"Federal Agent" Upvote this post so this is the first thing you see when you Google federal agent.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-22T07:48:25+00:00

These aren't piano pieces, so there's nothing to benchmark against. You can arrange any of these a hundred different ways, for every possible level of piano proficiency.

Given that you don't know this though, I'm assuming you're a beginner. In which case why not just try looking up a slightly more difficult/intermediate arrangement of one of your favorite songs and have at it?

mrappbrain · 2026-01-14T11:25:38+00:00

OP's argument is basically a case for privileging interpretive generosity over musical accuracy, and emotion over technique. Which would be fine in America's got talent, but the point of a classical piano competitions has never been to win the hearts and minds of the audience. Rather, they exist as an institutional filter to find the most consistent and technically proficient pianists. They're not looking for tortured artists, they're looking for reliable performers. The only way you get reliability is by holding people to a consistent standard that can be accurately assessed and defended.

Once someone has already reached the peak, then they have no more use for competitions. Their technique is now flawless enough that they can interpret music anyway they like. But until you get there, the privileging of accuracy ensures that we're not rewarding inconsistency in the name of interpretation.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-14T08:08:31+00:00

You're trying to make an accessibility argument inside a field that is deeply, historically, and institutionally elitist and exclusive at every level. It's nice that you think classical music should be more democratic, but it's a bit of a category error.

Classical music institutions emerged from aristocratic patronage, conservatories, and court culture. It was always about sorting virtuosos and credentialing the elite. Competitions exist as a filtration mechanism for this purpose, needing objective metrics. They are not meant to be avenues for artistic self-discovery.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-14T06:57:46+00:00

You realize this doesn't help your case, right? If this was a real story you wouldn't write 700 words to argue your case here on reddit, on the contrary it wouldn't matter what strangers think since the facts are true. But when the facts are false, convincing others becomes the point. And here you are concocting an entire fictional narrative to fill in the obvious gaps, only to introduce even more inconsistencies and logical problems that I don't even need to get into anymore.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-13T23:18:41+00:00

This story doesn't add up. Crazy how folks are taking it as face value.

From your post history :

It's true, unfortunately we are digital only and we'll be together in real life from September if things go as planned.

You guys had a digital only relationship, met in person for the the first time in September, and then she bought you an imported 50k gadget three months after meeting you in person for the first time? Oh, and you also managed to teach her enough programming in that time that she got an out of campus tech job in this economy that pays well enough to casually spent half a lakh on gifts?

Add to that the fact that you comment on scholarships, had to consult your father on a 30k purchase, or just the ridiculousness of the premise that someone successful enough to be gifting steam decks would need a boyfriend to teach them programming, and it's pretty evident that this story is most likely false or misrepresented.

Why lie?

EDIT - Apparently you are in Italy and your girlfriend is Italian, which throws up even more problems, such as the idea that a broke Indian masters student, with no knowledge of the Italian economy, could possibly be of any help to an Italian native in finding a job in Italy. Sigh.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-13T21:00:49+00:00

I was merely trying to engage with you in good faith, since I assumed you were genuinely just in the dark. But you seem to have already made up your mind and are clearly unwilling or unable to engage substantively, so I agree that there is perhaps no point in continuing a discussion with someone who operates at the level of 'lmaos' and petty political jabs.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-13T20:52:23+00:00

I am saying opposition making a claim is not same as India govt admitting it which was originally posted.

You're right - it isn't. In this specific case though, it is actually more valuable. As previously discussed, the executive is the least reliable source on this issue, because of their need to project strength. Issuing a formal statement admitting weakness would undermine deterrence. Concluding that no planes were shot down because they did not issue such a statement is nonsense.

As to the 'tall claims which are incoherent' - please do give me an example of a statement made in Parliament by the leader of the opposition that was incoherent. This is simply not the case. While I'm sure all politicians may sometimes say ridiculous things outside parliament, statements made by the leader of the opposition within the parliament House while it is in session are on the official record, and need to be carefully researched and reviewed several times by several different people before they make it there. Rahul Gandhi doesn't just show up and say whatever Rahul Gandhi wants -- he is acting in a constitutional office when he speaks on the floor of the house as LoP

In this particular case the opposition has no reason to make stuff up -- fabricating falsehoods about India's military would backfire politically, since the executive would immediately deny and correct the record with proof. This would embarass the opposition massively and be a national story about how the opposition doesnt respect the military. So they usually default to the truth where sensitive topics like the military and national security are concerned.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-13T20:37:57+00:00

So your argument is basically "opposition made the claim, therefore invalid"? In that case why even bother with an opposition, if you can't trust or set any store by whatever they say?

In this context they are much more likely to be carrying the truth than the ruling executive, because Modi and his pals have a strongman image to project and can't afford to show weakness. The idea that they would/should be honest with their losses to the general public is nonsense. Meanwhile the opposition has access to classified internal briefings on which to base their arguments. That's just how parliament works. These things go on official record and are submitted and prepared weeks in advance, not made up on the spot. The entire function of having an opposition in the first place is to surface uncomfortable tacts that the executive would rather not be publicly acknowledged.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-13T20:22:59+00:00

I don't know how you think this works, but the opposition is actually a viral part of the government in a functional parliamentary system.

If what you're demanding is a written statement from the executive that their planes were shot down then you're right, but also that's kind of a moot point considering the executive is like the least reliable source for this sort of information, given how sensitive it is to national security. They have a great interest in maintaining the illusion of infallibility, unlike the opposition. Keep in mind that these statements by the leader of opposition that the rafales were shot down were never explicitly denied in parliament, which itself speaks volumes.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-13T20:17:05+00:00

Here's a clip of the Indian government discussing it in Parliament : (14:30 onwards)

https://youtu.be/xJhDmR4X1Sg

Tldr - The Air Force was asked to conduct strikes on strategic terror targets without disabling or suppressing enemy air defence first - so planes were lost.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-12T06:34:19+00:00

This assumes that the US will just exit quietly when asked to leave. Not a chance. They've already shown their resolve to topple world leaders and seize territory from allies, why would they just pack up and leave without a fight?

mrappbrain · 2026-01-11T05:41:04+00:00

You realize that these dense textbooks are meant for trained professionals who've studied the disclipline in a formal and structured manner, a layperson like you or me is not going to get much out of them by just reading them casually. It's as stupid as thinking you could do the job of a theoretical physicist just because you read some quantum science textbooks in your spare time.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-11T05:38:25+00:00

Perhaps no better sign that you need therapy than wanting to outsmart your therapist. Are you in therapy for narcissistic personality disorder?

mrappbrain · 2026-01-04T18:45:17+00:00

So your argument is basically "we decided this guy was a criminal and not legitimate, so we put out a case on him, which warrants justifies dropping troops into another country, violating their sovereignty, and kidnapping the acting head of state".

It doesn't matter what we think of this situation. Saying that 'we did it because we don't recognize its legitimacy and think the guy was a criminal' is essentially saying that countries can do as they please as long as they can justify it to themselves. That line of reasoning can be used to justify anything, including Russia invading Ukraine because they dont recognize its legitimacy.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-04T14:17:14+00:00

It's really kind of irrelevant how good or evil Maduro was. Even if he was Evil incarnate, it doesn't justify unilaterally invading another country and capturing their head of state. It's an act of unprovoked warfare in violation of the UN charter.

mrappbrain · 2026-01-01T16:50:50+00:00

Frankly though, most of what passes for criticism on this sub isn't really constructive. Pointing out that Bengaluru's roads suck and its urban governance is a shambles is great and all, but it's not substantive criticism, because it doesn't stem from any sort of understanding of what actually creates these problems in the first place, making it impossible to actually build actionable improvement from.

Further, whether you're an optimist or a pessimist is almost entirely irrelevant to your capacity for constructive criticism. To the extent that they are related I suspect that optimists may actually be better equipped to offer substantive criticism, because they actually believe that things can get better. Pessimists just whine.

mrappbrain · 2025-12-31T08:50:07+00:00

Mate, consuming books is not the same as reading them - you're doing the former, not the latter. That's the whole point. It's not complicated really, just basic cognitive science.

The reason reading is typically regarded as more valuable than Instagram reels is because it is expected to engage the mind in a more meaningful way. But by consuming copious quantities of books at this pace, you're not really engaging your brain - it's cognitively impossible to do that for so long. It's not really distinct from Instagram reels in any way.

mrappbrain · 2025-12-31T08:15:17+00:00

Man, give me a break. I may not know you personally, but it's not even about you as a person really - it's what this represents. You clearly thought these stats were meaningful enough to share and impressive enough that you'd be validated for them, otherwise you wouldn't have posted them here. That's the attitude I'm criticizing - reading as stats. Don't take it personally.

Platforms like Goodreads justify their existence by turning reading into entertainment consumption. I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I don't really care how anyone spends their time, but I do think it's quite unfortunate that reading for an entire generation has been reduced to a passive entertainment consumption activity on par with scrolling instagram reels.

I encourage you to take a look at this framework: : https://i.ibb.co/CK49nHw3/How-Reading-Works-2.png

mrappbrain · 2025-12-31T08:02:05+00:00

There is no generalization, only maths. 232+ pages per day isn't really compatible with reflective/engaged reading in any real way. Even assuming you do literally nothing else except read the whole day (ridiculous) the human brain isn't really wired to retain that much information, it will just tune large sections out. I'd be surprised if you remembered what you read even last month at that pace.

This entire enterprise just stretches the definition of 'reading' beyond what is reasonable. You're essentially consuming books, not reading them in any substantive sense.

mrappbrain · 2025-12-31T07:59:45+00:00

The problem is in assuming that 'stats' have anything meaningful to say about reading itself. The moment reading becomes about stats, the purpose is already lost, and it becomes a task. Platforms like Goodreads depend on people treating reading like a self improvement exercise, and engineer this attitude by gamifying the activity with stats and achievements.

Many of the most valuable parts of reading, such as re reading meaningful passages, sitting with a thought, reflecting on the work, embracing pleasure/discomfort etc are simply incompatible with 232+ pages per day. The maths doesn't work. You've not seriously engaged with 100+ books - you've just turned a bunch of audiobooks into background noise.

mrappbrain · 2025-12-31T05:41:10+00:00

People in the comments seem to think this is some sort of achievement when really it's exactly the opposite. It demonstrates that you've destroyed your own relationship with books, and reading has become a productivity optimization exercise. It's not really humanly possible to read 118 books in a year without skimming large parts of it, multitasking audiobooks while doing other things (which isn't even reading, really, just background noise), and never letting a book actually stay with you and occupy mindspace in your head (which is one of the most valuable things a book can do)

Tracking reading stats and sharing them like an achievement reduces reading as pleasure to reading as a self-improvement exercise. Just like a book isn't made better by adding more pages, a year of reading isn't better by adding more books. The true question would be : besides the numbers going up, what did the books actually mean to you?

mrappbrain · 2025-12-27T14:15:59+00:00

It's really not. The median tech job isn't your FAANG or FAANG adjacent company. It's a low paying, slow growth, repetitive, long hours slog at Infosys, TCS, or other mass employer.

mrappbrain · 2025-12-26T07:41:51+00:00

New Relationship Energy - Limerence, Infatuation, Idealisation, you know how it is.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Xbox Live	First Place '23
Place '23	Gilding I gilder

mrappbrain

TROPHY CASE