Die Verwandlung

I just finished reading Franz Kafka’s “Die Verwandlung,” translated into “The Metamorphosis” by Stanley Corngold. Before I even started reading it, I’d told my classmate about how it seemed like a weird one — something I’d deduced from its synopsis — and he’d responded with “Franz Kafka’s works tend to be.”
Now that I’m done with it, I’m not quite sure how I feel about it. For one, it was incredibly short. Like I knew it was a short story but I’d still been expecting it to be longer. Then there comes the fact that (SPOILER ALERT) 
… 

 

What if logic isn't actually all that logical?

Logic, science, reason, all of it is what? Rules that always hold true for everything that they are defined for. But who really defines them? We do. Who comes up with them? We do. And what are they based on? Observation.
I remember, as a kid, reading an article in my native language, titled “What if there was no Sun?” and it, as you can guess, was full of stupid stuff like “pitch black, ice cold, nobody would survive for any more than … e.t.c.” While I was reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder why a world without our Sun would ever have any life-forms that need the sun to survive? Or why the humans on such a world would not be used to not having a sun and thus be optimized for survival in such harsh conditions.
My point? We believe logic is absolute. Maybe it is, but only for our world. We know that if we pull at a free movable object, it would move towards us. But for all we know, there could be a world out there in which doing so would result in that very object moving away from us. That sounds illogical, stupid, and inconceivable but if it happened all the time in our world, it wouldn’t be.
We believe that we can make deductions using reasoning, but how reasonable would that be when that very art of reasoning itself is a set of deductions based on observation. What about observation? Do we even really see our world as it is? We don’t even know if we all see the world the same way. A really narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum is sensed by our eyes and is used by the brain to form an image. This is literally akin to reading a detailed book and imagining the events and the characters. Using this analogy, we can tell that while the image can be extremely detailed, it will still be limited by the amount of information it is based on. Imagine if our ears were so trained that we could, in the absence of light, form images and see using sound. Is that inconceivable? But what really is the difference between the ear and the eyes? Both sense and interpret waves with the help of the brain. If we could see the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, we would have a much smaller list of opaque materials than we currently do.
This does of course suggest that it doesn’t matter if the science and logic we so rely on is limited by our observation as long as it holds true for our observable world, but the idea was the very fact that it would be just limited to our observable world. This is kind of like how we wouldn’t be able to tell if there were any more-than-3-dimensional-beings out there observing us right now because we can’t perceive or observe more than 3 dimensions.
 

 

How GoDaddy robbed me.

Humble request to all readers: Share this post.

I really want to keep this as short as I can and address only the primary issue. For those who don’t know, GoDaddy is one of the most popular domain registrar’s in the market and I started using it a couple of years back as a means for getting rid of my local registrar who had been screwing up routinely in a most inefficient way.
Abstract: Lately, they have not only made a few irrational and immoral decisions, but they also robbed me of a rather large sum of money and then messed up my order completely. In short, I paid thrice for the same order and I didn’t even get what I ordered. Furthermore, somehow the same domain was purchased twice using my account and I have absolutely no idea how it’s even possible. … 

 

Did Nokia really not do anything wrong? They did.

“We didn’t do anything wrong but somehow we still lost.”

Those were the words of the CEO. Do I agree with them? No.
Let’s go back to, say, 2006. Every average person had a Nokia. The Motorollas? Those were what people bought between two successive Nokias. Sony Errison? Well, that one had its own cult. There was a wide variety of different lines of phones in the market, each aimed at a different class of users. The basic featured for those looking for a cheap calling device, the multimedia enabled for those that wanted more, the communicators for those that afforded them.
That wasn’t all. That was the time when Nokia did some strange experiments resulting in the production of some really weird and unique phones. And guess what? A large percentage of those took off as well. Examples of such models could be the NGage and the Ngage QD – Gamepad shaped devices aimed at gaming. I happen to have owned both models. Nokia was also infamous for coming up with some really weird designs, which, surprisingly, sold just as well.
Why? Cause Nokia owned the market. They were among the pioneers and they had almost monopolized the mobile market. What they produced was good and was pretty regardless of how shitty it might actually be.
All the awesome devices that Nokia ever made were … 

 

Monolingual Autism

You can google that if you like and realize that it may not really be a real thing. It’s something that I have been observing for a long time and I’m sure you’ve seen or felt it at different points in your life.
A while back, LifeHack posted about people having different personalities when speaking in different languages. So I thought: Is it possible for a person to be autistic in a particular language and enthusiastic and energetic in another? Sounds stupid, eh? Well, here’s an example that might make it sound slightly less stupid and slightly more relatable:

Think of a kid from India or Sri Lanka or even Russia — or any other place where English isn’t really the first language. If that kid goes to a decent school, he’s probably learning English and his teacher probably encourage him to converse in it when possible. Let’s name that kid Connor.
Connor is 14 years old, he goes to a decent school and converses in English with his teachers simply because it’s a school rule. Connor speaks his native language at home and when among friends and he’s pretty talkative. Connor has no trouble reading or writing in English. But sometimes, e.g. in a group of several people, that he doesn’t know very well, who are confidently speaking to each other in English (although they also know Connor’s language), Connor gets tongue-tied. Connor has to put too much effort into forming every sentence that he then speaks. Connor, therefore, chooses to speak in his own language. The greater the number of such occurrences, the stronger Connor’s belief that he can’t converse effectively in English and the harder it will be for him to do so the next time he is faced with the prospect. At times like this, Connor get’s mildly autistic.

I have a theory. If Connor were to speak to someone that doesn’t know any other language besides English, he probably won’t have this much trouble. I personally believe that all this happens because it feels stupid and illogical to converse with people in a secondary language when you don’t need to. If someone knows Connor’s language then he would prefer for them to speak it instead of English.
This makes it sound like just as much a matter of choice as a question of confidence. So what is the issue? And that, is exactly why I chose to compare it with autism. The thing with disorders is that you can’t just choose to not have them. Sometimes you know you have them and that they are stupid but you can’t just think your way out of it. I believe that this is something like a disorder where the brain just doesn’t accept the idea of doing something as illogical as conversing in a secondary language when you can choose not to. Secondly, every time it kicks in, it is accompanied by nervousness and hesitation and makes you look like this quiet, timid, shy personality and occasionally raising questions like “You don’t say much, do you?” or perhaps even “Is he autistic?”
Can it be overcome? No idea. Does it need to be overcome? Logically? No.

 

Albus Dumbledore's sacrifices

Let’s get to it. We all know about Dumbledore’s past, and his friendship with Grindelwald and the whole “For the greater good” thing. Not all of us, however, realized the fact that he never stopped living his life by that motto. Albus Dumbledore always did everything for the greater good.
“You’ve been raising him like a pig for slaughter.” – Severus Snape.
Yes, remember that big reveal to Snape? Dumbledore making clear his belief that in order for the Dark Lord to perish Harry had to die? Remember how he didn’t even try to deny the fact that he was, in fact, just keeping Harry alive so that he could die at the right moment?
But that wasn’t it.  … 

 

Never do [insert temporal adverb] what can be done [insert another temporal adverb]

You may be familiar with the 2014 film titled “Predestination,” that involves the most mind-blowing time-loop. While watching it, I didn’t fail to notice this:

97d8c-11137604_805401089515710_1303419438_n.jpg

“Never do yesterday what should be done tomorrow.”


At first I laughed. Then I decided to give it some thought. My first and last interpretation of it was the same. In short, it’s about not messing with the past. If something happened at a particular point in time, then you have no reason to try and make it happen earlier.
However, there is a far simpler explanation for it. And that’s simply the fact that it’s just a tiny bit of humor from the creators and logically, in essence, it isn’t a lot different from what Aaron Burr spoke of: … 

 

Batmen Analysis

So, I’ve been wanting to do this for quite some time. You see, there’s a whole lot of Batman movies out there along with a good number of Batmen. With different actors, playing the same character, in different movie adaptations, there come arguments between fans over the superiority of certain adaptations and portrayals.
In this post, I am going to analyze all the live-action movie Batmen, from Michael Keaton to Ben Affleck, and judge them based on how well they portrayed both Bruce Wayne, and Batman. Before we continue, let’s briefly discuss the two personalities. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire orphan, disciplined and mature for his age. While he may be well known to the world, he can be called reclusive. His dark past is what gives him his wisdom and what gives him the look of a man who has dealt with the truth, up close. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have feelings or a sense of humor. He can be touched, and he ain’t witless.
Batman, Bruce’s vigilante personality, is an all righteous, assertive tough-guy who values human-life above all emotion and justice. His instincts and choices are rarely to be doubted. He is also a quick-witted strategist and a really skilled fighter. Also, he is worthy enough to lift the Mjolnir. He knows the difference between what’s right and what’s (seemingly) needed, and he knows better than to let his emotions drive him. Well, let’s start analysing, shall we? … 

 

Physics jokes

I’ve been casually going through the answers to this question for the past hour. I came across a lot of hilarious ones and an almost equal number of those that are probably hilarious to those that get them. Yes, that does imply that there are quite a lot of them that I don’t get. There used to be more, but I figured them out, all thanks to the internet.
It’s amazing how educational this shit can be. Consider the following scenario:

Joe is a Physics student. Joe loves Physics. Joe wants to be a Physicist. Joe idolizes Hawking, and shares – on his social media – jokes about Schrodinger’s cat. Joe is browsing Quora and he comes across this question. Among the answers, he reads this: Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg are driving down the road with the top down, having the time of their lives. They blow past a hidden state patrol officer who jumps in his car and pulls them over a few miles down the road. The officer gets out of his car, hitches up his britches, and saunters up to Heisenberg who is driving.
He motions to roll the window down and Werner complies, then the officer asks: “Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were going?” To which Heisenberg replies: “No Sir. But I know exactly where I am.”
Joe doesn’t get it. He opens Google in a new tab and types “Heisenberg’s.” Googles suggest’s his uncertainty principle and the slightest bit of reading gets Joe smiling. Now he reads through the rest of the joke, which he gets, and reposts it.

Why does Joe behave this way, and how is this shit educational?
It’s understandable for people to not get jokes, and even more understandable for people to not get Physics related jokes. But is it acceptable for a Physics geek to not get a particular joke? Of course it is. Joe, however, was afraid that if people found out that he didn’t know Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle they’ll never respect his intelligence again. He is particularly afraid of his fellow “physicists” finding out. Joe felt ashamed of himself. He couldn’t stand how he’d failed to get a popular Physics joke – one that starred Hawking. He felt compelled to figure that joke out and chose to research and expand his knowledge enough to, if not more, get that joke. When he was done, there was one less Physics joke that he didn’t get, and one more principle that he knew.
It seems that Joe’s preferred road to being a Physicist involves reducing the number of Physics jokes that he doesn’t get to a minimum. It sounds funny, and stupid, but it’s smart, and it works. Let’s do a little math, shall we? There are 100+ answers on that Question. Most of the ones I came across had at least two jokes. It’s unlikely for two successive jokes in an answer to be about the same principle, so that means that there are at least 200 jokes below that answer. Obviously, there would be repetition, so let’s just go noob and halve the number. Now we got 100 unique jokes. If Joe reads them all fails to get half of them, he will research and read up on at least 50 different principles/theories.
Jokes motivate Joe to study. But what if Joe actually spent all that time, which he spends reading jokes, studying? That way he could still learn 50(or more) different principles/theories in the same time as he could before and he could do more.
Conclusion: Joe is lazy, not stupid.

 

"Omelette du fromage"

So, around the time Assasin’s Creed Unity came out, I came across this video. It was quite popular among my friends back then. At 1:18, we see two guys seated on a table facing one another and as something lands on it, one of them says: “Oh no! My omelette du fromage” at which, Arno pops up and replies: “It’s actually omelette au fromage.” That’s the first and last time I heard that phrase.

A few days ago, I came across the term again somewhere on the internet and so I googled it. Its literal meaning being “omelette of cheese,” it actually originates from an episode of the popular tv show “Dexter’s Laboratory.” The episode itself is called “The Big Cheese,” in which, Dexter can’t say anything except “oomelette du fromage”. 
Funnily enough, throughout the episode, his day at school is better than the average because, as it happens, saying that same damned phrase everytime he opens his mouth, seems to work out just fine for him. He nails a french test, and a mathematics question and gets a bunch of girls fawning, and even manages to deal with some bullies.
So why does Arno say “It’s actually omelette au fromage.”? Because “omelette au fromage” means “omelette with cheese,” and that’s the correct term to use for a cheese omelete. As you can guess, fromage  means cheese, while omelette means pretty much what you think it does. Therefore, “du”=”of” and “au”=”with.”