My super-connected friend Dave McClure tagged me — “The basic idea of this game is to tell people 5 things about yourself that they didn’t likely know, then tag 5 other people (or in this case, 5 bloggers) and see how far the meme progresses.”

Ok then, here you go.

5 Things You Didn’t Know About Me

1. I was incredibly shy as a child. I was so shy, I was scared to perform with other classmates. One day, when I was about seven, I proudly told my mother that I had joined the dance class and every day from then on, I would show her what I learned. She was very pleased that her shy child had emerged from her shell. When she came in to speak to the teachers on Parent-Teacher day, she discovered that I did not actually participate in the class, but instead peeked at the students from outside the door. All of the teacher’s pleading could not get me to actually dance, but by clinging to the door frame and observing the entire class, I was learning just fine by watching!
2. I sent my first email in 1993 using CompuServe. The only way to connect was to a dialup number in the UK. Because an international call was so expensive, I’d write all my emails, dial up, send and receive and then disconnect immediately. The process usually lasted about a minute and a half, at most once a week.
3. I have a black belt in Karate (Shito-Ryu) and won a national championship in 1994 in India.
4. I almost died in 1997. I was in Singapore and had an infection that affected my kidneys. I had a 105 temperature, and at the time, I thought I was drifting off to sleep as people spoke to me, but I was going in and out of consciousness. I was taken to hospital in an ambulance. When I got there, the doctor said I had to go on intravenous antibiotics immediately. Being afraid of needles, I said I’d prefer not to. His pithy reply “Intravenous antibiotics now or you will die” pretty much cured me of my fear of needles.
5. I cry at movies. I even cry when watching some ads. Kind of ridiculous, but there it is.

My turn, my turn, my turn (this is the best part) — I tag:

• Charlie O’Donnell
• Lulu (are you at LuluLovesBombay yet?)

• Confused

• Oz

• Thalia Chantziara

Can’t wait to hear your stuff!

This is so funny, it is worth watching.

For background, India won a test match in South Africa for the first time ever (since South Africa was re-admitted into world sports). It was truly a blowout performance, especially after how they were whitewashed 4-0 in the one-dayers. The funniest moment though was from the Man of the Match, Sreesanth.

Note to the non-cricket followers: In general, the Indian team is a well-behaved if somewhat meek team. This guy though is all attitude. Sreesanth is a bowler and often has a word or two to say to the batsman when he’s bowling.

Here he’s batting. Right before the clip starts, the bowler, Andre Nel (who sets the gold standard for goading the batsman), tells Sreesanth that he doesn’t have heart. Sreesanth promptly tonks him for a six.

This award winning ad is a little old, but I just saw it. Powerfully communicated message.

The text at the end says –

Imagine the world today

if he could have communicated like this.

Yes, indeed.

Love them or hate them, there’s no denying that Google is innovative. The innovation is usually in the product space, but today they announced a really cool innovation in the HR/stock option space. You can read all about the Transferable Stock Options here.

What a great idea! They are staying ahead of the curve in managing their employees’ upside (or potential lack thereof). As a company matures, usual wisdom states that the stock ceases to rise at the same rate and adopts a more gentle curve. What that means is that employees who join later in a company’s maturity have less upside. And that’s the way it should be since they assume less risk.

However, to feed the hungry beast of innovation, Google is still hiring in vast numbers. And with this little innovation, they are addressing the issue of employees whose strike price is near or below the market price and solving for it — even if your options are underwater, you can trade them and realize value today (instead of waiting). They’ve significantly reduced the risk that employees with underwater stock will leave for greener pastures.

Usually HR is super-conservative. When times are good, they won’t give anything away that they don’t have to. In fact, they can go so far as to imply it is an honor of an employee to be employed at the company. But times change (they always do) and in these situations, most HR departments can’t adapt – they have to be pushed to recognize that there need to be other ways to motivate the newer employees.

What Google has done is dramatic. What makes it more impressive to me is that they have made this innovation when times are good. They’ve been proactive in setting up a program that has significant complexity. That is very, very rare.

Other tech companies need to catch up. Hopefully, for their sakes, soon.

It’s been busy. Crazily so. Was working to a deadline where I pulled an all-nighter (I think the last time I did that was in undergrad). Then I headed out west and I feel I am on the verge of falling sick again. I wonder how I can be so busy when I am technically unemployed at the moment.

But, the best part is that I am back in California for a few days. It has been wonderful, seeing friends and catching up.

California will always have the most special place in my heart. The first few years of my life in the US were spent in Boston and they were the roughest years of my life. Then I moved to California. New city, new job, new life. I loved San Francisco — I overcame my fears of driving on the insane inclines, learned to sail, made wonderful friends. I loved my job in product management/marketing. As I moved from the city to the peninsula, the better weather and the most spectacular views on 280 made me love the Bay Area even more.

It will always feel like home in some ways. This was where I was happy in the US for the first time. This was where I found myself.

Amidst all the brouhaha about the performance of the Indian cricket team, finally, Rediff has done some analysis. Amazing stuff, analysis – actually gives you facts to talk about!

Ganguly vis-a-vis Dravid as captain in ODIs

Captaincy record

Hmm… seems to me they are *exactly tied* at this stage in their captaincy careers. So I guess the moral of the story is that the Indian team has in fact been this pathetic before. Hopefully, this too shall pass.

Here’s the full analysis.

I was in London last week and often ended up taking a black cab. The cabs are expensive – more expensive than the Tube (London’s subway, which in itself is �3!), and about 30-40% more expensive than a NYC cab, but that’s about the only downside.

Compared to New York City taxi cabs, these black cabs are better in every single way.

• The cab drivers actually know where they are going. You tell them once what the address is and that’s it. In New York, if your address is not on the grid (x street, between y and z avenue), there is a huge possibility your driver won’t know where it is. Isn’t knowing the city part of the job??
• You never need to repeat yourself. Ever. They didn’t once say “Er, did you say 37th street and Broadway?”. I told them once what the address was and the next time I spoke to them was when I got off. Amazing. NYC cab drivers apparently can’t remember an address for longer than 3 minutes.
• They never talk on the phone and if they do, it is very quiet and very quick. Off all the cab drives only one driver got on his cell phone. And I could barely hear him over the engine noise and he was off the phone in about 20 seconds. They take their jobs seriously – like jobs. Not like vacations where they are doing you a favor by driving you while they talk. In NYC, almost 90% of my cab rides involve the driver being on his cell phone. And loudly. I’ve been privy to everything from lunch menus to home repairs. Ridiculous. And rude.
• They are polite. They say please and thank you and have a good evening. Considering London cabs are so expensive, apparently it is the norm to just round up. So, after the first couple of days of tipping 20%, I adjusted to London norms and for a cab ride that was �7.60, I gave the guy �8 and felt cheap doing so. He was still gracious and polite.
• The taxis are clean. They are comfortable and spotless. No grime, no left over tissues, nothing. In NYC, you feel like taking a shower after riding in some cabs. Some of them stink. Of course this could be a reflection on the taxi riding public in both cities too!
• The taxi configuration is so much better. London cabs are spacious on the inside. And they seat 6! In New York, if your driver is tall and has pushed his seat back, forget it, you are going to be scrunched in with no leg room. And the maximum NYC passenger limit is 4.
• Finally, London cabs have evolved from boring black and come in multiple colors including hot pink. NYC cabs are only yellow.

Apparently, the London cab drivers need to attend a two year plus training course called The Knowledge to learn the streets of London perfectly and in order to be allowed to become a cab driver. With another fare increase coming to NYC cabs, maybe passengers need to get something for the extra money. The list above seems like a good starting point!

My brother sent me this quote from Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”. The quote is by then Senator Barry Goldwater, made in 1981. Goldwater was considered, in his day, the archetype conservative Republican.

“There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired o the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism”.

Wow, how they’ve changed!

I think the RIAA and music companies remain clueless years after Napster has come and gone. This post by Om has my full support. Hence the badge.

When CDs were invented, the price of music was supposed to drop substantially. That never happened. Why? Because the record companies got very greedy. They need to restructure (read: reduce) their pricing model to continue to expand their sales. I guess that is too hard for them to understand.

They probably have a few more years, but they should acquaint themselves with their buddies the dinosaurs.

Confused’s post on motives behind charity giving, reminded me about one of the most analytical ways to think about charitable giving that I�ve ever heard of.

Bjorn Lomborg, a Scandinavian economist, became famous for his controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, that challenged the notion that our ecology was at risk. He proposed that our environment was actually improving and that if there was real risk, people would adapt how they did things in order to continue to live on earth. He also proposed that giving money to climate change was like burning it.

As someone who believes that our climate has changed and that people need to sit up, take notice and do something about it, this was hard to hear.

But in 2005, I attended the TED conference. And I heard Bjorn speak. He was extraordinarily compelling. He has started a project called the Copenhagen Consensus. What the Copenhagen Consensus does is get top thinkers to figure out the charitable causes that can be best addressed with funding. That is, if you gave one dollar to climate control or one dollar to fighting communicable diseases, where would your money be more efficiently used and actually help solve the problem. The first year, he had economists participate and rank the problems. You can see the results here. In 2005, he had 24 UN ambassadors do the ranking. It is quite interesting.

If you are someone who cares about your money actually helping to solve a problem, check out the website to learn about where it would be most compellingly used. It is not the only way to think about charitable contributions, but it is the most analytical way to do so.