Plays of the day

One unemployed fellow

This is a tweet by Hindustan Times, an Indian newspaper, that appeared earlier today.



Is the Indian government obliged to secure the livelihood of even the descendants of people who turned a murderer in? Because if the historical context is removed, that's what Nathuram Godse is; moreover, there is no clause in the Indian Constitution that allows the inheritance of historical significance.

However, the article goes on to state that a job was promised by the Maharashtra government for a kin of Sergeant Dev Raj Singh Thakur, the man who caught Godse. This points at a larger story: that the government is not living up to its promises of employment for the kinsmen of those did the nation service. If anything, an article running on Martyrs' Day could have and should have touched upon this.

England judges you!

So, the British government is going to cherry-pick its immigrants, eh? I can think of a lot of reactions to this. First off, if the country is looking for "world-class artists, musicians and intellectuals", then immigrant students shouldn't be hit much because the establishment of their world-classness lies with the universities they will be attending. And if the university is able to justify a student's selection, what more could the ministry want?

Second, this shift in policy is more likely to hit the working population harder. This is because even though there are enough seats available for local and international students, the case is not so for jobs. In fact, since 2008, employers have already been under pressure to justify the hiring of a foreign national, including having to have checked if no other British national was available for the same position.

Third, the Conservatives-led coalition government did promise a reduction in immigrants' numbers in its election manifesto less than two years ago. However, the Conservatives first only stressed on the UK being able to attract the best: that only presaged a development of infrastructure and associated resources, so that the "best" of the lot had incentives to pick the UK out of other destination options.

From an academic point of view, this nationalistic turn of events prompts the question: having better facilities than are there in other parts of the world, will the country now be using a slump in its economy to restrict who gets access to those facilities?

Let me put it this way, and hypothetically. The UK first charted out an inclusive perspective toward growth and then upgraded infrastructure, etc. One of the products of the upgrade was a device called Instrument X that Jack really wanted to work on. Soon, Jack applies to work in the UK on Instrument X. Now, in light of this new policy, the country plans to turn away those who cannot bring back what Britain has lost, and it seems Britain definitely hasn't lost what Instrument X could have brought. On that basis, Jack's application is rejected.

Looking closely, it becomes evident that important academic potential is being redirected to other places just because something else has gone wrong. This consolidation of responsibility is what makes cherry-picking an iffy thing.

Cutting waste =/= saving

The following (promoted) tweet appeared on my feed, and it screamed desperation.



Then, I took a trip to their site and saw this.

We’ve done it by recommending a change in nozzles, which lower water flow but also increase pressure.

They've conserved one billion gallons of water in two years by shifting nozzles that pump water into a poultry farm, in turn reducing water flow. If water was saved by conserving the losses from low pressure transmission, then Walmart by itself hasn't reduced its usage of water: it has only perfected its plumbing system which was sub-par all these years. That's CSR just the way it shouldn't be.