Sunday, November 12, 2017

An important paradox - he should've helped in the situation instead of filming it with his camera

Recently, a video surfaced in which a staff of the Indian airline IndiGo could be seen manhandling an arguing passenger. So many people sympathized with the passenger and expressed anger at the airline, while some thought that the passenger was the first one to provoke. Regardless, a large number of people expressed their views about the situation. This video was recorded by another IndiGo staff member. I personally read many comments [on FB, Twitter, etc.] from Indians, suggesting that this second staff member who recorded the video should've instead "focused on his duty" and should've helped to stop the manhandling of the passenger, instead of being busy recording the video.

Rubbish. Nonsense. The incident couldn't have become public without this recording. Similarly, the world wouldn't have come to know about the evil acts of the United States, if not for the leaks by Edward Snowden. The debate taking place within the US about Snowden's leaks is focusing only on the criminality of the act of leaking [by Snowden], and not on the utter criminality of America's acts that have been exposed in the leaks. The question here is the same as the IndiGo question - how could've the world come to know about America's brutal, illegal actions and worldwide spying operations without someone leaking records related to these? Doesn't or shouldn't an otherwise illegal leak retrospectively become legal and pardonable if it exposes crimes and illegal acts?

So although we might complain that some bystanders chose to film and record certain incidents that took place in front of them, instead of helping, but we ought to ask ourselves how could've or would've we come to know about those incidents without watching those very photos and videos?

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Android is not the last operating system - this is both my wish and my prediction

Have we reached the point where Google's Android has become so popular/ubiquitous, so familiar, so entrenched into the ecosystem, and getting so much help from network effect that no other OS can ever hope to challenge it? Just when we start to think this way, it's worthwhile to recollect the utterly dominant position that Microsoft's Windows once had in computing, when Windows' market share made it feel like nobody could ever challenge it - not because Windows was/is the best OS, but because of reasons similar to Android's current apparent insurmountability - sheer popularity, network effect, strong and increasing familiarity, and a deep ecosystem of applications/developers, support services and industry backing.

Let's not blindly assume that Android is mankind's last, final operating system. One never knows what changes can and will occur in the future. At one point it seemed like Android's popularity will lead to the demise of Apple's iOS. But it hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem as likely today as it seemed back then. Firefox is rising once again now, just when it was beginning to be ignored. Russia is now a food/grain/wheat export superpower, and this didn't seem likely some years ago. So wait. And let's see what happens.