February 26, 2013
I applaud Marissa Mayer’s brave stance on Yahoo’s workforce!

Sir Richard Branson does not agree but here is why I feel this is absolutely the right thing at the right time for Yahoo!

In general, he may be right but I don’t agree with him in this instance.  It is not about trust or believing your employees will be productive remotely.

Yahoo! is in the midst of a culture change and needs all the innovation it can muster to survive.  The only way to foster teamwork and innovative technology is by brainstorming and active team participation and a rapid approach to challenging ideas and developing prototypes.  You cannot do this remotely.

There are some jobs where you just need to be there.  Sir Branson’s pilots can’t work remotely.  For Yahoo! I believe this is absolutely the right move at this time.  You cannot birth a new corporate culture when all your workers are sitting at home.

It’s not just about being productive - I think there are enough studies showing that you can be just as, if not more productive working from home.  And collaborating to reach a defined objective is surely possible.

But it’s about the creative/collaborative aspect of a company trying to redefine itself and sculpt a new identity… Yahoo! is a company with a battered culture right now and desperately needs to find itself anew.  Collaborative, serendipitous moments have a much higher likelihood of happening when people work in the same physical space and are more apt to “bounce an idea of someone.”  It’s the concept of “bullpens” and “scrums” and “huddles” or any number of sports metaphors…  or just “putting your heads together.”

A company with a clearly charted course - yes, of course.  But again, for one that needs to find its way out of a fog, my belief is still that this will be excellent!  I also believe it will be a short term strategy, till Yahoo! has found the path again.

Finally, to put in in perspective, out of its 11,000 plus employees, about 4% work from home so the notion that will cause a mass exodus from Yahoo! is mildly inaccurate.

Or, as Yahoo! puts it so elegantly in one sentence here, “We need to be one Yahoo, and that starts with physically being together”

January 7, 2013
It’s just simple math, really… but then, the loony right doesn’t care - after all, God didn’t invent math :/

- In 1992, the US Population was 255 million.

- Roughly 1.25 million or 0.5 percent of the population was incarcerated.

- % of population owning firearms in the US was 41%. 

- 41% of 255 million people means 105 million people owned guns.

- Violent crime was 758 per 100,000 inhabitants.

- In 2011, the US Population was 312 million.

- Roughly 2.6 million or 0.84 percent of the population was incarcerated.

- % of population owning firearms in the US was 36%. 

- 36% of 312 million people means 112 million people owned guns.Violent crime was - 386 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Let’s see…

- Population grew by 57 million or 22.3%

- # of incarcerated prisoners grew by 1.35 million or 68%

- # firearms grew by 7 million or 6.6%

What was that argument about more guns leading to lower violent crime?  Ever consider it was maybe the 10 times as BIG factor of increased incarceration?

Don’t agree?  Prove your math to me.  Math is the only language of consequence here.

*********************************************************

Data Sources:

Population/Census Data & Violent Crime Data

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Incarceration Data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg

Firearms Data

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

December 30, 2012
The three laws of (e)motion!

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately.  Flying about for hours on end gives you some time to do that.  Thinking back, thinking forward, reliving memories, cringing at mistakes, relishing precious moments.

And thinking of school.  Yes, school.  I spent 4 hours on a LAX-MIA transcon trying to reformulate the NRTL equations of fluid phase equilibria in my mind and dreaming of multiphase reactive distillation columns.  I never claimed I wasn’t strange.  And one of the constructive things that emerged from these random thoughts is what I like to grandiosely describe as the three laws of human emotion.

Sir Isaac Newton proposed laws that govern motion of bodies and forces acting on these bodies - The Laws of Motion.  This would become the Basis of Newtonian/Classical Mechanics and have shaped generations of science and discovery and human progress.  Of course, these laws only explain motion of objects on a macro scale but fail to adequately explain the motion of microscopic objects, hence the need for relativistic Physics and Quantum mechanics.  But I digress… 

So Newton’s Laws of Motion are,

First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless an external force acts upon the body.

Second law: The acceleration of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to its mass m, i.e., F = ma.

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This is also expressed as, “For every action there is an equal and opposite action”

In a brilliant moment of alcohol and altitude induced clarity, I superimposed these life altering thoughts onto circumstances in my own life at the present time and came up with this theory - emotions are similar to velocity.  They are also vectors that have magnitude and direction - keep us moving in our daily lives.  Forces are life events, things that can cause a change in our emotions.  We can have uniform emotion much like velocity where our emotions are constant and our emotions can also be made to change direction and/or magnitude when we are faced with life events (an external force).

Still with me?  OK, having postulated that there is a fundamental equivalence between physical quantities and human ones, let’s take a look at Newton’s Laws through a human lens and examine the Laws of Emotions.

First Law:  The emotion of a person about anything remains constant while in a particular state of mind unless acted upon by an external force or event.

Assume you’re sad about something.  Let’s say you are sad about a break up or a lost love.  As long as you remain in the state of mind of self-pity and regret, your emotions will remain constant unless you do one of two things.  One way to impose an external force on the emotion vector is to consciously decide to change your state of mind and think about happier things, engross yourself in work and other things. The other option is that a truly external event occurs… something happy that forces your emotions to change.  You meet someone new, get a raise at work, achieve one of your life long goals, or hit the lottery.  

This can work in reverse as well.  For instance you got a raise or a promotion. For as long as you remain in the state of mind that your promotion was a good thing, you will remain happy.  But as soon as you change your state of mind to one of discontent and envy over another person who got a bigger raise/promotion or someone in a position higher than you, your emotion changes from happy to sad.

Second Law:  The tendency for a person to experience certain emotions over and over again is proportional to the prevalent thoughts in their mind and accompanying events.

This is similar to the premise that you are what you think.  A person who constantly thinks negative thoughts about himself, others or situations is more likely to encounter negative events and has the general disposition of a sad person.  Likewise a person who constantly thinks positive thoughts about himself, others or situations is more likely to encounter positive events and has the general disposition of a happy person.  

Third Law:  For every emotion expressed by a person there is an equal emotion expressed towards them.

This can be called the law of relationships.  Not necessarily romantic relationships but relationships between people and how we relate to and with each other.  I propose that when you are in a relationship with someone, be it friend, girlfriend, brother, sister, uncle etc., the emotions you express or project through your actions to the person are the emotions you will get back.  If you are always happy around someone, there is a strong possibility that the person will be happy around you. If you are sad around a person or always belligerent, I bet you they will be sad and belligerent around you as well.  Human relationships are a subtle give and take of emotions.  

So there you have it – the three immutable laws of emotion :) Sometime in the near future I will try to apply Einstein’s theory of relativity to the realm of human emotions – this should open up a world beyond imagination!!

October 4, 2012

Today, it’s now been 25 years.  I love you daddy.  I can feel you watching over me every single night and day :)

Dance with my father again - Luther Vandross (by JasAlf5959)

October 3, 2012
An awesome 24 hours!

An interesting last 26 hours…  flew out of SFO last night at 10:30 PM (Monday) - uneventful flight.  Then, a harrowing landing at Washington Dulles where it was extremely stormy and rainy and the pilot missed the approach and had to throttle up dramatically to pull up and clear the runway at the last second - landed uneventfully on the second go-around.

Then, off to Miami - a delayed take-off due to the rain but I wasn’t worried since I was coming back on the same equipment and was guaranteed to not miss my return :)

Landed in Miami, got out, hit the men’s room and then it was time to line up to board.  Same crew, same seat (2F) - made for some interesting conversations and a flight attendant who thought I was awesome - LOL

Much better landing at Dulles this time (it was sunny now) - then killed 2 hours in the United Club getting caught up on work e-mails.  

Got onto a packed 757 - no seat empty - 190 pax!!  And delayed again - but this time, we were waiting for a courier with a heart for transplant so it was a good reason - can’t hold that against the airline ;)  

Pilot made haste and despite a 75 minute delay leaving the gate at Dulles, we were only about 20 minutes late touching down to a beautiful, cloudless evening at SFO.  So good to be back!

Only had to go through security once (and there was no line last night) - had all four boarding passes before I departed - some may call this madness, I call it a Mileage Run!  6680 EQM, 13,360 reward miles.  $89.20 total.  

That’s how I spent my day today.  What did you do?

September 4, 2012
Is taxing the 1% really the answer to our problems? I say NO.

Reframing the 1% versus 99% argument.  First of all, I totally agree with the social and moral stance of those who so vocally oppose the wealthiest Americans.  There is something fundamentally unfair in a society that allows people to starve while others make more than they can ever spend.

So, let’s get this clear - I have conceded the moral and social argument here so please don’t use that against me.

Let’s take a look at the Economic side of this debate.  The vast majority of us would believe that taxing the wealthiest and re-distributing the wealth to the lower 99% is somehow an economic panacea…  I submit that this is total and utter nonsense and is mere rhetoric at best and disinformation aimed at disrupting the social fabric at worst.  But, let’s get off the melodrama horse for a bit :)

OK, since I’m an Obsessive Compulsive analytical kinda guy, I took a stab at looking at what would really happen if every single person in the upper 1% of earners were to take a 50% cut (or submit to a 50% tax) in their earnings.  This does not consider their present taxes, it merely assumes that each and every one of the top 1% would willingly give up 50% of whatever they make to be redistributed among the lower 99%.

My source is the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

Form the attached graphic that I completed in Excel in about 15 minutes, adopting this Draconian step would result in each person of the lower 99% getting about $6,641 in extra income per year.  If you happen to believe that this is the end of all the economic disparity and the problem with the economic, I have no further comment.  But I do have a bridge in New York and some beachfront property in Florida I’d like to sell to you.

Like I said, this was 15 minutes of work so it’s very likely that I missed some glaring point that will make me totally wrong.  If so, prove it and I will be man enough to publicly accept my mistake.  If not, I submit to you that let’s focus on more important social issues that are aimed at helping the really weak strata if society and stop this “Down with the 1% nonsense.”  While it is unconscionable that we as a country see such a disparity in incomes, this is what we chose.  This is America and to impose a social tax on those who have somehow (by inheritance or by hard work or by greed and connivance) made it into the 1% is just plain un-American.

And yes, I vote Democrat.

August 24, 2012
Apple wins! Yay!

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266653/samsung-todays-apple-trial-statement-loss-american-consumer/in/3030480

I agree with the concept but disagree that Samsung has the right to this defense.

In general, I’m more in favor of “process patents” rather than “product patents.”  Coming from the chemical industry background, it was always frustrating to be blocked from discovering new pathways that might be more efficient and innovative since the end “product” was protected.  

To that extent, I agree with the statement.  

That being said, in this world, the product, not necessarily the process, represents the monetizing opportunity in its entirety.  If a company has a drawer full of patents and blocks others from using them but itself does nothing with them (remember the company that sued RIM?) then I have a problem.  But if a company is actively using these patents to form part of its core business, I see absolutely no problem with them acting with the full force of the law to protect their own business.  

Wouldn’t you protect your own children with far greater zeal than fighting for a bottle of your sperm in a sperm bank?

Also, the assertion that “patenting rectangles with rounded corners stifles innovation” is patently obtuse… (unintended pun ;)   if rectangles with rounded corners was the true innovation that led to commercial success here, how does adopting this commercially successful concept show innovation on Samsung’s part?  Did they conceive it?  Did they call it circles with squared edges?  No.  Then, I don’t see how they can claim that doing what another successful company had already done represents innovation on their part.  

All in all, while I dislike patent law when it is used to hold back progress, in this case, I am 100% behind Apple’s use of the law.  It is not locking up technology that will not see the light of day - it already has.  The people can get this by buying Apple products or by paying more for competitive products that properly license these concepts.  

That’s all folks :)

As always, the opinions above are mine alone and are not being imposed on anyone other than me.

April 17, 2012
So true!!

So true!!

March 22, 2012
Goat vindaloo - team lunch tomorrow

Picking up from the chicken last night, here is my attempt at a vindaloo curry with goat meat.  Vindaloo is a spicy Portuguese influenced curry sauce common in the western and southwestern parts of India, notably the province of Goa, a former Portuguese colony.

For this vindaloo, I sauteed onions, cloves, cardamom, cinnamon and black pepper with some fresh green chilies.  Next up were some baby potatoes that were browned in butter and these spices.  

Adding the goat meat marinated for a day in a variety of spices and herbs, everything was browned for a few minutes.

Adding coconut milk and a curry sauce I prepared using onions, garlic, ginger, cashew nuts, raisins, anise and a melange of spices, a dash of fresh saffron and then cooking for about 2 hours resulted in the most amazingly tender goat meat in a excitingly spicy gravy!  Voila! Goat vindaloo!  Ready for lunch with my team tomorrow :) 

March 22, 2012
Cooking week!

I’ve really been feeling the urge to cook for a few days.  The middle eastern influenced chili last week, chicken chettinad last night and then a fiery goat meat vindaloo tonight.  My team at work has been the beneficiary of this sudden cooking streak and they have responded fabulously :)

Here’s last night’s Chicken Chettinad - a South Indian spicy delicacy with the aroma of dry coconut and pepper…

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »