thevardanian

Yah man. We need to celebrate space agencies/scientists even less.

So... Don't announce scientific achievements by your national space agency during an election?

Talk about skewed perspectives.

But he's the one coordinating it all. Which is impressive. It's often difficult to run a single small business let alone a single large project/company. It's quite outstanding to be able to run multiple of them simultaneously.

Yah... With that same logic so is the untouched forest from which we get our rarest mushrooms from, or wild game from.

No. There's a distinct difference between rural and urban, which has only grown since industrial revolution.

There's a huge confrontation.

One is a agrarian and the other urban.

Two types of completely different civilizations clashing.

In the dairy industry, for example, organic milk would mean you have to either let the cow die if they get sick, or give it antibiotics, cure it, and then send it to the slaughterhouse as you can't milk that cow anymore, worse still you give the cow antibiotics and continue to milk it thereby making the milk worse than "normal milk", because you don't want to lose money.

That's why organic isn't always the most ideal.

You're acting as if "the general anti-China slant" isn't justified. The only reason China was tolerated so far is purely due to economic reasons, otherwise what China is today as a government shouldn't have been tolerated and, in facts, begs sanctions.

China has done far more egregious transgression to be sanctioned for than Russia, but business/economic interests seem to outweigh that sort of action against China.

People used wash their dishes with the ash from the stove. It acts both as an abrasive, and an absorbent.

>2) foreign investments are something we want because trade and more resources makes our economy grow much faster

and

>A large portion of India’s economy is informal, and entirely cash based AND also below the taxable slabs - this is OK.

50% of India's GDP is from the "informal" sector, and it employs something like 90% of Indians. So it's not just a "large portion". It is the majority. And it is this very informal sector that demonetization targeted so to formalize it. FDI makes a very small portion of GDP growth in India.

>And as current reports show - All of that money is back in circulation - so the banks are back to square one.

The money is back in circulation after people paying at least 50% tax if their cash was unaccounted for, but could range up to 200% penalty if the accounting was particularly shady. Which is why you see such a high deposit rate. People would rather see 50% of their cash than nothing.

So "all" that money going back into the economy makes sense. Now the government has actually account of what is going on.

Most people who had "black money" deposited their cash with albeit with a heavy penalty.

The government allowed people to deposit their cash, but taxed it something like 50-70% if it had NO accounting at all.

Yah. Some people like their celebrities, however those celebrities are also now facing competition by other stars which have far greater community outreach, and influence.

Who do the kids of today look up to? Those are your next celebrities.

People often forget that at the beginning none of the current giants were "mainstream", in fact what made them attractive was the fact that they had a unique audience that formed a strong community amongst each other.

The idea of "mainstream" is dying, and will continue to do so. What we're seeing is a deep cultural fracture where communities, ideas, and people do not form the kind of stardom or centralized propagation of ideas that the previous decades were known by. As production gets cheaper, and getting an audience becomes easier, people will begin to form seamless self-sustained communities that support each other (think patreon).

If video killed the radio star, then the internet killed the star, and fractured it into infinite pieces.

India has been in a downward trend in terms of freedom of press since 2011. Unfortunately.

Rather than being prentious and accuse others of being half asses, or ignorant, I suggest you only stick to facts as you claim you do.

I am most definitely not denying that everything is perfect. There are things that have gotten worse, however the benefits of what have gotten better are far more tangible, real, and affect daily life than this one data point you provided. There are others which are more tangible that India has faultered on, but again the good far outweighs the bad.

Yes. Go ahead and publish them. I dare you to. At best there are only marginal negative shifts. So please list all the data that you have.

Furthermore you’re behaving as if having ambitious goals for a government is bad. I would rather have an optimistic, ambitious government that gets somewhere near the goal than a lazy “realistic” government that always ends up underestimating itself.

Reaching a goal isn’t necessarily as important as simply producing a better product. Having a high expectations is a prerequisite to creating a great product. There are, again, so many improvements that India has achieved recently.

The recent additions are not just laws, they're tangible initiatives, and infrastructure the government has built.

Creating infrastructure, and reducing friction is the only thing a government can. The government is merely a mediator, a facilitator, that lays out the field and its rules, but it's up to the citizens to independently exploit that opportunity.

What are you talking about? There are very few metrics that you can list that show a decline. So how about you show me the data for decline.

1. Business Ranking

"India climbs global business ranking. But it's not that simple" https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/news/economy/india-ease-of-...

2012 - 132

2013 - 132

2014 - 134

2015 - 142

2016 - 130

2017 - 130

2018 - 100

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/india

Samsung is also opening the world's largest Mobile phone manufacturing plant in India. That's a tremendous investment from them.

2. Corruption

India's Corruption Ranking

2011 - 95

2012 - 94

2013 - 94

2014 - 85

2015 - 76

2016 - 79

2017 - 81

https://tradingeconomics.com/india/corruption-rank

3. Infrastructure

Road construction by km per day built / awarded

"While a total of 4,410 km highway stretches were constructed in 2014-15, it increased to 9,800 km in 2017-18." Furthermore just look at the spending. It's booming.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/highway-constructi...

4. Electricity

There's pretty consistent growth, although growth isn't the only story. A strong reliable grid is also important, along with having investments in green technology to make the electricity generation more green. Reliability isn't up to standards yet, but it has gotten better, in my opinion. There have also been tremendous investments from the government in green tech, like solar.

https://tradingeconomics.com/india/total-electricity-output-...

Across almost all metrics, infrastructure, corruption, ease of business, electricity, even cleanliness India has improved on. This isn't just another election year innovation, this is just another list of innovations that have been added, which also include things like investments in clean energy, and providing rural impoverished citizen with gas to cook (people in rural areas would cook in wood fired stoves that would produce a lot of smoke and be terrible for their health).

You can be a pessimist, but I don't see that, and most investors are very optimistic about the Indian market.

A paper ballot system is just as terribly ineffective as electronic voting. Look at Russia. They have a paper voting system as well.

I know in other poorer nations thugs just straight stuff the ballots with votes, some even steal the box, some set it on fire, and it can be in general a complete shit show.

What is simply required is a publicly available audit of elections, where any citizen can verify for themselves the outcome of their local results.

So is San Francisco actively trying to kill their golden goose?

You need to first prove you have a personality, before you can compare and contrast and label something distinct to it.

So already we are an order of magnitude more complex from even arriving at any sort of conclusion about "personality". We actually have very little idea as to what it actually is, how it's influence, etc.

The Indic traditions, imo, provide far greater insight into the processes of the mind than the current sciences do.

You don't run your website, necessarily, on a local home computer, why would you assume the same for this?

What is the evidence that happened?

You listing out a bunch of decentralized, protocol based solutions means that there's competition in the market, which is evidence of a new market that is GROWING. The opposite of a dead market. Youtube is also a the result of such a competitive market. There used to be dozens of video hosting platforms. The same applies to almost every other company. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Ebay, etc. all grew up in very competitive markets. Competitive markets means that there's demand.

Decentralization does one very important thing. It makes it more profitable, and cheaper to make content accessible to your audience, while giving you the freedom of making money. That is to say decentralization amplifies the ability of computers to make work what Youtube and Google require billions to do. It DISTRIBUTES that workload among many independent workers, and lets the market decide how valuable their input is.

Secondly centralized solutions can exist in a decentralized environment. Content distribution should always have been decentralized, making profit on content is the centralization problem. You're getting content distribution, and profitability mixed up.

Exactly. Youtube isn't a means to monetize, necessarily, that comes with audience regardless of platform. If a majority of people switched off of youtube, and began doing their content independently the monetization would inevitable have to follow the content creators, regardless of platform. That's the problem here. Youtube is not necessarily good for content creators, but rather gives a centralized platform for ad agencies to sponsor their products.

However the future is in platform being irrelevant, and acting only as a communication protocol for data. This will allow for both building communities, and since it's only a protocol greater freedoms for content creators, and also greater freedoms for companies to sponsor content creators as they won't be restricted by another organization's policies.

Youtube will ultimately just be major news network spam, with reduced diversity. You can already see late night show spam, and news organizations getting preferential treatment on the platforms. These organizations will never be adequate for the internet due to their bureaucratic nature.

I think it's dependent on how much profit you're actually making. Revenue is irrelevant if you're in the red, as "start-ups" often are. That's what "growth oriented" means, imo. As companies mature certain other tasks are weighed more heavily, and in the grand scheme of things, if you're a mature company, growth isn't the number one priority. Rather maintaining your marketshare, and preventing other startups from taking your share of the pie takes up more resources than actual growth.

However I would never ever use "start-up" to describe myself, but rather only others.

Value comes before an exchange. How can you buy something without an established value? So, yes something can, in fact MUST be worth something before an exchange happens. In this case the company itself has raised $8 million in capital with a worth of $33 million.

Now we don't know the exact nature of the share distribution, but since this is such a lean company I'm willing to wager that the found is still in the vast majority.

The reason we don't accuse Buddhism when a Buddhist commits violence is because very rarely do they explicitly say they're committing whatever they're doing in the name of their religion, nor in anyway to propagate their religion. That is to say, you don't have a doctrinal, linear, absolute, form of religiosity that demands conversion, demands superiority, demands singularity as is fundamental to Islam. Muhammad and his Quran is supreme, whereas in Buddhism you kill Buddha, and Sutras while important are not absolute.

The Quran is equal parts a political construct, religion, and a sociological text that covers everything from spirituality, to the idea of man, to how to wage proper war. Whereas a Buddhist text is not, but rather simply a constellation of philosophical conjectures, and assertions that mostly pertain to one's own consciousness.

The question is simple. Does ideology, and in extension religion, motivate people to be violent? I dare you to actually bring and propose to reinterpret the Quran. It simply won't happen, and until and unless Muslims in majority seek to reform/reinterpret the Quran, like it has been done in Christianity, you cannot progress Islam.

I mean if we're going to be entirely reductive then I think we can also say that ALL ideologies are also the same. The Allies, and Axis powers were in essence both the same thing, and either party weren't in any way morally superior. The Nazis were the same thing as Americans, and whoever won the war is simply a mere coincidence.

In a similar sense not all religions are the same.

Pranayama is a specific set of asanas in yoga. That is to say these are Yogic methods, in addition to physical activities, and further philosophical activities that are encompassed within the Yoga system/school of thought.