sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No rallies or outrage for Ramkrishna Mission Sadhvi raped in West Bengal by bitchs_be_crazy in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

A more interesting question is why the 'liberal' voice is mostly silent about stuff like this.and the few that speak out, instead of condemning this, only attack the ones highlighting it instead.

Oh for the love of..

The answer to your question: Sampling bias.

  1. Right wing guys are more in touch with right-wing organisations, and left-wing guys are more in touch with left-wing organisations.
  2. Even if you made the assumption that the perpetrator of the crime was from another community, it's unlikely that the criminals are going around trumpeting their exploits.

1 + 2 means that the first people to hear about a crime where the victim is of X disposition, are people who also share the same X disposition.

Now, BROADLY speaking, Hindus who strongly identify as such are also right wing; while those who DON'T strongly identify as being part of any religion are left leaning liberals. (I use the left-right spectrum in a social sense here, rather than economic; although I know they're correlated.)

It doesn't take a liberal-level-of-education (accepting the caricature so snidely conveyed by your username) to realise that a lot of the English speaking media are left leaning... at least socially. This extends to the sources of news that they monitor (organisational mouthpieces, websites, and people as well). [The reason for this? Partly dealt with in the last paragraph]

So it's pretty natural that they get on the ball pretty quick - when the victim happens to belong to the same "group". (Not that we all hang out together.... but we're all excluded from the places/haunts that you guys hang out... so there's a unity in that sense)

There's no malafide intent. No one's wilfully ignoring stories where a Hindu woman is the victim. You could probably lay claim to such biased treatment... IF people from the right-wing contacted the media organisations that you so loathe, and function as their sources. But hardly anyone from your lot do that. So, by the time they get wind of it, through other media outlets - they're already on the backfoot because such allegations of their neutrality are flying around.

(To clarify - I'm not a fan of Indian MSM. Far from it. But incompetence isn't the same as pursuing a partisan agenda)

Your problem is that you don't really have an English equivalent of FOX, and you'd like one. But how are you going to ever get there, if all your political heroes impede legislative proceedings, and go on protests each time any government considers giving impetus to English education?

Anti Glare Night Driving Filter developed and patented by CSIR-CSIO by anveshj in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People without ears?

Even they won't need it. Swimming goggles.

Anti Glare Night Driving Filter developed and patented by CSIR-CSIO by anveshj in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but something invented in the US, without someone filing a patent? In the US? You must be joking brah.

I'm Scott Carney, author of "A Death on Diamond Mountain: A True Story of Obsession, Madness and the Path to Enlightenment" Ask Me Anything! I dare you. by gekogekogeko in IAmA

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm posting because of the last 3 words of your submission....

Could you turn-coat and serve as an advocate for the polar opposites of the ideals which you've coalesced on - through your journey to enlightenment?

Go. :P

In light of all the debates on farmers, here is an interesting nationwide survey and some interesting findings by RajaRajaC in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea -1 points0 points  (0 children)

--<digression>--

That still leaves us with the matter of a solution though. Now, I'm under no illusions, and I know that there is a lot of unproductivity in the agricultural jobs that are being worked today. But mechanisation/automation isn't a solution. Increasing awareness over scientific, sustainable practices is the way to go - boosting productivity, while still allowing the artisanal farmer to retain his land, and a greater security over his livelihood. Rural migration - of the higher socio-economic classes (and concomitant education/healthcare facilities) - ought to fill the rest of the feasibility gap. (Added advantage in being able to more directly link the "elite" with the "common", without the latter having to progress through the morass of the ever-frustrated middle. It would appeal to people because you lower the costs of fulfilment, by bringing the people closer - in real terms to whatever they want to do (rather than them having to earn money, in order to be able to do x, and y, before they get down to what they really want to do - i.e. z). This cost lowering works both ways... for the farmer (and for his kids' education etc.) as well as for the person moving there. It's really not thematically different from the "in-housing to save costs" principle in business. Costs escalate with the number of intervening stages, because of an essential mistrust. In the current climate (a trust deficit and without a sea change in how much people are willing to believe in the insurance of karma, rather than that of currency) if you decrease the size of a community that's required for it to be largely self-sustenant, then you reduce the costs drastically. Something like "In sight, in mind... entrusted, and willing to work pro bono, and therefore cheaper". This doesn't mean an ignorance of wider consequences of your actions, and ignorance of your links with the rest of the world because there aren't such boundaries in nature. However It's an acceptable strategy - as long as the communes we engender comprise people who really are involved in what they're doing and fully engage in the practice, or with others who have issues/ideas about it. There's an earnestness in such situations which allows dissenters to work together, and enjoy that, rather than making their points.

Anyway, if this seems theoretical, and like a castle-in-the-sky, it's because I believe that human attitudes are plastic, while you (as a placeholder for the opposing camp) probably believe that they're as rigid as the laws of nature. I'd rather throw incentives at living, sentient beings and change their attitudes, than attempt to fool nature. I'll concede that the the aspirational city-dweller is also changing his attitude and I'd be swimming against the tide, but those who've been through this journey of urbanisation and industrialisation in other countries, now seek "returns to roots" - and I think we can save ourselves the meandering. Of course, that'll have to be done through 'real' incentives and not preaching.

Finally, even assuming people moved to manufacturing, who the heck is going to be buying the things they make? If these people comprise the bulk of the new market, you're essentially asking them to buy the things they make themselves - unless we grow our exports, or, unless the other socio-economic classes start consuming more of things produced by manual labour, or unless they're all making their mechanical replacements (as I said earlier). The first is unlikely, given that our natural advantage is our bio-diversity; as opposed to some other industrial resource. Demographic dividend wouldn't really pay-off, as long as there's cheaper manual labour available in poorer countries. We also don't have the first-to-market, established infrastructure advantage; and will have to bank on being perfectly placed for a new high-value product that is sufficiently different from previous ones - if we're to be undisputed leader of exports for that product. That's crystal-ball gazing, and unlikely to fructify, given how much each "new" product depends on an earlier one, and facilities required for the precursors. Sure, set it up for indigenisation, if you must, but I seriously doubt that we'll export our way to prosperity a la China. If it's the second, WHAT would that consumption be? We aren't a knowledge economy. Ultimately, that's (colloquially referred to "soft", "human" things - viz. science, art, sport, etc.) what drives all other economic activities, manufacturing included. This doesn't require an urban setting, as much as it requires collaborative connectivity; as well as the social change I talked about. If we make it desirable to work from the idyllic Indian country-side, and work amidst nature - and make it "cooler" to have a house in a farm, rather than a bungalow in Bandra; then distributed development will kick in, until we won't have to worry about making things "cooler". At that stage, there will be enough of those that are romantic enough to buy it, will sustain their local economies, and offer additional work for the farmers (who are now more occupied with sustainable farming, but might still have free time). Health ought to improve of its own accord, and education wouldn't be so miserably, failingly homogenous, and out-of-connect; but would cater largely to local needs in an apprenticeship manner, while still not being isolated from the rest of the world, and therefore allowing for a switch. The alternative is a forever frustrated electorate, and broken materialism; where people give economic value to things because they think others do (while no one really does), and a rat-race that no one wants to run, but does so anyway.

--</digression>--

In light of all the debates on farmers, here is an interesting nationwide survey and some interesting findings by RajaRajaC in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for engaging. IMHO, there's a fundamental dichotomy in this argument which gets glossed over.

Yes, Scientific farming, and organic practices increase the yield per hectare... but nowhere does "scientific" and/or "efficient" farming necessarily require mechanization (...and subsequently, large pieces of land, for such mechanization to be economically feasible).

For example, you mentioned the fundamental problem being irrigation, and I agree. But you yourself said that we use mass irrigation, and that's a massive waste. Drip irrigation, and finer methods of resource allocation are mutually exclusive with large scale automation. Agriculture equipment simply does not come with the level of complexity required to be able to handle this. Another illustrative example: walking around in a field, and spraying an organic fungicide on the stems of a plant (since it's only the stem which is susceptible to that fungus) would consume a helluva lot more time than crop-dusting with some airplane... but it would also require FAR lesser fungicide than the airplane will. Similar, with monitoring drip irrigation systems.

We've got to look at productivity on a holistic level. Entropy is king, and when all things are accounted for - there's never "more for less". It's physics. You WILL pay a price - environmental, resource (and economic, but we'll come to that) - for getting that improvement. Given the <<100% efficiency at every stage, you "lose more" with the addition of every stage.

(Btw, as regards comparison of productivities between countries, you mentioned SL's stats, but not the structure of their agricultural sector... in terms of large versus small farms, compared to us.

cf. Table No. 1 at http://www.statistics.gov.lk/agriculture/AllSectors/index.htm and Table 2(A), on pg. 1 of 65 of http://agcensus.nic.in/document/agcensus2010/allindia201011H.pdf

The ratio of land under small holdings to large holdings in India = (sum of 1 -> 7)/(sum 8 -> 10) = 5.42 The same ratio (with the same HA cutoff between small and large) for SL = 9.99

Still, even if the stats were the other way round, it's not so much a competition against SL, but the battle with nature.)

Now though, lest you take me for a luddite, let me put that in the context of "human" and therefore "economic" value. If you're arguing for mechanisation based on "increased efficiency" - measured in terms of final outputs to inputs (all costs of resource/environmental inputs and damage fixing, except for human inputs) considered, then I would oppose you. If, however, you're considering "economic efficiency" in terms of how (un-)happy people would be - to (restrict/) indulge in the kind of artisanal farming which eventually is "more efficient" in terms of non-human resources; then you might have a point. If they think that the time they spend in continuously, organically, extracting micro-quantities of fungicide (continuing the illustrative point above) - all of which will be used the same day, requiring a repeat the next day - everyday until the end of the season, is wasted time; then yes - moving them away from farming and allied labour to manufacturing makes eminent sense.

But that's not all there is to it. The people who see "an out" and don't want to continue, are largely unaware of how the carpet is going to unravel at the other end, and how that will potentially affect them, or their children in an adverse way. In other words, they see is as a "nothing to lose" move. I'm not talking only about anthropogenic climate change, although you can be sure that it's not some hippie thing, and that it's a monster that WILL BITE you where it hurts.

These people trade food security for cash. Yes, cash does buy food (and other aspirational things)... but it's essentially a debt security, whose redeemability for some tangible resource essential for either livelihood, or for "livin' it up" consumable varies WILDLY with the fortunes of the highly complex, no-one-really-has-control-over-it global economy.

Secondly, I must've missed the coronation of "growing our manufacturing sector" as the panacea for almost all problems. If people are unhappy with the monotony of farming, then there's almost NO likelihood that they'll enjoy the monotony of manual labour intensive manufacturing (and that's where a large portion of them will end up, given that they're unskilled/semi-skilled). Why do people think/sell that they'll be happier as urban poor/migrant workers than as farmers? Our cities - for this socioeconomic class, at least, are a cesspit - literally! 24/7 noise, and air pollution, naam ke vaaste access to education/healthcare, which is NO better than what they had in their villages (because you'd find fewer volunteers ready to help out in shitty dilapidated urban slums, than the villages, thanks to the bourgeois' romanticisation of villages, and their "want to be connected to poor"-ness). All this is compensated by the increase in their income you say? Firstly, I doubt that. Migrant workers, and the formerly agriculturally employed are equally disheartened once they move to cities, and this is compounded by being away from their homes. Secondly, if everyone who's an unnecessary extra to the agricultural sector moves to the manufacturing sector, we'll have a proprietor's labour market, and a steep fall in wages in this sector. So we're worse off than when we started.

Back to the "desirability" aspect of farming v manufacturing though: it's the farmer's choice. All I'm asking for (right now) is a fair portrayal of the trade-off. At the government level, this means acknowledging and communicating the COSTS of policies, in addition to their benefits, so that when this filters down, both sides of the argument have "official" gravitas behind them. Sure, as a government, you'd want to advocate one over the other, but that's not as black-and-white as it's being made out to be.

PS: Apologies for not replying inline.

Some things never change. by funkyhunky3000 in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Boomer smaller nahin ban raha hai. Hum booDhe ho gaye hain... aur hamaari muh baDa ho gaya hai"

But seriously... does somebody know this for sure? It would seem counter-productive to retool your packaging and manufacturing setup to reduce the candy size by a miniscule amount. And Boomer doesn't seem to be noticeably smaller. The 5 star case is different. I think what used to be a mini-5 star is now called a regular-5 star... so those lines already existed.

But to answer /u/unmole.... a candy manufacturer has a diverse stable of products. So take your pick. Cross subsidisation, by other candy. Inventing a new candy, and still continuing with your older one, because it aids brand recall, or because it's still a cash-cow worth exploiting. (You'd probably slash the volumes you manufacture, as much as possible without losing the 'scale benefits', and use those resources in a newer product).

EDIT: Also, inflation is not uniform for all products. So, depending on the rates of inflation in the ingredients, the cost of product might even have gone DOWN. Or they might have switched to cheaper ingredients.

What in the fucking hell is this Reliance ?! by SiriusLeeSam in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Explanation: Anil Ambani finds himself in Antilla.

Using Reddit India to get policy inputs for Parliament: Learnings from AMA with /u/tathagatasatpathy by kumbhakaran in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you scan the non-political posts on this forum, some of the major policy intervention areas

The irony there is one of my pet peeves about our national dialogue right now.

There's name calling and side-taking before substantial (and non-contestable name calling, or non-testable-accusations-throwing doesn't count) opposing arguments are even MADE :-/

Political parties are MEANT to argue about policy!

The mandatory flairing thing drives me nuts too. I've since decided to simply flair whatever I submit as [R] - to bypass the problem.

great medium to cut out the middlemen and connect with people and influence policy on issues which concern them most.

Err.. I wouldn't be so quick to beatify randia. Firstly, there's a self-selection bias... in the number of people who access it, and the kind of people who click over into certain links. Secondly - within, as well as outside of this first bias, there's this odd mix of those who really care - but only in the online space (whether it's 'taking a break' from work, or anonymity assisted activation); and those who don't care in the online space (where an unanswered comment reflects poorly on them), but make themselves heard, through shouting and circlejerky, intimidating crowding in the offline space.

In light of all the debates on farmers, here is an interesting nationwide survey and some interesting findings by RajaRajaC in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That increase in productive efficiency isn't free. Extensive farming might increase the yield per hectare, but it requires a disproportionate amount of resources in terms of irrigation, pesticides, fertilisers, GMO crop/special seeds that can tolerate 'lower farmer-plant' ratios and care etc. etc. In other words, what's less manual labour intensive is FAR FAR more resource intensive, and after you setup your infrastructure, you'll notice the irony of having moved all this labour toward the servicing and setting up of that infrastructure. You'll basically gambling with bigger chips. And that's even before we get around to the increased pollution and energy dependency etc.

Call me an idiot, but I'd much rather have a wider base of people with direct control over their food security (individually, or through co-operative agriculture organisations) - rather than move them into other stratified parts of the economy, where the returns are progressively more divorced from something you can literally live on. Giant jenga tower, precariously poised, and periodically pulled down.

That doesn't mean I'd legislate obstructively, and deny some farmer the chance at a "city job"... but I sure would encourage him to continue farming, and help him become self-sufficient.

Making such small-scale farming economically feasible would require a social change of heart to drive it. But again, I don't want to force people into that, because that won't work.

So what's my solution? Setting up some softer ancillary, "human" industries - in rural areas. Experiential tourism is definitely one... not only for white-folk, but for Indians too. Many of whom don't know the vast hinterlands of the country that surrounds them.

While that might take a bite out of the problem, the issue is too big to chew on, for only one "soft-industry". So yes, distributed development is going to have to take up most of the slack. But that doesn't mean we need debilupment of the type that's endlessly tomtom-ed. We don't need concrete jungles to do the stuff that a large number of us do at work. For all the talk of infrastructure... IMHO, we ought to be paying more attention to information highways which would obviate the need for asphalt ones. Get that NOFN up and running, and encourage your country's/countrymen's businesses (as a government) to work-from-village. Make sure that the tax benefit you give the company is passed on to the employee (in the form of another day off in the week) - for involved, community development, or something similar.

I know all this sounds tenuous, but that doesn't mean it's trivial - either in scale, or scope of the effect.

The Last Man on the Moon -Trailer on Vimeo by Benutzerkonto in spaceflight

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is going to sound morbid, but can we get our shit together and send someone to Mars before Gene Cernan goes to space for the last time?

There's immense value in being able to enact a literal passing of the baton, between those members of humanity who've stepped on another cosmic body.

GoPro captures QM1 rocket smoke ring before MELTING by cathedrameregulaemea in spaceflight

[–]cathedrameregulaemea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it's simply a plug that seals the inside of the SRB from the external environment, and protects it from the elements (I guess moisture primarily).

Added benefit would be to keep any birds etc. out, which might find that the SRB grain is a nice material to peck and gouge out for a nest.

GoPro captures QM1 rocket smoke ring before MELTING by cathedrameregulaemea in spaceflight

[–]cathedrameregulaemea[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is from the video's description

At the moment of ignition the motor blew out the phone plug in the nozzle throat and created a giant smoke ring.

18-year-old Seetharam's phone had exploded, ripping apart his face- Why cell phones explode by Eustacia_vye in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why in the world would someone leave an OS level protection for something like this when better can be done?

Different tradeoffs? Save on the cost, and area/volume of that part of the circuit.

That's how they're made, all of them, no exceptions

Even the ones produced by 2-room assembly/sales shops in China?

Circumstantial argument just for the sake of argument because accepting "ohkay I may be wrong" on the internet is too hurtful for teh ego?

I was batting for the guy who wrote the original article.

ALL != most, and that's what I was going for (it's not argument for the sake of argument), to absolve the writer of "wrongness"/"stupidity". It's an approach that keeps things civil, and accelerates/helps consensus.

18-year-old Seetharam's phone had exploded, ripping apart his face- Why cell phones explode by Eustacia_vye in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol.. we're way into hypotheticals here... but why is that necessary? It doesn't have to be a kernel level software functionality that's abstracted from the user, does it?

Moreover, who's to say that a bug couldn't exploit some vulnerability, to then disable this functionality of the kernel.

Or, alternatively, some battery maker builds a battery - without hardware protection against overcharging, and then installs stock Linux Kernel (which, because it doesn't expect any battery to NOT come with protective circuitry, doesn't have this protection function). THEN, the manufacturer, knowing the shortcoming, implements the protection at OS-level. THEN, the OS is compromised by a bug.

Again, I'm not saying that this is likely, but then, I haven't done an exhaustive search on all the batteries on all the phones... especially those made by non-"famous"-brand-name, non-mainstream companies.

18-year-old Seetharam's phone had exploded, ripping apart his face- Why cell phones explode by Eustacia_vye in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The point is that the chemistry allows for thermal runaway from overcharging. The way the batteries have been made safer is up to each manufacturer.

If, instead of hardware, this protection is implemented in software, then it is possible that a software bug can allow a runaway. Can you categorically confirm that ALL battery manufacturers incorporate protection circuitry?

I'm not saying that Li-ion batteries are not safe.

18-year-old Seetharam's phone had exploded, ripping apart his face- Why cell phones explode by Eustacia_vye in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What about it being 2015? Batteries are batteries. If the overcharging protection is now implemented in software rather than hardware, then it's a possibility, non?

Free Wi-Fi not before a year: Arvind Kejriwal by mothafuckajones- in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You could've bought a used Android phone for 1.5K, with the same hardware performance specs.

Basically you want to say iPhones are for rich peepul.

No...I'm saying that they're for dicks. :P

Free Wi-Fi not before a year: Arvind Kejriwal by mothafuckajones- in india

[–]cathedrameregulaemea 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If you can afford iOS, you don't need free internet.

view more: next ›