The Turing Test: Doggo version

If you know what the Turing test is, skip the next two paras.

AI - Artificial Intelligence - the phrase is thrown around a lot, and loads of sci-fi movies have come off it. I am very excited about intelligent machines too, ones that can learn to do stuff all by themselves without having to be precisely programmed (I'd then be jobless, but that wouldn't matter when the robots take over the world anyway). For some reason, a lot of people seem to be really interested in machines that can pretend to be human - screw the machine that can cure cancer, let's build one we can have a touchy-feely chat with. I'm not saying human-like robots are useless, I'm just saying that's not what we should focus on. Okay, I was just messing around. There are good reasons that people are interested in robots that think and act like us:
1) Human intelligence is the only kind of intelligence we know anything about,
2) If we want robots working with/for us, we need them to be able to understand us, and
3) If we can build robots that can think like us, then we learn a lot about our own intelligence and consciousness.

When there's a demand for something, we all know someone would start a pyramid scheme that scams people with a phony product. People want human-like robots, someone comes along and produces a chat-bot and claims it thinks like a person- when it doesn't, they say it thinks like a stupid person (or, only wise people can understand this robot- the emperor's clothes approach to scamming people). This raises an important question. How do we tell if a robot's really intelligent (human-like)? One popular test is the Turing test. The test involves two participants, a person and a supposedly intelligent computer, and an interrogator who has to identify the two. The interrogator has to do it from a simple Q&A session over a web chat (without video or audio). The human is honest and tries to convince the judge he's human, while the computer has to lie so the interrogator is convinced it's also human.

There are some issues with the Turing test though. The biggest one I have is, why anthromorphise intelligence? Why suppose that something has to think like a human for it to be intelligent? Suppose an alien species builds spaceships that can bring them to Earth. We make them take the Turing test for fun, and they fail it. Does that mean this species isn't intelligent, even after they mastered interstellar travel while we can barely explore our own solar system? No, that's stupid. The Turing test places too much emphasis on acting like a human.

I have been thinking about a different way to go at this. The doggo version. It's the same as the standard Turing test, except the computer now simulates the behaviour of dogs instead of people. Clearly, this can't be a Q&A thing. This is what I imagine the test should be:
There's two rooms behind two identical doors. One room has our participant computer which simulates the behaviour of dogs and renders it in video, while the other has a few dogs in it. The room with the dogs has enough stuff to keep the dogs entertained- toys to play with, furniture to destroy, food and water dispensers, and alarms and TVs to distract them. Of course, there's multiple dogs so they can also play. There's a bunch of cameras in the room that record what the dogs are doing. Outside the rooms, there's a control panel with a bunch of switches that control what goes on in the room- ring an alarm, dispense food, turn on water sprinklers, and so on. The interrogator outside the room, who is an expert dog-handler, has access to the control panel and the videos, and, as with the classic test, they have to figure out which one's the computer and which one's the dogs. Just to ensure that video quality doesn't influence the decisions, we let the video from the room with the dogs go through some software so that videos from both the rooms are of the same quality, graphics-wise.

And that is the doggo version of the Turing test. This version still tests for intelligence. Dogs are intelligent, I'm sure we can all agree on that. If a computer passes the test, it means it can successfully simulate intelligent behaviour, which, some would argue is indistinguishable from actual intelligence. This test would be superior to the standard test because it places the computer on equal footing to the interrogator. When the other participant is a human, there are a lot of subtle things about conversation that might just be social conditioning and have nothing to do with intelligence. With dogs, there isn't as much conditioning, at least not enough to throw off an intelligent computer.

Training Journal: October

October 6

I went for a morning session today. After staying away from cleans for the last two weeks, I decided to give it a shot again today. The wrist felt okay. Warmed up as usual with just two sets of complexes with the empty bar: 10 first pulls, 10 arm cleans, 10 military presses, 5 split jerks, 10 back squats. 

P.Clean+P.Jerk: 40kgx(5r+5r)x2s, 50kgx(3r,3r), 60x(2,2), 70x(1,1), 75x(1,1), 80x(1,1)x3s

The last time I did CnJ, I only hit 70kg, but I decided to go at 80 today. Mainly because I was quite embarrassed that I started worrying about 80, which I was P-Cleaning way back when I was in the U62kg class. I weigh 82kg now. Anyway, all three singles were solid standing cleans. The push jerks were too easy- they felt heavy, but still went up quite easy. 

B. Squat: 60kgx5rx2s, 80kgx3, 100x3, 110x2, 120x2rx3s

Added another 5kg to the squat today. As usual, it felt quite heavy. I could get up, but there was always a lingering feeling at the bottom that I might not make it. I guess I'm getting close to my current max. 

Military Press: 40kgx5, 50kgx3

Thought I'd train the shoulders today, since the P.Jerks aren't that effective, and I didn't do a lot of reps anyways. But I didn't. The arms felt a bit weak, and I decided to give up. 

Pull-ups: 4rx3s

The fourth in the first set was actually quite good today. In the second and third, it was as usual- could only get the bar to my forehead. 

No good mornings or BB rows today. I just didn't feel like lifting anymore. It could be because it was a morning session, or because it had already been more than an hour. Either way, I need to split my training sessions. I can't be hitting near-PR CnJs and Squats, and then go on to do lots of assistance work in the same session. 

Starting next week, I should hit the gym on at least one other day after the volleyball/badminton. Just some military/push presses, good mornings, BB rows, and bar dips should do. In the proper gym session, I'll stick to just the olympic lifts and squats, and some pull ups. 

Training journal: August/September 2016 (the comeback)

I decided to get back to Olympic lifting after a long break of three and a half years. The goal I set for my comeback is to hit 90kg Power Clean and Push Jerk in 10 weeks after the restart. Weightlifting is not my primary focus anymore, and I plan to train only about once a week. I will be logging in each of these sessions in this blog.

I shall be doing only compound lifts, all aimed at improving my power clean and jerk. Like I did during my lifting days, I'm ignoring all chest and biceps workouts. The routine I chose for the month is:
Power cleans, military presses/push presses, and front squats (complex)
Back squats
Upright barbell rows and Good mornings (super sets)
Bar dips and Bent over barbell rows (super sets)

August 31

First day back in the gym. I decided to not go for a conventional warm-up. I started with the 20kg barbell and did lots of deadlifts, arm-cleans, military presses, and front squats. Then I moved on to some snatch squats- these were scary, my balance was totally off and even the 20kg barbell felt a bit heavy. I started the actual routine. I'm only recording the max sets.

P.Cleans+M.Press- 30kg x (5,5) - 2 sets
P.Cleans+P.Press  - 50kg x (3,3) - 2 sets
Hang cleans were much easier than cleans from the ground. My grip started to give out at 50kg. Hook-grip felt too strange to use today. The gym doesn't allow using chalk, so that sucks. I also have a minor pain from playing badminton last week, and this made the cleans quite uncomfortable, especially the resting part- my flexibility is totally gone now, need to work on that.

Back squats- 70kg x 5 - 3 sets
The old injury in my left knee seems to have resurfaced in the first few reps. It disappeared when I got up in one particular way though, I don't know what this means to my form. The weight did feel a bit heavy, but I could still squat with some good speed. The balance was a bit off though.

I tried to do some pull-ups. Did a set of 5 and then a set of 3, my wrist completely gave out in the last rep, felt like I'd fall to the floor.

Upright barbell rows, Good mornings: 20kg x 8, 20kg x 8  for 3 sets
No issues here.

Bar-dips, Bent over barbell rows: 5, 40kg x 5 for 3 sets
Went for 8 reps in the first set of bar-dips, that was a bad idea. Barbell rows were peaceful though.

And that was the end. I didn't stretch after the training. Tomorrow should be fun.

September 1

I was bored at work today, and my muscles were sore from yesterday, so decided to get a workout today too. Started without a conventional warm-up, with some cleans, squats, presses, and split jerks with 20kg for a couple of sets. I decided to add split jerks into the mix so I'd be ready if I decide to do some classical CnJ- started some sitting cleans too.

P.Cleans+M.Press+S.Jerk+F.Squat: 30 x (3,3,2,3) - 3 sets  
P.Cleans+P.Press  +S.Jerk+F.Squat: 40 x (3,3,1,3) - 2 sets
                                                              50 x (3,3,0,0) - 2 sets
My right wrist was still uncomfortable. The front squats were no fun either, my left rhomboid was especially under stress (old injury resurfacing?). The knee didn't hurt, but I could feel some pain in the my glutes. Thought I should call it a day after the first set of 50; didn't want to waste the warm-up, so went through with the rest of the workout. Avoided the split jerks because I started worrying about hitting my chin; my wrists and my balance weren't ready for the jerks either. All in good time.

P.Cleans+P.Jerk+F.Squat: 60 x (1,2,2) - 2 sets

Clean pulls: 75kg x 2
Got some decent height in the first two. Attempted a third, grip gave out during the first pull. I have to figure out something for the grip. My arms seem to be pretty weak right now, but no-chalk and the worn-out threads on the bar aren't helping either. It could be a good thing though since I don't seem to have to worry about calluses. Maybe do all the cleans with wraps, and do some deadlifts to build grip strength?

Back squats: 70 x 3 -  2 sets
                       80 x 3 -  2 sets
Started with 70kg straight away. Felt pretty light today, I could even focus on getting some speed on the way up. 100kg should be fine for next week.

Bar dips + Bent over barbell rows: 5 + 40 x 5 - 3 sets
Pretty peaceful, especially the bar dips. After the first set of 8 yesterday, later sets were hard. Not today.

Good mornings + Upright barbell rows: 20 x (5,5) - 2 sets
                                                                     30 x (5,5) - 2 sets
Good mornings were fine, I'm not aiming to go heavy on them anyway. Upright rows weren't bad either, but felt a bit awkward at the end with the wrist. I can never get a proper grip for these ones.

Did a little bit of stretching towards the end. Over all, it was a good workout, although there were a few times I thought I should just call it a day.

September 15

I was playing everyday since my last training sessions, so couldn't go to the gym. Good thing is, I'm getting used to training/playing everyday without burning out (today was my 19th day without a break). Bad thing is, I'm not allowing my wrist to heal. There were a few days when I only played with my left hand, I'm using less wrist power in Badminton, and am using crepe bandage whenever I play/train, but I still haven't rested it properly. 

Anyway, despite the non-stop activity, I could progress with the lifts today. As usual, the warm-up was just two complex sets with the empty barbell- 10 first pulls, 10 arm cleans, 10 military presses, 5 split jerks, and 10 front squats. Today I rested the bar on just three fingers in the rack position, took away some strain from the wrists. Then the sets went

P.Clean + M.Press + F. Squat: 30x(3,3,3) - 2 sets

P.Clean + P.Press  +  F.Squat:  40x(3,3,3) , 50 x (3,3,3)

P.Clean + P.Jerk: 60 x (1,2) - 3 sets

P.Clean: 65x2rx2s, 70x1rx2s

P.Jerk: 60x2rx2s, 70x2reps

Wanted to do a second set with 70kg for push jerk, but I was a bit scared about the wrist. 

Clean pulls (with straps): 70x3reps, 80x3repsx2sets

Deadlifts: 100x2r

The plan was to use deadlifts to improve grip strength with 2 sets of 5 reps each at 100kg. Grip started to give out in the third rep, so dismissed. Clean pulls with the straps felt good, although I was slacking off quite a bit in the second pull. I got the jump and the bar reached my chest, but it was way too slow for 80kg. I can't imagine power-cleaning 90kg with that sorta pull. 

B. Squats: 70x3rx2s,  80x2r,  90x2r, 100x3rx2s

The 100kg reps were quite slow. It didn't feel like I wouldn't make it, but they were slow enough to feel crappy about. I should have gone for some drop sets to get train for some speed.

Next was supposed to be two super-sets: Bar Dips+ Bent BB rows, and Good Mornings + Upright rows. Again, was scared for the wrist to do the bar dips, and I never felt comfortable with upright rows, so I ditched the two and went for 

Good Mornings + Bent BB Rows: (40x5r+ 50x5r)x3s

I finished with a bit of stretching. The glutes felt a bit uncomfortable during the heavier power cleans, but it went away. It felt good to stretch the glutes and the hamstrings. But when I stretched my calves, I found that I didn't work them AT ALL. I always knew my calves were pretty weak, but I never realized I worked them so little in the gym. 

To summarize, gotta do- something about the grip strength, drop sets with squats, loads of clean pulls focusing on the second pull speed, and work the calves.

September 23

Today was again a decent session with some progression. I'm not playing any badminton for the next 10 days, and volleyball doesn't seem to strain my wrist so much. I decided to not do anything that stresses the wrist and let it heal in the meantime, so had to change my routine quite a bit. The warm up was as usual, but with no arm cleans and front squats, 10 first pulls, 10 military presses (without loading the wrist in shear), and 10 back squats with the empty bar. 

Clean pulls: 70kgx3r, 80kgx3r, 90kgx2rx5s, 70kgx3rx3s

Lots of clean pulls. I did 80kg and 90kg with straps. That didn't stop the calluses. The lighter pulls felt weird, I kept losing balance until I completely slowed down the first pull and used mostly an arm-pull for the second. 80kg was okay, 90 only reached the lower chest, a half-clean seems possible in the next few weeks. Did some drop sets to feel better about the pulls. 

Back squats: 60kgx5, 70kgx3, 80kgx2, 90kgx2, 100kgx2, 110kgx2rx3s, 60kgx5rx3s

The weights still feel quite heavy, but had some decent speed with 100kg, and 110kg wasn't uncomfortable either except for the heavy feel. Knees don't hurt anymore, but they do feel a little bit uncomfy at the bottom with the crackling. The drop sets again to feel good about the lifts. 

Pull-ups: 4rx4s

Threw these in since I wasn't doing a lot today. The first three reps were until the eyes/nose, fourth was bad in all four sets, probably got only the hair or forehead to the bar's level. 

Good mornings: 50kgx5rx3s

I keep thinking this was a bad idea, going too heavy too soon. But training just once a week, I should get some heavy good mornings in. The lower back's going to hurt tomorrow. 

Bent Barbell rows: 40kgx5, 50kgx5, 60kgx5rx3s

Not bad. I'm not really sure if these are going to be of any use, but with my pull-ups being as weak as they are, and my general dislike for the lat pull-downs, I have to sneak some of these into the workout. 

Single-legged calf-raises (no weights)- (10+10)x3s

Did a few of these just so my calves could get at least a bit of a workout. Super-setted these with B.B.B.Rows.

I really wanted to sneak in some workout for the forearms and triceps, but couldn't think of anything that doesn't strain the wrist. Did a bit of stretching in the end. All's fine, except the lower back's complaining a bit. I'll probably have to stick to the same routine next week too.

September 28

I was a bit skeptical about today since I haven't rested since my last session (played volleyball for the last 4 days). It turned out okay, with the marginal progress I've been making. I stuck to last week's routine to rest my wrist. The first callus of the season ripped open tonight, I should have prepared for this. 

Warm up was as usual- empty bar for 10 each of first pulls, arm cleans, presses, and back squats. Didn't do a second set. 

Clean pulls: 40x5rx2s, 55x5, 70x3, 80x3, 90x2rx5s, 70x3rx2s

The lighter weights didn't feel all that good today. I got the height but it just didn't feel right. Got 80 to upper chest, high enough for a decent clean. 90s were to lower chest. Used straps for 80 and 90. The callus ripped in the second drop set of 70. Stupid. 

Back Squats: 70x3, 80x3, 90x2, 100x2, 110x2, 115x2rx3s, 70x5rx2s

Again, the weight felt quite heavy. The knees were crackling quite a bit, but didn't hurt. The 115 doubles were alright, finished without issues. Still, it felt REALLY heavy, heavy enough I started to wonder if I should give up half way through. Strange how this works- if I hadn't know about my lifts from 4 years ago, I probably would have given up, or not attempted in the first place. 

Pullups: 4r x 3s

First 3 reps in all sets were better than last time. Fourth is still a bit of a pain, could only rise till the forehead. 

Good mornings: 55x5rx3s

No issues here. I wonder if I should keep loading these up till 70 or settle down at 60 or something. 

B.B.B.Rows: 55x5, 70x5x2, 70x3

Was probably being over ambitious with the 70. Last week was 60, and today's 55 was easy peasy. First 3 reps with 70 were alright, but I kept thinking I was using my lower back in the last 2 reps. The ripped callus was an excuse for stopping at 3 in the last.

Single-legged calf-raises: (10,10)x7

Kept doing these between sets of the last 3 exercises. The last couple reps of the last couple sets weren't good. At least I'm doing something with the calves. 

Summary

That's the end of the month. I'm satisfied with the progress. However, training in this gym, I can't help but feel inferior. Back in insti, I was one of the strongest guys around. During my previous session here, some guy was squatting 160kg for 5 reps. They were powerlifting squats, but still. A couple weeks ago, I saw this other guy bench 140 for reps. Clearly, my ego isn't getting the boost that it did back at IITM. With all the work I have to do in the next couple months, and all the volleyball and badminton, I'm not sure if I can actually join the uni's WL club. I'm seriously reconsidering the goal I set for myself. 

For now, I'll wait and see how it goes. It does feel good to be back in the gym- the calluses are a pain, but I just need to not be stupid about caring for my hands. In any case, I'm avoiding this guilt I used to have for throwing away the years of training. I'll think of this as preparing for the time when I wouldn't have access to a sports hall and all I could do was hit the gym for exercise. 

A case for atheism: Part 1

Some years ago, I wrote a blogpost arguing that followers of the scientific method cannot be atheists. I argued that the only reasonable position on the question of gods is one of agnostism- the position that one cannot be sure that gods exist or do not exist. Since then, I have grown, I have read a fair bit on religion, I have been part of debates, and now my position is that of a strong atheist. I'm fairly sure that gods do not exist. Of course, I don't say that about every possible definition for gods. If one defines god as "the universe", or "the entity that created the universe", or "a coat hanger", then the answer to "Does god exist?" is "yes", "maybe", and "yes" respectively.

The gods I refer to are the standard gods used by religion- a being that cares about human beings, a being that created human beings, a being that created an afterlife for human beings, a being that made up rules that must govern human behavior. These gods cannot exist. And in what follows, I will show why these gods cannot exist.

First, I must counter the argument that is often made for gods- "So many people believe in gods. Surely, all of them cannot be wrong."

It is precisely because so many people believe in gods that we must be skeptical about the existence of gods. People don't all believe in the same god. Gods come in different flavors, from the element-of-nature-gods of Hindu, Greek, and Norse mythology, to the one-god-to-rule-it-all version of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). There are also shamanic gods- the tribal gods that supposedly speak to priests in the tribe- gods that tend to respond to sacrifice and gifts (to the priests, of course).

There are so many religions that tell you so many mutually contradictory things that it's fairly obvious that most of them were invented by people. We need to accept the fact that gods can be invented, and that they are routinely invented. We also need to accept that entire civilizations would believe in invented gods without reservation. Norsemen believed for a long time that the best way for a man to go would be to have a glorious death on the battlefield, so they could be chosen by Odin to join legendary heroes and kings in Valhalla. Most people today would agree that they followed an invented god, that their god does not exist. But people of the time did believe in the god without question, and tons of people took to arms for a place in Valhalla.

Gods can be invented. Gods are invented. Tons of people believe in invented gods. A child born into a society that believes in an invented god also believes in the invented god. If you, the reader, can let this sink into your mind, you would start to understand my position of skepticism. "So many people believe in gods. Surely, all of them cannot be wrong." That is not an argument. It only shows us that people are gullible, that people would believe in gods if everyone around them believed in a god. People believe all sorts of things if that is what they are taught to believe. 

What is science?

There are tons of articles out there that address this question. I realize that anything I write, with the awkward style that I can't seem to improve on, would add little value to the wealth of resources on the internet. Yet, I really want to write about this. I realized that this blog of mine is more a journal than it is a blog- about 1% of all the views it has come from myself, and I find it quite interesting, or amusing, or even embarrassing, to read things I wrote a few years ago. It's like looking at a stupider version of myself. It makes me feel good that I didn't stay that stupid later on.

Anyways, that little "Note to self" aside,
What is science?

Different people refer to different things when they say "science". Even I refer to different things at different times, and sometimes different things AT THE SAME TIME.

Sometimes, the word "science" refers to the body of scientific literature. All of the conjectures, hypotheses, and theories that are currently accepted to be sensible. Sometimes it also includes hypotheses that we, today, say are invalid. The geocentric theory, for instance, is sometimes considered part of science- but we all know today that celestial bodies do not revolve around the earth.

And at other times, the word "science" refers to the scientific method. One phrase I love using is, "Let's do some science". It carries that feeling of adventure, of invention, and of altruism, the excitement that goes with doing something that no one has done before, knowing something unknown to the rest of humanity.

When one says, "We are doing science", they are referring to the scientific method, not the body of literature.

But then again, not everything that follows the scientific method is called science. Learning to hit a target with a projectile isn't called a science, although the mind does do a bit of experimentation, a bit of modeling, and in the end produces skill in being able to predict and control projectile motion. No, "science" requires more rigor. More data. MORE MATH.

And this is what makes me embrace this definition for science:
Science is the practice of mapping the physical world to the mathematical world.

I don't remember who said that, but this definition for science is the one I've been using for quite some time now. The scientific method helps identify the right mapping, and the scientific literature is the collection of maps.

With my definition for science, three things become clear:
1) If a "hypothesis" does not involve mathematics, it cannot be science.

2) It pisses me off when someone says "I came up with this super cool theory, and it doesn't even need math."  I'm sorry, but if there's no math in there, it's not worth squat.

3) Mathematics has a special, some might call it mystical, connection to the physical world.

(Note: There are the so-called "soft sciences" that don't involve much precise math. Medicine, for instance. I don't think that these sciences don't involve math. Rather, the complex dynamics of these systems make the math so hard that we are simply not competent enough to deal with it.)

The first consequence makes sense. After all, one of the biggest motivations for doing science is the ability to make predictions. And except for the most mundane things, predictions involve math.

The second, well that's a given. We wouldn't need to spend billions of dollars on funding mathematicians, and building super computers, if all it took to understand the universe was for little Johnny to scribble some ignorant non-sense on a piece of paper.

The third one, that's quite philosophical. I guess it's obligatory to cite this article here: The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences
Why math? What's special about it? And, this is where it gets interesting, WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

People have different definitions for math too. And, again, the one I embrace is:
The art of (finding) (non-trivial) tautologies.

That's all I can think of when I try to understand what math is. You start with a bunch of axioms, and you use logic to arrive at non-trivial conclusions. Well well well.. And what exactly is logic? (shit just got real)

Let's see. Logic is a consequence of language, it's the practice of mapping "statements with the same meaning" to one another. Again, that's how I choose to understand logic.


So, this is what I understand of what we're doing:
We have two, apparently separate, worlds.
1) The natural world that just does its thing without caring for our desire to understand it.
And
2) The mathematical world, which is a huge collection of statements that all, after loads of manipulation, mean the same things as a small set of statements put together (the axioms).

Some of the greatest geniuses of our species devote decades to find more statements that mean the same thing as others we are interested.

And some of the other geniuses devote decades to map things in the natural world to something in the mathematical world- either to the axioms directly, or something derived from the axioms.

As long as the axioms are sensibly chosen, and the mapping from the natural to the mathematical world is well-made, we can make all sorts of predictions- thanks to all those mathematicians who have already worked thousands and thousands of things that follow.

And this leads to the question that's really been bugging me- can we come up with a better math?

After all, all  we need is a set of consistent axioms, and a mapping from the physical to this new mathematical world. Is our math the ONLY possible math? Is there a better math "out there" that can do a better job at explaining nature? Would artificial intelligence be able to come up with different maths than we did?

If there are different sorts of math that can explain nature, which one do we hold? The best one? The worst one? A mediocre one? Supposing there's an intelligent alien life a few thousand light years away, could they have identified a better math?

Bonus reading: The reasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics

Should we celebrate wealth?

Just about a week ago, my family moved from a flat we owned to a house we're renting. My mum had taken a loan to buy the house, and after 4 years of payments, the principal amount of the loan has barely decreased. I told my mum, "We're not using that flat anymore, and we have no plans of moving back into it anytime soon. So why don't you just sell it off and repay the loan, and keep the rest of the cash as your retirement fund."

I thought I made a sensible suggestion. It seemed to make little sense to be paying interest on a loan taken for something we didn't use. Yet, after hours of trying to convince my mum, she didn't want to sell that flat. Her reason was this- Owning property is 1) an investment, and 2) a status symbol.

The investment part of it didn't make much sense, since she would have to pay the interest on a loan, and the price of the flat may not keep up with inflation in consumed goods. I could easily convince my mum that keeping that flat wasn't a good way to invest her cash.

But it was the second reason that was more important to my mum. My parents had very humble beginnings, having to work full-time throughout the year with no properties to their names. After 20 years of hard work, steadily rising amongst the ranks from a typist's position to that of a manager in a company, my mum finally saved enough cash to buy a house, and then another. Having gone from not owning any property to owning a house outside the city, and a flat close to the city, apparently her status in her social circles rose. And selling that flat would chip away at that status.

This, I can't wrap my head around. There's absolutely no reason for people to be owning multiple houses. And yet, when we know of someone who owns several houses, people tend to think of them as being a successful person. They might have taken out loans, or been involved in some corrupt business, or cheated someone into selling property. All of that, for nothing- people can't use multiple houses.

This is especially bad when it happens in cities. Cities have limited space, and there are lots of people moving into cities for work. People need a place to stay. But thanks to property owners, people have to either pay lots of rent for space, or pay tons of cash to buy a place.

Think about it- a flat close to a city (I'm using Hyderabad for reference) would cost about INR 20 lakh. Even skilled workers probably make only INR 3-4 lakh per year. That means it takes 6 whole years of salary for someone to be able to buy a flat. For semi-skilled or unskilled workers, it would take a decade or two- that is, if they saved all of their income without spending any of it.

After all, a flat is just a little bit of empty space (construction doesn't cost much). It shouldn't cost years and years of hardwork for someone to own a little bit of empty space close to a city. Think of it in terms of resources- picture the amount of resources (say, rice and vegetables) that can be bought with an years worth of rent or a part of a flat's cost. The farmers and factory workers have had to exchange all those resources for that lump of empty space.

The best thing, for society, would be if people only owned one house/flat for themselves. Anyone who finds work in a city should be able to rent or buy a house/flat for a tiny cost. Owning multiple houses is bad for society- because- supply and demand. When people own more property than they need, they're simply hoarding valuable city space. That's bad. We should be deriding people for doing that. But we don't. For some reason that I cannot understand, we have decided to praise and respect people who hoard property. This has to stop.

So, the next time someone comes to you and says they bought a new house they don't need, think about what you should say to them:
"Well done. I respect you for your success."
or
"What's wrong with you? Why do you want to spend all that cash on something you don't need, something that someone else could really use? I'm appalled at your lack of consideration for others."

Because society isn't something separate from us. We build and shape society, through our thoughts, words, and deeds.

Missed connection, and Turkish treats...

I was on only my second ınternatıonal flıght yesterday, flyıng wıth Turkısh Aırlınes, from London to Istanbul to Mumbaı. The fırst one got delayed, and here I am, usıng a Turkısh keyboard to type thıs post, tryıng to get used to the bunch of addıtıonal alphabet and the Turkısh key posıtıonıng... They have thıs letter: ı, whıch ıs located where i ıs supposed to be, and I decıded ıt´s too much of a paın to try to go for the i.

Anyways, I´m quıte jobless at the hotel, so here´s an account of how I ended up here...

So I booked a tıcket wıth Turkısh Aırlınes- London to Istanbul to Mumbaı. I was supposed to land ın Istanbul yesterday at 6 35 PM, and then take another flıght at 7 35 PM to Mumbaı. I was quıte aware that just an hour for the connectıon ıs pushıng ıt a bıt too much, but the aırlınes gave me that tıcket and they run both flıghts, so I fıgured they´d hold the second flıght ıf the fırst got delayed (but apparently not).

I was ın the fırst flıght, at Gatwıck aırport, London. Everythıng was goıng nıce and smooth, ıt was all on tıme. Plane´s loaded, pılots goıng through all the checks. When I thought they´d turn on the engınes and start to taxı, the cabın crew announced that they´d have to waıt to check all our luggages- because someone apparently lost somethıng. And just lıke that, ıt went from everythıng beıng on schedule to a 40-mınute delay at take-off, because someone couldn´t manage handlıng a couple of bags. As one can ımagıne, I was quıte pıssed off. Holdıng a plane for 40 mınutes for a bag of stuff- that´s completely unreasonable. And ıt wasn´t lıke ıt was the aırlıne´s fault eıther, just some schmuck who dıdn´t gıve a shıt about other people´s tıme.

The flıght eventually took-off. Beıng run by Turkısh Aırlınes, all announcements were repeated ın Englısh and Turkısh. I can´t understand Turkısh, so I don´t know what they saıd, but ıt seemed lıke the crew dıdn´t even bother to make an effort for the Englısh announcements- except for a few keywords, I never understood what they saıd and had to guess what they were sayıng based on the sıtuatıon.

Other than that, ıt was all pretty smooth- they served a regular Turkısh meal- whıch felt a bıt weırd sınce ıt was totally dry wıth no sauces at all. It was boıled rıce wıth grılled chıcken, somethıng that tasted lıke a mınced steak fıllet, grılled peppers, grılled brınjals, and cheese. As I saıd, no sauce at all. But ıt was stıll a good meal. And the programmıng ın those tıny screens on the back of the seats also ın Turkısh and Englısh, but the optıons for Englısh were quıte lımıted and I had to watch one of the few Englısh movıes.

The flıght landed ın Istanbul, 30 mınutes late. That meant I stıll had 15 mınutes before the boardıng closed on the flıght to Mumbaı. And thıs tıme ıt was a woman who decıded she´d take her own sweet tıme to play wıth her kıds ınstead of gettıng on the shuttles that took the passengers to the termınal. I understand ıt´s not easy handlıng kıds, but the lady dıdn´t even ask for the crew´s help. A bus fılled wıth passengers watched her and her kıds (there were 2 of them) take 4 mınutes (yes, someone dıd check the tıme) to clımb down the staırs, after already havıng waıted about 10 mınutes for them to get to the exıt. There were about of couple dozen others who had to make the same connectıon as mıne, and all of them were pıssed.

The shuttle dropped us off at the termınal and we all rushed to the gate (gate ınfo was provıded on the prevıous flıght). The ınfo boards ın the termınal already showed that the gates were closed for our flıght, but I hoped they would let us on sınce the connectıng flıght was delayed, or at the very least, to talk to the staff about what flıght they would put us on. But when we dıd get to the gate, the staff had already left. And then the weırdest thıng happened. Everyone was just sıttıng at the gate- as ıf someone would magıcally turn up ıf they waıted long enough. And no one dıd. Gıven that there were a couple dozen people wıth the same story, I wasn´t sure ıf ıt would be best for me to go talk to the aırlınes by myself. But after waıtıng for about 5 mınutes, I left to fınd the aırlınes´help desk. I wasn´t very effıcıent wıth the search and took quıte a long tıme to fınd the rıght desk. And when I dıd, I was ıssued a boardıng pass for a flıght for the next day rıght away, no questıons asked.

The questıon came from me though- I had a day to spare and I needed the place to say. Agaın, the aırlıne saıd they would accommodate ın theır hotel. The problem was that theır hotel was outsıde the aırport and I dıd not have a vısa. They asked us to get a tourıst vısa (valıd for a month), whıch cost USD 43, and told us they´d refund us for the vısa after arrıval at Mumbaı.

And then started my journey across the entıre termınal- I´m not kıddıng, I dıd go through the entıre termınal. For the vısa, we had to pay ın cash, but only ın USD or Euros (or Turkısh Lıra), and I only had UK pound sterlıng. I kept askıng people for dırectıons to an exchange counter, but I kept gettıng lost and ended up goıng to all of the gates, everywhere except the lounge. I fınally decıded to just use an ATM machıne next to the vısa offıce, whıch I avoıded because the exchange rates are bad and commıssıons are hıgh. And then I had to run back and forth between passport control and vısa counters, and fınally got my Turkısh vısa after about an hour and a half of runnıng around.

After I got the vısa, I realızed I forgot to ask where I needed to go to get to the aırlıne´s hotel. And agaın, I vısıted several desks of the aırlıne before I ended up at the rıght one. In the process, I met a bunch of Pakıstanı guys who thought I was from Pakıstan too- these guys were ıllegal ımmıgrants and they dıd not know much about aırport procedures. They were beıng deported, wıth tıckets arranged by theır embassy. After a brıef chat about Indıa and Pakıstan and how people ın Pakıstan thınk of Indıans as theır brothers and all that, I told them I had to fınd the help desk ASAP and took my leave. When I dıd fınd the rıght desk, the aırlıne´s staff took a look at my boardıng pass and arranged a shuttle to take me to a hotel ın about 15 mınutes, and I ended up at thıs hotel called ``Radısson Blu´´. The hotel looks pretty good, although there are a few thıngs they could ımprove upon. And the aırlınes- although I would have apprecıated ıf they had sent a representatıve to meet us rıght after we came to the termınal- ınstead of us havıng to fınd theır desk, they have done quıte well. When they heard the connectıng flıght was delayed, they ıssued us boardıng passes for the next flıght and they arranged for a hotel rıght away. Some of theır staff had trouble communıcatıng ın Englısh, but they were stıll quıte polıte. And now I waıt for theır shuttle to come pıck me up from the hotel.

And about the Turkısh treats I mentıon ın the tıtle- that has to do wıth the breakfast they serve at the hotel- lots of kınds of cheese, olıves, pastrıes, fruıts, and nuts- probably the best breakfast I´ve ever had.

The duty of the privileged

I have been on Quora regularly for about an year now. And I got into some interesting discussions, one of which has motivated the current post.

First, I must say that I'm not religious. I do not believe in any deities, and I do not believe that people have been created and assigned a specific role that they need to serve. I also do not believe that humans are "special" compared to other life forms. We are born with improved mental faculties, and physical abilities compared to some, and that's it.

So, the world's not fair. A hen that's hatched in a cage, with no option but to get killed by these huge monstrous species called humans, definitely has circumstances much worse than a lot of people. The hen didn't choose to be born like that, that's just how it is. The world is not fair.

And even among humans, a prince in a monarchy has a life that is much better than that of a unwanted child in a backward country. Or even in the same neighbourhood, a kid with caring parents has it much better than one with ill-tempered ones. I don't even have to talk about how hard life is for women. The world is not fair.

But people did not think like this in earlier times. Small groups of people came up with schemes to control larger groups of people. A king living in a castle, surrounded by knights in armour, told the people that it was God's will that the king rule the people. And opposers were executed by the king's soldiers.

The priest living in a mansion, funded by the kind and guarded by his soldiers, told the people that what the king said was true. There indeed was an invisible man in the sky who was all-powerful, who knew every little thing that everyone did. And he was going to torture them in hell, unless they followed all the rules that the priest had set. And it was God's will that some people were born into unfortunate circumstances, because they had sinned in a previous life, or their ancestors had sinned, or it was all a test and the best performers would be rewarded. And disbelievers were stoned and burnt by the believers.

And there were nobles, favored by the king, who got away with whatever they did. And feudal lords, favored by the nobles, who owned lands where workers slaved. And they got away with whatever they did. Then there were merchants, who owned trades and manipulated markets. And law enforcers, who cared only for their own gain.

So these small groups of people controlled much larger ones, with cunning schemes of tempting rewards and horrible pains. And what did the large groups do? Well, they believed in all that shit. That there was an invisible man in the sky. That he communicated exclusively with a bunch of priests. That some wimpy kid was chosen by the invisible man in the sky. That lands belonged to someone for no apparent reason. That there are rules that must be followed, which are arbitrarily set and always seem to favor the merchants. That some people are born to rule, and some are born to slave. That women had no role but to serve her man. That the stars hold their future and cats can cause their death.

These large groups of people who gave in to those unfair schemes, a lot of people call them victims, but I disagree. A grown man or woman has no excuse for being ignorant, for blindly believing in whatever someone else says. Each person is responsible for their own decisions.

But what of the generations that follow, the kin of this man and woman who submitted to others of their own will? Who agreed that they would slave their life away for promise of imaginary protection from the wrath of imaginary beings? What can a kid born into a backward family in a messed up society do?

The world is unfair.

Gullibility, ignorance, desire, and insecurities of people who lived decades and centuries ago have screwed up the lives of those that live today. A kid is born in the powerful nation with every resource he/she can want. A kid is born in a place where water cannot be found. There are some who are highly privileged, and others with none.

Do the privileged owe something to the under-privileged? Should they give it out to them? Or should the under-privileged fight for it themselves? And what about animals? Should we recognize that they were unfortunate to be born the way the are, and extend them the same care that we may owe to the less-privileged of humans?

Is there a duty that the privileged must dispense? Or should we all simply accept that the world is not fair and let the less-privileged fight their own battles?

Suppose God does not exist- Part 2

Please read part 1 of the article before you read this one.

In part 1, I talk about a world without God or Morals. A world where a lot of people are irrational. This world is influenced by a few smart people who realize that people must work in teams, and these teams must have some rules. To give weight to the rules, we say they are given by an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible man in the sky.
Now, suppose this world IS OUR WORLD.

...
...
...
...
Think about what that means. The implications. There is no God. There are no morals. There are just a few rational people surrounded by a sea of irrational people.

......
......
.....
......
......
......

 





.....
.....
Do you feel like you have lost something? What do you lose when you assume that there is no God and there are no morals?


You lose everything you have learnt from religions and morals. Or do you? When you understand morals as rules that we need so that our society can work properly, and religion as a way to make people strongly believe in these morals, what else do you lose?

You lose answers to the big questions, such as
1) Who am I?
2) What is the reason for my existence?
3) What is right, and what is wrong?
4) How does the universe work? How and when did it start, and when will it end?
5) What happens to me after I die?
6? What is the most important thing in my life?

The answers to these big questions are lost when you discard religion. But is that really a bad thing?

If you do not have these answers, you can set out to find our own answers- try to comprehend your own existence, understand your purpose in life. Isn't that more exciting than listening to some stories?

I have asked these questions, and I have arrived at answers to some of them. The answers I have are not complete, and they are not the same as the ones I had 5 years ago. The interesting thing that I have figured out is, I had to define some of those answers.

If you can figure out some of those answers, ask yourself if what you are doing is in line with that answer. If the answer to "Who am I?" is, " I'm a super-hero who can fly", then what are you doing sitting in front of a computer for most of the day (or whatever else you may be doing)? Shouldn't you be trying to fly? (Please don't jump off a building and hope to fly, the super-hero thing was just an example)

What is holding you back from doing what you want to?




Or, you can always be happy with the answers given by your religion or your community. But what fun is it to be content with answers given millennia ago by someone you never knew?

Suppose God does not exist- Part 1

Suppose God does not exist, just for the sake of argument. To be more accurate, suppose that all the major religions are just playing a guessing game, and everything they say about 'God' is just a fairy tale and none of it is true.
Taking a step further, suppose that there are no morals either. Suppose that there is nothing inherently wrong in killing another person.
Going into more improbable territory, suppose that human beings are not completely stupid. That is to say, assume that some people are capable of being smart, some of the time. Suppose that some people can be rational.

It must be quite clear that I say that a lot of people are irrational. I do not mean it as disrespect to anyone, but look around and you know that people are not rational. I subscribe to evolution, and I think human beings have not evolved enough for the entire population to be as rational as we usually think we are.

Imagine the world that we have just supposed: There is no God, there are no morals, and some people are smart. Would this world be different from the one we currently live in? How different would it be?


Think about a game of football. Suppose you're playing the game. Your aim is to score as many goals as you can, and also make sure the other team does not score any goals. Suppose you hate all your teammates and you don't want to work with them, and it's the same story with the rest of the people on the team. You don't pass the ball to your teammates, and you tackle them whenever you get the chance. Now, suppose the other team is not like yours, and they are all good friends and they co-ordinate well amongst each other.
Assuming that all the players in both the teams are at the same skill level, the other team will easily win the game.

What can you take away from that game of football? When you share a common goal with others, you improve your chance of achieving it if you co-operate with the others. This is what happens with any regular football team- all of them want to win the match, and they help each other. But they don't all run after the ball. One guy has to be the goal-keeper, some of them have to be defenders. Even the attackers don't always get a shot to score, they usually pass to the striker. While each player would want the glory of scoring, they sacrifice that desire, because they realize that they will definitely lose if all 11 players just run after the ball. They all stick to their roles and take pride in the team's victory, rather than think about how many goals each of them scored.

In the world without God and morals, there are still some smart people who can realize that if they want to survive, it is better to team up with the others. If you are stranded with 10 other people on a deserted island, you can fight with the rest of them till there's only one person left alive. But after this happens, how long will that single person be able to survive?
If the group of stranded people had a few smart ones, they could persuade the others to work together- to help each other to survive, just like in the game of football. Except that it is not about winning, it's about surviving. It's not against another team, but against nature, or may be a tribe that lives on the island that doesn't like outsiders.

You can see this kind of living anywhere you look. Team sports- everyone in the team takes up a role so that the team wins. War- each soldier protects the others, sticks to his orders, and carries his mission out. Lions - they hunt together, defend each other, and protect their territory. Bees- some go looking for nectar, one lays eggs, some look after the infants, and if there is a disturbance, all of them attack the invader. Ants- same as bees.

Working together means that the members of the team must support each other. Over time, they grow to have faith in each other. A lion knows that the other members in the pride will support it when it attacks a bigger animal, like a buffalo. A soldier knows that if he tries to advance to the enemy lines, others will cover him. The striker in a football game knows that the other attackers will pass the ball to him when he is in good position to score.

But the whole team thing comes with a price. Some rules need to be set up, roles need to be assigned. In a football game, the players are assigned roles (based on their skills, unless the captain or the manager is corrupt). Each of them may want to score as many goals as he can, but he does not do that, because then the team breaks down.

The rules in the football game are quite straight-forward. Goal-keeper saves, defenders and attackers pass, striker scores. But with the people stranded on the island, it is not so simple. They need a more elaborate set of rules. First, they need to get food. Some of them may not be as good as the others in hunting. Should these people be left to starve, or should the others share their food with them? Suppose there are 3 women and 8 men, and each of the men wants to have one (or more) of the women to be their partner? How do they decide who gets who and who is left without a partner? Should the men fight to the death? Play a sophisticated version of rock-paper-scissors? Have a hunting contest? Or should the women be allowed to choose? Will the men without a partner respect that decision? Suppose they finally managed to gather enough material to build a canoe to escape the island, but it can only carry 8 out of the 11 people. Which 8 should be allowed to use it?

These and a lot of other difficult situations tend to arise when people team up. Each person has desires that cannot be met with the available resources. They could settle these things with a fight to the death. Or, they can all agree on a set of rules that they will all stick to. Let's call these rules, 'Morals'. People can always decide not to follow the rules, and even if a few of them stop following the rules, the team can easily break down. So, make up another rule- If someone does not follow the Morals, the rest of them beat the crap out of him.

Suppose that this group of 11, stranded on the island, managed to survive and reproduce. A 100 years later, when the original 11 have passed away, there's a larger population that doesn't really appreciate all the rules. What if someone is not happy with the rules? Or if he is too strong or fast for the others to beat him up? If he's secretly breaking the rules? Or, if he's not breaking any of the rules and someone else accuses him of breaking the rules? What if one of them is not scared of the others anymore and decides to do whatever he wants- starting with stealing their food and forcing the women? And just beating him doesn't work.

Here's an idea- Tell them that there is an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And the 'Morals' were actually rules that the invisible man had given to the people. And there is a special place called hell,  far away from the island and in the depths of the earth, for anyone who breaks the rules. And people who break the rules go to hell and will be tortured for eternity.

The people don't buy it? Make it more appealing. The invisible man is not all evil. If you stick to the rules, he takes you to another place where you can enjoy in any way you want to. And as a side note, tell them that the invisible man talks to you and everything you say is true. They still don't buy it? Make a deal with some of the others- tell them you will help them if they spread the rumor that there really is an invisible man who is all-knowing and all-powerful, and he talks to you. How do you help these guys who spread the rumors? Simple- tell the people that the invisible man told you that your supporters must be allowed to rule the rest of the people- The divine right to rule.

The story of the 11 people on the deserted island, this could very well be the story of the world without God and Morals, with a few smart people. And if you can imagine this world- where smart people realize that it is easier to work as a team, and that teams need rules, and that these rules can be made more appealing to the people if you say that they come from an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible man in the sky who will give them all kinds of pleasures if they stick to the rules, and all kinds of pain if they break the rules; how different will this world be from the world we live in today?

TV Series I've watched

This post doesn't go with the tone of the blog, but still.... I thought I'd make a list of all the TV series I've watched, and then rank them. This is my ranking of the 40+ TV series I have watched in the last 3 years.
If you plan to watch any of the anime on the list, watch the Japanese version with English subs. The English dubbed versions are not nearly as good as the subbed ones.

48. Californication
Tried watching about 6-7 episodes, didn't like it at all.



46. Breaking Bad
A chemistry teacher who starts cooking meth. Too slow. Too many annoying characters. People say it's the greatest show ever made, so I put up with it. But it sucks. After 4 seasons, I had to give up.


45. Kuroko no Basuke (Kuroko's Basketball) (Anime)
There are these freakishly good high school basketball players, and then there's this guy called Kuroko who prefers to play with a team with his own style. Wasn't too bad, but was slow and failed to take-off.



44. Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (Anime)
Huge robots. Fighting. With special powers. There were some moments when it was a bit exciting, but on the whole, it's quite boring.


43. Boondocks
About a couple of black kids (and their racist uncle). The first few seasons were awesome, but got boring later.



42. Spiral: bonds of reasoning (Anime)
About a genius kid, whose elder brother was also freakishly smart. But the elder brother leaves the house for some reason and the younger one tries to figure out why. The first 5-10 episodes were good, but they just lost it after that.



41. Gantz (Anime)
When people die, they are recruited into a game. And these people have to complete missions. The plot was good and I felt it had great potential. But the anime was filled with stupidity and the ending really sucked. 


40. Naruto (Anime)
It's based in the Japanese ninja tradition, and the ninjas have these awesome techniques. And there's a kid who was very lonely once and doesn't want anyone else to go through the same. It was okay in the beginning, but got really annoying after a while. The lead character is annoying, and the mangaka seemed to not care about consistency at all.


39.5. The Simpsons
People say it's awesome. I didn't find it to be funny enough.



39. Fairy Tail (Anime)
It's about people who can do magic, who form guilds, and then fight for their guilds. Some people like this anime, but I just can't seem to get into it. Too repetitive, boring battles, too much sentimental stuff (which is also pretty repetitive).


38. Bleach (Anime)
So there's three worlds, the regular one we know, and a couple for souls. And there are people in both soul worlds that try to either mess things up or save the world. It was pretty decent, but battles stretched on for too long. Becomes a bit too repetitive after a while. The characters don't seem to have any depth.



37.  D. Grayman (Anime)
A world where souls are turned into machines by something like the devil, and there's a group of people trying to free these souls.. I thought the series had a lot of potential. I haven't read the manga, so I don't know if it was the mangaka who messed up or if it was the animators. The plot was pretty well thought-out, but the implementation couldn't keep up.



36. VEEP
A sitcom that wasn't funny at all. Although I'm all up for commedy, the show shows some of the top politicians (and their staff) of the US to be stupid, petty, and incompetent- which starts getting a bit annoying at times.

35.5  Sayonara zetsubou sensei  (Anime)
It's about a high school teacher who's too pessimistic, and his class filled with weirdos. It's as unpredictable as a show can get. Seriously. It's the weirdest show I have ever watched. The first season was good, but then it got boring.

35. Only fools and horses
A British sitcom. It's alright, but again, not funny enough.



34. Avatar
A cartoon about a monk-kid with special powers based in a fantasy world. It was okay, felt like it was stretched a bit too much. The characters had no depth. But it was still funny enough to make me watch 3 seasons. And the spin-off that came after, which followed the next avatar, sucked (that's what I felt after 4-5 episodes and gave up).


33.5 Prince of tennis (Anime)
It's just as the title says, a new kid appears in high school tennis. It was good in the beginning, had some humour, seemed to have a decent plot. But it's the same thing going on and on.. And the sport itself is very poorly represented.


33. How I met your mother
A sitcom. Has its moments. But there's too much of nothing between funny scenes.


32. South Park
A cartoon with lots of gross scenes, but it's hilarious. At least it used to be. The new seasons suck.



31. Seinfeld
It's a sitcom. I liked it, but not as much as Friends or TBBT. And it does get boring quite often.


30. Dexter
A serial killer who only kills bad guys (with some exceptions). The story was well-paced, but has too many stupid characters in it.

29. True detective
Its about a couple of cops trying to solve some cases. There's one guy who's religious, and another who thinks religion and morality is all a load of crap. It can get interesting sometimes, but has too much drama with not much happening with the plot. 

28.  Magi (Anime)
In its universe, there are wizards who are supposed to choose someone worthy of being a king, and then help them become one. There's a lot of magic involved, and some battles. It has its moments, but on the whole, it's far from being a great show.

27. Prison Break
Sometimes too good, sometimes boring.The first season was especially good.



26. Two and a half men
First 5-6 seasons were awesome.


25. House
Liked it when House wasn't involved with the other doc. It had some humour, some satire, and a hint of philosophy. But then all of that was gone and there was just drama left, which I don't care for.


24. The Big Bang Theory
The geeky version of "Friends".But it went downhill after about 3 seasons.


23. Detective Conan (Anime)
It's quite a childish anime (it was made for kids). It's sometimes funny, and it never gets boring. Although the cases that the detective solves can get monotonous, there's still not boring. I have watched about 220 episodes now, and it has 500 more to go. Good for me.

22. House of Cards
There's nothing special about it, but it never got boring.


21. Sherlock
Need I say more?


20. Code Geass (Anime)
A bit boring some times, but awesome most of the time.
There are huge human-controlled robots, and some of the characters have superpowers. 


19. Game of Thrones
 Again, need I say more?


18. Samurai Champloo (Anime)
Short and awesome.
The story follows two swordsmen with conflicting personalities, who promise to help a girl find her father. 


17. Dragon Ball Z (Anime)
Follows a guy who wants to be the strongest fighter in the universe. And while he's trying to do that, he saves the earth and a bunch of other planets from bad guys. It got a bit too serious, with too many battles and power-ups. But it's still way better than a lot of TV series out there.


16. Gin no saji (Silver spoon)  (Anime)
It is what is called a "slice of life" anime. Set in a school of agriculture, it follows a kid from a city as he adapts to life as a farmer. It flows smoothly, has good humour, has no annoying characters, and could be a bit philosophical for some people.

15. Hunter x Hunter (Anime)
There are these professional people who are called hunters, because they have a range of skills and do all kinds of stuff. A kid, whose father was apparently a famous hunter, sets out to become one. Except for some episodes where it just stretched on without much happening, particularly the Chimera ant arc, the series was pretty damn good. I'm not really sure why I'm not putting this in the top 10 series, but I'd definitely recommend it for anyone who likes anime. Personally, I was more interested in the kid's friend's story.


14. Spartacus
Set in ancient Rome, where people owned slaves. And a bunch of slaves, who were also gladiators, fight for their freedom. The battles were awesome.


13. Steins; Gate (Anime)
Sci-fi. Based on time-travel. An amazing plot, beautifully animated. Especially episode 13. It was so awesome that I watched it over and over. I rarely re-watch episodes that aren't hilarious, but I couldn't stop watching this particular episode.


12. Eyeshield 21 (Anime)
A sports anime- about American football. The lead character's a wimpy kid, who I didn't care for at all. But the characters around the kid are interesting, the humour is good, and despite the length (125 episodes), it didn't get boring. I hated the way it ended though.


11. Fullmetal Alchemist (Anime)
Alchemists can make things out of raw materials, or break stuff, based on what they call "the principal of equivalent exchange". But things are screwed up when a kid tries to bring his dead mother back to life. It's a beautifully made anime. It has an amazing plot (you can't predict what's coming), the characters are well made, their back stories make sense, and the soundtrack is also very good.


10. Shingeki no kyojin (Attack on titan) (Anime)
Out of nowhere, giants appear and start eating humans. Humans build concentric walls, and live inside them. After a hundred years, the giants manage to break through the walls, and that's where the anime starts. Battles aside, human nature is so wonderfully explored in the anime- If one wants to understand morality or religion or fear or courage, forget books and discourses; watch this anime


9. Hajime no Ippo (The first step?) (Anime)
Follows a high school kid who takes up boxing, because he thinks boxers are really strong and he wants to understand what it means to be strong. The first season (76 episodes) was brilliant, on par with the best series on this list. But it went downhill afterwards. The second season was decent, and the third was a total let-down.



8. shijou saikyou no deshi: Kenichi (History's strongest disciple: Kenichi) (Anime)
A bunch of expert martial artists of different styles take in a disciple, and train him like shit. And this disciple is challenged by other people, usually bullies in school or gangs, but later by strong disciples of other teachers. It's quite entertaining- got good battles, a fine story, and tons of funny scenes. But it lacks a soul- the anime ranked better than this are all captivating, this anime isn't...


7. Death Note (Anime)
So a guy finds a book owned by a death-god. And if he can visualize a person and write the person's name in the book, they die. The first half of the series is just too good.


6. Haikyuu (Anime)
A sports anime, about Volleyball. A couple of guys passionate about the sport join a new school, one's goofy and the other's a genius. It's extremely well made- the matches, characters, back stories. It's funny, got a bit of drama, doesn't get boring- it's just perfect. I watched 25 episodes back-to-back, except for 9 hours of sleep. I would actually rate it as the best anime, except that it's too short to compare with the others.

5. Gintama (Anime)
A lazy, idiotic samurai who takes up minor jobs to earn a living, and has a wimpy kid and a super-strong, stupid girl as his assistants. Humor, parody, battles, emotional stuff- it's got everything. It's got a whole bunch of characters that keep making you laugh. Some episodes are slow, but most of them are brilliant.


4. Friends
Forget reviews. Just go for it. I watched the entire series (about 240 episodes) 6 times.



3. Dragon Ball (Anime)
It's a prequel to DBZ. It's funnier than DBZ, especially kid Goku. Although the animation was pretty bad compared to others, it gets points since it started out way before the rest of the anime on my list.


2. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (Anime)
Upgraded version of Fullmetal Alchemist. The first series did not follow the manga and the plot got a little too simplified. The manga version is absolutely brilliant. But the characters don't get enough time to establish a back-story, and the soundtrack isn't as good.


1. One Piece (Anime)
Follows a kid who wants to be the greatest pirate on the planet. In his crew, one guy wants to be the greatest swordsman, one guy wants to find this place in the ocean where there's fish from everywhere, a girl wants to draw a map of the world from her experience, a wimpy guy wants to be a warrior of the sea, one wants to be the greatest doctor, one wants to build a ship that sails all the oceans, one's an archaeologist trying to figure out some secret history, and finally, there's one a musician who's trying to keep a promise he made to someone 50 years ago.
Best.TV.Series.Ever. If you haven't watched this, you've missed out on loads of fun and tons of epic battles. Zoro and Shanks- Most bad-ass characters in any story, ever. I want to say "TV series can't get better than this", but One Piece has slowed down recently. But that's to be expected when an anime has been running for 15 years. I hear the manga is still as awesome as ever.

Science vs Engineering

I attended a couple of seminars this week- one by a colleague and another by a famous professor. They both talked about models in different fields. One of them gave an accuracy of 75% (work in progress), and was quite well received, while the other had an accuracy of 99.99%, and researchers asked if it was good enough.

People often think of science and engineering as synonyms. They are not. Science is all about understanding nature, or rather, reducing the complexity of nature into a small set of mathematical equations. It deals with 'pure' substances. A scientist's job is to- Look at nature, understand what it's doing, see if we can figure out a mathematical law, and see if this mathematical law is always valid (if there are exceptions, the cycle starts again), and maybe build a new material using this understanding. Engineering is about practical applications. A mathematical law cannot run a car. It is an engineer's job to use these laws 'sensibly', and build things that can be used in our daily life.

Consider this simple question: How long does it take for a ball dropped from a height of 10 metre to reach the ground? A high school student could probably answer this in less than half a minute. But, is it an answer from science, or was engineering included?

First, we assume laws of classical physics- big objects, low speeds: Fair enough. Next, we can use a simple kinematic formula: h = 1/2 *a*t*t, and calculate the time of descent. But, whenever we use this formula, we assume zero air resistance. Or rather, we assume it is negligible. This is an engineering approximation. Scientific accuracy requires that you account for everything, engineering accuracy lets you get away with small approximations.  In fact, this assumption, that air resistance is negligible, is not always valid. If you drop the ball from 500m instead of 10m, air resistance becomes very important.

There are actually even more assumptions. We always neglect the earth's rotation, and the fact that the acceleration due to gravity decreases as one moves away from the earth's surface. We can include them in the calculation, but - engineering accuracy : neglect them. If you are doing this for a satellite, you can't ignore any of these.

Now, this may make engineers look like a bunch of lazy guys who just hate solving everything. Say, we want to account for the air resistance. How do we include it in the equation for time of descent? We can say that the drag force is given by an equation like 1/2*density*velocity*velocity*area*drag coefficient. But then, this equation is also an engineering approximation. The more exact equations to solve are what we call 'Navier-Stokes Equations'. These equations are so hard to handle, that there is a million dollar prize for proving that unique solutions exist to the equations. And we haven't even talked about the elasticity of the material of the ball, or the surface texture.

And, did I mention that the Navier-Stokes Equations are also based on an approximation called the continuity hypothesis? This is how hard a very simple problem would be if we do not use engineering approximations. An engineer's job is to figure out what approximations work, and use them to build practical stuff. That does not mean that science is not a big deal, it is. Scientific laws are the basics over which we make approximations. These laws give us confidence in our work. It is just that without approximations, even the simplest of problems become extremely difficult to solve (but not impossible, hopefully). Imagine what it would be like to calculate the thrust of a rocket engine without using any approximations.

Population control- The way forward.

In medieval ages, countries needed armies and man-power to do all kinds of things. But today, we don't. A huge number of people are in the service industry, which is big only because it has to serve a lot of people. If towns A and B have populations of 1,000 and 100,000 each, then town A may have just 1 bank with 3-4 employees, while town B may have 10 banks with 10 employees each. And what are these extra bank employees doing in town B? Serving the people of town B.

There are hardly any labor-intensive tasks these days. Machines are everywhere. The need to have a lot of people in order to develop a country is gone. Another country is invading you? Launch a missile. Send drones. Use tanks. No country is going to send out an army of 100,000 soldiers into a war front. Machines have been invented for this and a lot of other stuff.

I have just read that China, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are the world's 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 8th respectively with respect to population, making up a little over 40% of the world's population. Now, do these countries need so many people? Definitely no. Life would be a whole lot easier if the populations were lower.

Suppose that the population of South Asia is suddenly reduced to half of what it is now. The state of agriculture more or less remain the same, since it is quite industrialized now and there are already too many people farming too little land. Industries won't suffer either, since almost all the work is done by machines. The number of banks and Tech support companies and other service companies will reduce, but that's not a big deal since the loss in jobs is compensated by the reduced population. The unemployment rates will definitely go down. The quality of education will go up.

The social structure may not change and there may be social and economic class divide. But, the quality of life will definitely improve. All we have to do is to reduce the population. So, how can this be done?

The most obvious thing to do is to kill a lot of people. Killing people to give them a more comfortable life is something that crazy dictators and politicians will say, not me.
Next solution? Reduce quality of health care- If someone's going to die, let him die. Again, same as above, not a useful idea.
Ship people to other countries (or planets?)? Nope, the other countries are not stupid (science not that advanced yet).

So, we can't kill people, we can't let diseased people die, and we can't export people. What's the one other option that's left?
Don't let more people be born.

Pretty obvious, isn't it? I had thought of this before, but thought that it's not an easy thing to do. You have to explain it to people, but you can't really reach out to everyone- lots of logistic issues. Or so I thought. Then I saw the demographics of India, and apparently the urban population is now 31%. And in this age of the internet, it's not really that hard to reach out to the urban population. The internet has penetrated into the rural areas too, but even if we focus only on urban areas, and reduce the population by 50% in the next 50 years, that should be a great improvement.

If we just reduce the birth rate, population will go down by itself since people keep dying. Family planning stuff is good, but I have a better idea.

Don't have kids till you are at least 32.

Get married if you have to, but just don't have kids.
Why is this better? Because a lot of people die between the ages of 20 and 32 (I'm assuming that on average, people have kids when the wife is about 20, may not be accurate, but the argument still holds). First, this itself reduces the birth rate. Secondly, If a man or a woman is to be widowed, isn't it better to be widowed before having any kids? Or if the marriage is not working out, and they think a divorce is better, isn't it better for both the couple and the kid if it happened before the couple has a kid? At 32, the parents have matured enough, and are probably more financially secure, to raise a kid.
Also, the next generation will be replenished slower than it is now. This will also reduce the birth rate for a few decades, before it saturates.

In addition to telling people to postpone having kids, what else must be done? Most importantly, contraceptives must get a lot of publicity. But every now and then, there will be accidental pregnancies. In that case, abortion is the only option. I guess parents get too attached to the fetus, but hey, it's a lot better to live with that little pain than to screw up your life, and the kid's. So, abortions- not totally legal in India (unless the pregnancy poses harm to either the mother or the child, or if its the case of a failed contraceptive). This makes absolutely no sense. When it is so clear that population is a problem in the country, how can abortions be illegal? Do people value the life of an unborn baby more than the life of people who are alive?

As always, I just think of stuff, I'm too lazy to act on it. I can only hope that some one who reads my blog gets inspired to actually do something.

Make love, not babies.

From Hyderabad to Southampton

Quite a bit has happened since my previous post on the blog. The last one was a workout update published on August 29th. The following week, I had received my offer letter for a fully PhD position in the Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics group at University of Southampton. The first thing I had to do after getting my offer letter was to apply for an ATAS clearance. This was a scheme that the UK government had, its job was to make sure that people coming to the UK from outside do not use the knowledge that they have gained in UK to make Weapons of Mass Destruction. And it took me 53 calendar days, or about 37 working days. They are supposed to process an application in 20 working days. I can understand the delay if I was studying nuclear physics or microbiology or something like that. But my research was about fluid flows in pipes (its actually about characterizing skin friction on rough surfaces using lower-order models, but I know that only mechanical engineers can appreciate this stuff, so there I'm working on flows in pipes).

During the time I was waiting for my ATAS clearance, my gym subscription had expired. I was already getting bored at that gym. There were no good training partners, the gym was too cramped to do any olympic lifts, doing deadlifts with the barbells was not possible, my knee was still hurting, and I couldn't count on anyone to spot me for bench presses. So, I didn't renew my subscription. I decided to learn tennis. There was this tennis academy about 4 km away from my home and I went there every morning. It was nice, there were three good coaches and they had enough courts for all members to play. I went there for about 8 weeks, but I couldn't play for 2 of those 8 weeks due to rain.

I finally got my ATAS clearance in the last week of October, and booked a visa slot for the next day. When I had gotten to the visa office with all my documents, they said I needed to get a mandatory Tuberculosis test done, which was frustrating since it was not mentioned in the website or on the document checklist. So that delayed my visa application for 4 more days. I finally applied on 28th October, I think. And the next 3 weeks were spent having farewell parties with friends. I've heard of people getting their visas in just 5-6 days. Considering that I was going from a reputed Indian college to a reputed UK university, to take a fully funded position, and with a clean passport and complete documents, I thought mine would be done in just a week. So every day I told myself that I may get my visa the next day, and every weekend I went and partied with my friends.

Finally, I'd gotten my visa on 21st, I booked flight tickets for 23rd. My friends had come to see me off at the airport, but turns out people without a ticket aren't allowed in (I didn't know that). I had to transfer in New Delhi, met with more friends over there, then took my flight to London. It was a long one (8 hours or so), but it landed ahead of schedule and the flight itself was good- clean airplane, good service, movies and games on a personal screen- pretty good for a cheap ticket (32k INR for the two flights-Hyd to Delhi and Delhi to London, including food and drinks).

The first thing I'd noticed when the flight was landing was that it was quite dark at just 4 30 PM. Back in Hyderabad, it would still be pretty hot at 4 30 PM, but here, the sun sets at around 4 PM and by 6 PM it gets totally dark. From London Heathrow airport, I'd taken a local train to Greenway and then to Waterloo. I had to carry about 22kg of luggage in those busy train stations at peak hour, but I somehow managed it. The train wasn't very different from the Metro in Delhi, it wasn't faster either. From Waterloo, I'd taken a train to Southampton airport, and this train was quite expensive (35 pounds, about 3,500 INR, for a 200km ride). It wasn't a first class ticket or a superfast train either. I'd met an IIT Kanpur alumnus in the train, this dude graduated around 2000 and works at IBM. He got off a few stations before mine, and I finally got to Southampton at around 9 45 PM.

I took a taxi, and we went looking for an inexpensive hotel. There weren't as many hotels in Southampton as I'd expected (considering that there are a lot of international students arriving here). I took a room in a good hotel, it cost about 60 pound a day, breakfast included. That was where I first found that the tap water in UK is drinkable-everyone drinks tap water. I'd seen this in a sitcom from the 80s, but thought it would have changed now. It was a very comfy stay, I was there for 2 days and then I moved into a shared house. There are a lot of shared houses here owned by landlords. Sometimes the landlords, sometimes letting agencies, rent out either individual rooms or the entire house to students. All houses have a kitchen, a few bathrooms, a lounge, and maybe a garden and garage, which are shared by the residents of the house. I was introduced to a really nice landlord by one of his tenants, and I'm quite comfy with the house.

The second thing I have noticed about UK (first thing being the sunset), especially Southampton, is that people are very nice and cheerful. Anytime a guy (or a girl) in a car sees me waiting to cross the road, he stops so that I can cross. Imagine that. That never happened in Hyderabad, and never will. And there is good reason for that. Life here is very peaceful. There are too many cars and very few bikes, and signals at most intersections. Cars don't overtake each other, they just keep moving in a line. There are footpaths everywhere, and pedestrians just need to press a button on a signal to stop the traffic and cross. No one every honks. Most stores close at 5 PM. Even PhD students and professors are not allowed to work in the University after 11 PM. If someone's working after 11 PM, security chucks them out.

The university is not bound within walls, its not even a single campus. There are a lot of buildings, randomly numbered. There are rules and regulations for everything, these people take safety extremely seriously (it is not just a matter of being safe, but it's actually required by law). There are lots of students and researchers around, a lot of them are Chinese. Apparently there has been some university policy that has opened the door to a lot of students from China. And each floor in my building has a kitchen, sometimes two kitchens. There are microwaves, fridges, coffee machines, and even cups and spoons in the kitchen. There are vending machines for soft drinks, candy bars, and crisps and stuff. People are not allowed to smoke inside the building but just outside is fine. There are some cafes, and also a couple of bars, in the campus itself. I have two supervisors for my PhD work. I was worried about ending up with not-so-good supervisors when I had applied for the position. I'm still not used to the life of a PhD student, or to interacting with supervisors, but my supervisors here are like cool nerdy dudes. I have just started working, but I already know I'm gonna love my work. But then, research is always exciting.

I've been to the gym in the university, seen one guy bench 140kg for 3 reps, and he must weigh about 90kg or so, which is qutie impressive. They have good equipment at the gym, including 6-7 Olympic sets, and there is another gym coming up with new equipment for Crossfit and Olympic lifting. I've joined the volleyball and table tennis clubs, looking to join the tennis and rugby clubs too. They have clubs for everything here, and students need to pay to become members. This is one of the few things (like the boring traffic rules- I prefer riding a bike like a boss to stopping at each signal) that I don't like. There was never any membership fee for any sport back at IIT Madras, and it should be that way. The volleyball court is indoors, on wooden floor, and compared to the outdoor courts at IITM, these courts are great to play on.

I haven't done a lot of stuff here yet, I haven't even been to the city centre,but I'm already loving the place. The university closes down for 10 days from 20th December or so, for Christmas (which is a very big thing here). I'll probably get around the city then. And it is already quite cold here, the minimum is about 5 degrees and the maximum is only 10 degrees . And "Winter is coming". It doesn't snow every year, but it did last year, and apparently this time it's going to be colder. Hopefully it will snow, strange how life can change so fast- I got from a lazy dude partying every weekend in a warm, vibrant city, to an excited researcher working everyday in a cold, relaxed city in just a few weeks. This was a much needed break from my habit. Other than the horrible Chennai climate and the crazy admin, this was one of the biggest reasons for wanting to go to a new place- I had just gotten used to the way of life at IITM, and going to a different insti in India would not have made much difference either. I had to start new if I wanted to get off my ass and do something. Only time will decide if I've made the right call. I now sign-off and go to sleep. I have installed Debian Linux on my system today, and tomorrow, I'm going to learn Python and write my first code as a PhD student, and read very good journal papers. Tomorrow's going to be an exciting day.

Workout update

My earlier plan was to attempt my max bench press and push press in the second week of September. But around August 15, I had gotten a couple of days of rest after two days of light workouts. So I had decided to test my maxes during that weekend.
On 17th August, I had attempted my max bench. My previous max was 98kg (or 99kg, used a barbell whose weight I didn't know exactly) done in April 2013. This time, I did 100kg, then 105kg, and then failed at 110kg. I wanted to go for 107kg after 105kg, but the gym didn't have plates smaller than 2.5kg.
On 19th August, I had attempted my max push press. My previous max was 87kg, done in November 2012. This time, I hit 90kg, and then 95kg. The 95kg itself was a critical lift, so I hadn't attempted 100kg. Two days back, on 28th August, I had hit 95kg again.

In addition to the presses, yesterday I had squatted 110kg for 5 singles, Powerlifting style, without belt or spotters. Although it is in no way an impressive lift, this is the first time I have squatted 100+ without any knee pain. And I have also started feeling more confident with my Powerlifting style squat (I have switched from Olympic squats to Powerlifting squats in March). I am not rushing to load more weight on the squats yet, I'm allowing for my knee to heal sufficiently before I start to hit new maxes. Though PL squats are going fine, it hurts when I attempt a deep front squat. Classical cleans and snatches are still a strict NO for me. And in addition to squatting, I'm now hitting heavy deadlifts - 65kg or 70kg for 2 or 3 reps.

My gym subscription expires in two weeks. I'm hoping to push my maxes a little further in this short period- 100kg push press and 110kg bench press are what I have in mind for the second week of September.

Nausea and Acidity during and/or after workout

A lot of people might have had this problem at some point or the other. I have been having a problem with acidity in the last 1 year or so, but I mostly neglected it. In the last 6 weeks it really started to affect my training. I had to cut short several training sessions when I started feeling nauseated. So, as always, I did a little bit of research on google and tried a few things. And after a couple weeks of trying different stuff, I am now totally fine. And now I share my wisdom.

One of the biggest reasons for nausea is excessive caffeine consumption, in whatever form you take it- coke, coffee, energy drinks, whatever it is, too much caffeine is bad for you. Earlier, I used to drink tea for 3-4 times a day and it was okay. I slowly switched to coffee and recently I have been drinking coffee for 3-4 times a day and I'm guessing that is when I started getting nauseated. It is also possible that this acidity and nausea are because of my change in lifestyle (I've gotten really fat in the last 15 months, and my physical activity has also gone down). Whatever it is, coffee is bad for you. Stopping coffee suddenly is not good since there are some problems associated with caffeine withdrawal. If you can't cut down on coffee, at least stop drinking it a few hours before workouts. Chocolates also cause acidity.

Another reason for nausea during workout is lack of endurance. If you have not been doing a lot of cardio and endurance training, chances are that you are getting tired too easily. People often get tired during their workout and start feeling light headed. Whenever this happens, nausea follows. I have found a simple way to work around this.
Usually, if you push for too many reps in a set, you start feeling light headed. Instead of that, split the reps into more sets. For example, if you have to do 3 sets of 12 reps with 90 seconds rest between sets, split it into 6 sets of 6 reps each (with a rest period of 45 seconds) instead. When you do this, you will still be training with about the same volume, the muscle will still be fatigued sufficiently since you are not allowing enough rest between sets, and your cardiovascular system gets sufficient time to recover from one set and start producing blood glucose again (This is all my theory. What matters is, splitting high-rep sets into low-rep sets with reduced rest period has worked for me, and I expect it to work for someone else too).

The final and the most effective suggestion is- start eating bananas and drinking curd. Even at times when I feel like I'm definitely gonna puke, I drink a couple of glasses of banana lassi and it goes away in a couple of minutes. Last month, I used to take antacid tablets to get rid of this problem, but the relief was extremely short-termed. A glass of banana lassi (put a banana, about 200 mL of curd, 50 mL of milk, sugar, and some flavor if you want) a couple of times in the morning and a couple of times in the evening, especially before workout, totally relieves you from acidity and nausea.

Randomly answering Multiple choice questions

Most exams these days have multiple choice questions. When I was preparing for one such exam- EAMCET, one of our math lecturer had strongly recommended one technique- to verify if the equation/expression is satisfied by the options, instead of solving the equations. Though it is not in the best interest of the students, at least that involved a little bit of solving. But what if a student just randomly answers all questions?
Considering that these exams typically have more than a hundred questions, and that tens of thousands of students take these exams, it is safe to assume that when a typical student randomly answers a question having 'n' options, the probability that the answer will be correct is 1/n. In questions with 4 options, if a student randomly marks an option, the probability that it will be correct is 25%.

Now, consider the case where each correct answer is awarded 4 marks, and each wrong answer is awarded -1 marks. If a student randomly marks 1 out of the 4 options, the score he will gain is (4)x (1/4) + (-1) x (3/4). 1/4 is the probability that he is correct, 3/4 is the probability that he is wrong. So, this student will, on average, score 1/4 marks out of a maximum possible 4 marks. i.e, he scores 1/16 of the maximum.
Suppose the student puts in a little effort and somehow confidently eliminates 1 out of the 4 options, and then randomly marks 1 out of the remaining 3.  Now, the probability of him being right is 1/3, and being wrong is 2/3. In this case, he scores 4x1/3 + (-1) x 2/3 = 2/3, out of a maximum of 4. So, he scores 1/6 of the total marks (in the previous case, he scored only 1/16).
If he confidently eliminates 2 out of the 4 options, he scores 4x1/2 + (-1) x1/2 = 1.5 out of 4, or 3/8 of the total marks.
If he confidently eliminates 3 out of the 4 options, he scores 4 out of 4 marks.

Comparing different other cases, like no penalty for wrong answers,  6 options, etc:

	4 options +4, -0	4 options +4,-1	4 options +4,-2	4 options +4,-3	6 options +4,-1	8 options +4,-1
Random	25%	7%	-12.5%	-31%	-4.2%	-9.4%
Eliminate 1	33%	17%	0%	-66%	0%	-7.1%
Eliminate 2	50%	38%	25%	12.5%	6.25%	-4.2%
Eliminate 3	100%	100%	100%	100%	17%	0%

 
I suppose that most exams have either no penalty, or a +4,-1 system with 4 options. Having no penalty is a huge incentive for those who can't solve all the problems to randomly mark answers. They have nothing to lose. Considering that even the best of students often fail to score a 100% owing to various reasons such as time constraints or exam pressure, and that the cut-off scores (especially for reserved seats) are usually quite low, the current system is really not fair. If the boards decide to go for 6 options instead of 4 options, the equation drastically changes. If they move to 8 options and also impose penalty for wrong answers, no one will ever try to randomly mark answers. Also, students will be discouraged to verify the options by substituting into equations- simply because there are too many options to try and check.
It really surprises me that the IITs are really not considering something like this. Increasing the number of options is not a difficult thing. It takes a little bit of extra effort, but it would definitely limit the role of luck in the exams.