfully scarce then. An era before computers, personal or otherwise.

    So, here I was, at our regular DVD shopping place – Temptation, on Church Street, and what do I see?

    10042010168 10042010167

    Golden oldies! Now the name made sense. Yeah, I know its all over the net now, and access is easy, but real shelf space!  And hey, mine is a generation before remote controls happened, you have no clue how difficult things were. S3x was a 3 letter word, and 4 letter words were only beginning to be formed, and we had to look away or were asked to go to another room, when some stuff did appear on screen! So you see, its easy to get emotional about such things!

    D. Refused to let me buy them. 😐 As a consolation, I got the Love,S3x,Dhoka DVD (priced at Rs. 69, kid you not) 😀  . 2 months later,  armed with a more fierce resolve, I arrived, and noticed that Temptation had given way to a computer games store.

    until next time, prnic healing 🙂

    PS. Other Temptations flourish on Church Street.

  • Process pool..

    “You’re such a hypocrite”, said D, as i drummed on the laptop impatiently willing the folder to open faster. Not getting the usual retort from me, she continued, “On one hand, you want to slow down life, and on the other hand, you want things to move real time fast” A valid point, but rather than hypocrisy, I’d prefer calling it a paradox. After all, who likes to be labeled a hypocrite? 😀  I wondered whether it is possible for the two to co-exist.

    There’s another tangential constant running debate in the household. It is again related to time and time saving. It is also related to the one above because it is to do with processes. The impatience above is because I know the comp can do it faster, having seen it done before. So if it is a process, i believe it should run that way and that fast (if not faster) always. Yes, I realise that’s a simplistic way of looking at it, and there are variables involved, but yet.

    Now this is something I carry outside the comp too. And so it is that when D is doing a chore, I immediately strive to enlighten her on the exact process to be followed for maximum efficiency. My logic is that if I have walked a certain path, and learned from it, I should bring her up to speed, so that she can build on it, rather than start from Step 1. D hates it, especially when I can remark that as a software professional, i can understand why she should absolutely abhor processes. Cheap thrill, you guessed! Meanwhile, it doesn’t help that sometimes D discovers more efficient means of doing the chores. I shall, of course, have my revenge soon, when I become a home maker and master that ancient mysterious art, that in spite of several examples to the contrary is still considered a playground dominated by women – cooking. 🙂

    And its not just D, I inflict this behaviour on poor unsuspecting folk who appear on my chat window and want to discuss things I would be interested in. Thanks to the blogs, it sometimes turns out to be something I have written about, and so I immediately share a link. Its a way of sharing my perspectives before we discuss the matter. I look forward to a time when i can do it in real conversations too. A ‘Matrix’ like USB port in your head, so that i can feed in the knowledge, and you can say ‘I know Jujitsu’ and factor in my arguments when we discuss. I believe this will save us both time. But of course, I’ve been warned by quite a few people that its positively rude, so these days I politely manage to repeat what I have written earlier.

    But now comes the clincher, I sometimes have a problem when someone does this to me. I irritably say “Let me do it myself/my way” and also add for good measure, “Don’t you have any respect for my subjective experience?”

    No, its not erm, hypocrisy, I still think its a paradox, or perhaps two ends of a spectrum. On one hand, processes  help crunch time and on the other, the subjective experience is important, and perhaps might help discover better ways. The choice, I guess, depends on the situation, our interest, and our intent. Or does it run deeper and tell us how we want our life to be? As Morpheus said in a different context “..there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path”

    until next time, don’t respond with links in comments!! :p

  • The Time Traveler’s Wife

    Audrey Niffenegger

    It is easy to treat this book as a simple love story, with the added twist of time travel, but it goes much beyond that, and in that lies the magic. The love story of Henry DeTamble and Clare, who meet when when she is six and he is thirty six, though he’s only elder to her by eight years. They get married when she’s twenty two and he’s thirty.

    That doesn’t even begin to describe the story of a man, whose genetic disorder causes him to time travel unpredictably. So, without warning, he finds himself disappearing from his present and appearing in some time in the past or the future, stark naked. It is only his love for Clare that keeps him going as they try to lead a normal life.

    If it had continued this way, it would just be a good story, what actually makes it a wonderful read is the wonderful way the climax has been developed. Sadness, hope and an appreciation for things that really matter. (the last matches my perspective)

    I wouldn’t consider science fiction and romance a natural pairing, and so, the author must be credited for blending it superbly. While these two are definitely the themes, the sheer lack of control in two lives which so desperately want to be together, makes one ask deeper questions on the nature of life and human existence.

  • Higher Stakes

    The ‘cow slaughter ban’ bill that got passed in the Karnataka assembly sometime back, got a lot of people’s erm, goat, especially Mallus, for many of whom, paradoxically, its a ‘holy cow’ issue. But the phenomenal prospects of wordplay is not what got me thinking. Its the idea of something getting banned and the protests that follow.

    Take smoking, for example. I’m sure all the smokers would have been fuming at the bans that came out on various aspects of the product and its usage, but a lot of us feel that its a good thing for different reasons. Me, mostly because those lousy forwards with the much abused ‘kick the butt’ subject line, and horrible pictures, have stopped. I find that the majority of people I know support this ban, citing health reasons etc. But the beef ban, which (at least in a way) prevents killing of a life form, finds lesser supporters. Personally, I love beef, but as time passes, my feelings of guilt have also been strengthening, and its the case of a subjective like over ruling a ‘better for the cosmos’ thought. A sad rendition of  the “way to a man’s heart…. ” too. But I do wonder about a future when the majority would say that the beef ban is a good thing. A higher state of awareness?

    A few days back, I read Seth Godin’s post titled “Fear of Philanthropy“, where though his context is mostly to do with ’cause marketing’, he writes about knowing how much (of giving) is enough.  He paraphrases a question (attributed to Peter Singer) “Would you save a drowning girl even if it means ruining a pair of Italian shoes? If the answer is yes, why not use that money to save 20 kids starving to death at the other end of town/world?” Isn’t it the same? (I need to read up more on Singer, Practical Ethics, and the idea of “the greatest good of the greatest number”).  Godin points to proximity, attention and intent as factors that weigh in in our decision to ‘give’.

    Proximity and attention. I remember wondering in a post sometime back whether all this connectivity, instant communication and micro popularity would make us less compassionate and more inconsiderate. But then again, does this connectivity increase our proximity to issues and would it be negated by the lack of attention? Heh. Will it make us more conscious or will it cause to go even deeper into our own comfortable bubble?

    Intent. I saw Will Smith’s ‘Seven Pounds’ when it played on TV recently. The idea of a man donating different organs/parts of his body, after ensuring that the receiver is indeed worthy – ‘a good man/woman’ (“You’re a good man even when no one’s looking”). Commenting on the intent would spoil the viewing for you, but the point here is the time and patience taken to identify and verify the ‘goodness’. I’d have liked to do that too, but I’m afraid of what all it would entail. I convince myself that I don’t have the time. However, I can’t help but wonder optimistically whether one day, the collective consciousness would help take my awareness so high that my intent is made all the more stronger and then, everything else will cease to be a factor. But then I look in the mirror and say that I’m better off looking within myself, for its difficult to refute an oft asked question “I didn’t make it this way, why should I contribute to making it a better place, when I can buy my happiness in other ways?” As Godin says, its effective enough, sadly so.

    until next time, streamlined thoughts 🙂

    PS. meanwhile, if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, and have liked it, do officially ‘like’ it here 🙂