Note to recruiters

Note to recruiters: We are quite aware that recruiters, interviewers, VCs and other professionals generally perform a Google Search before they interview someone, take a pitch from someone, et cetera. Please keep in mind that not everything put on the Internet must align directly to one's future career and/or one's future product portfolio. Sometimes, people do put things on the Internet just because. Just because. It may be out of their personal interests, which may have nothing to do with their professional interests. Or it may be for some other reason. Recruiters seem to have this wrong-headed notion that if somebody is not signalling their interests in a certain area online, then that means that they are not interested in that area at all. It is worth pointing out that economics pretty much underlies the areas of marketing, strategy, operations and finance. And this blog is about economics. With metta, let us. by all means, be reflective about this whole business of business. Also, see our post on "The Multi-faceted Identity Problem".

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Hee-yah! I am the Bruce Lee of Internet debates!

The way I like to debate these sorts of proposals is via a mailing list. Just now, I just got done with a debate on the iitmcs97 mailing list (IIT Madras, Class of '97, which includes this guy and this guy), and I posted the following note there.

What I wanted to say was that I do these debates in a very specific way - this technique is my own little invention. At the end of the debate, you are able to see how the debate actually went.

Here is an email I sent to the iitmcs97 list just now describing how this works.


The way to visually follow this debate we have been having is as follows :

a. Log in to via a browser (say, Firefox).

b. Click on the following original post :

c. Follow the thread down.

There is a reason why haikus are sent and separate threads created for a single proposal - and at the end, you will see how it is an elegant solution to the "yin-yang" situation of Internet debates (the "yin-yang" problem being that in some debates, there is often a lot of "yin" but very little by way of "yang" [i.e. balancing arguments] and in other debates, there is often a lot of "yang" (i.e. a lot of agreement) but very little by way of critique).

The basic situation is that you have a proposal (PUNCH1) and a set of a counter-arguments CA1, CA2, .. CAn (the "yin"). To each counter-argument, a counter-punches CP1, CP2, CP3, ..., CPn needs to be thrown (the "yang"). What needs to be done to follow this system is to carefully call out each counter-argument, perhaps by summarizing it in a few words, and then to create a thread for each counter-argument CA(i) and discuss the counter-argument in that thread.

The way to do it right is to respond to either each person (if one person has a number of counter-arguments) or each counter-argument separately by forcing out each counter-argument CA1 into its own thread. It has to be done in this very particular way. This way, each counter-argument is responded to in its own thread with its own counter-punch/counter-punches.

And you see, this way Balance is restored. The yins are balanced by the yangs. You will see how elegant the whole thing is if you browse down the chain of one of the debates (as I described  above) and you witness one such debate.

In this case, it was the Tamil language proposal. In other debates, it was other topics.

By convention, at the end of the fight/debate, a haiku is written to signal the end. Or not. Hee-yah!

- Anand


Old pond,
Frog leaps.
This mechanism of Internet debating over mailing lists,
also my own little invention.
I will be posting this message to my blog:
I am taking on 2 or 3 of you today.
I can take on a hundred
or even a thousand.
I have done it before
for Digital Green.
Would do it again.
And another frog leaps.
And another.

Update: updated the post a bit.