http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2008/gladwell
A little long, so watch it when you have time at your hand. Enjoy!


So here are the categories, in no particular order, in which I have broadly divided people found in bathrooms:
The diligent ones: This the most common category of all. These people come quietly, pick the right spot (this is important), do their due diligence in getting in the position, follow all the rules/steps of the chore, deliver the result and go back quietly, oblivious to anything happening around them. As focused as Arjun while shooting the bull's (fish') eye.
Auto-pilots: These guys break one of the most fundamental, unwritten and rarely discussed rule of peeing, they go auto-pilot. I hope you know what I mean. Now this is quite risky and makes you wonder what is it that is making them take this risk. Well, there are a few more categories that might help demystify their motivations."The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest"
This is allegedly a statement made by Albert Einstein. Many people argue if those were the exact words, but almost all agree that he said something to that effect. However, there shouldn't be an iota of doubt in anyone's mind about the truth in what is being said.
Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch, two legendary money makers, who made tons of money without making stuff, but by making deals/decisions; both of them have emphasized the power of compounding in their businesses and are reaping the benefits. It would be way too naive to say that compounding was the biggest reason of their success; however, it would be fair to say it had a crucial role to play.
Buffett owned his first stock at the age of 11, but says,
"I don't know why I wasted time before that stock…I got started late."
For quite some time I used to think this statement as plain rhetoric, but now having read a book about his investment philosophy I realise how serious he was and I have no doubt in my mind that he truly believed what he said.
Investing is a complex thing, and it involves among lot other things, the risk of losing your capital. But there are many investment vehicles (like PPF) that are safe and most of us invest in them, but generally that happens after gaining some financial wisdom but losing a considerable amount of time in the process. For all of us, all we had [have to, if you are still young :-)] to do was [is] invest early and forget.
To give an idea, 1 Lac invested at a rate of 12% for 30 years will become approximately 30 lacs. If you are lucky and could earn a 20%, that would be 2.4 crores!
If you think these numbers are high, think again. Historically, Sensex has returned more than 18% to date.
Here is a sheet that shows the results of compounding a sum of money at a certain rate for certain years. Have a look and you will realize that over a long period, how money transforms itself. The sheet contains three tabs:
1. SIP - calculations for a systematic investment plan (for fixed rate of interest)
2. Summary Amounts - compounded amounts for a principal, rate of interest, duration.
3. Summary of growth - growth of money as a factor of the principal amount.
The intensity of Buffett's love for compounding can only be matched by his hate for taxes. He considers tax to be one of the biggest holes in your pocket. Not surprisingly, he tries every trick in the book to save tax. There was a news story about him paying less tax than his secretary (in terms of %). He was taxed at 17% while his secretary paid @ 30%. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
He considers the money lost in tax to be a double loss because not only you lose some of your earnings, you lose the amount you could have made using it. If a company is doing well, he would prefer the company to not pay a dividend and keep growing.
Before I close this post, here is a 'nifty' tip for your compound interest calculations.
The Rule 0f 72:
The number of years you need to double your money = 72/ (rate of interest in %). For mathematically inclined, here is how/why it works. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/rule72_why.htm
Link to the excel sheet for compound interest and SIP calculations
I have often mistaken these two terms and so have others. I find people quite often use one when they actually meant the other. For those, who use the terms correctly, this post doesn't have anything for you.
I used to think hierarchy is a bad thing and promotes bureaucracy. So much so that I started assuming one implies the other. My current stand on these two terms is a little different.
I feel, hierarchy inherently is a good thing and it doesn't necessarily promote bureaucracy. Bureaucracy isn't a bad thing either but it does become bad when it is out of place. It might make sense to have bureaucracy in a non-creational environment. Places where maintaining a system or a business process is the objective, it perhaps is a good idea. Transport it to a creational environment and you suck the life out of the team. A lifeless team cannot create much.
Coming back to hierarchy, the reason I find it better than a flat structure is because it helps you define your constants. If someone is at a level, you can make certain assumptions about her. An example would be, if you have developers ranging from 1 year in industry to 20, all marked as developers, there is hardly a parity when you have to address (it can mean various things here, work allocation, training requirement, staffing for a project...) a group of 'developers'. (Here I don't intend to mean that years define expertise, but in a normally distributed environment, more experienced people have a better chance of performing and knowing more than saplings. In case new folks are smart they will jump the levels faster). You never know what can be assumed for a developer. But, if we have levels, there will be a benchmark understanding based on a person's level.
In an organizations that boasts of having a flat structure, it isn't impossible to find a developer who doesn't know what version control is and another one who would have written a version control software. Both will be tagged developers though. It is equally likely to have an organization with many levels and still no communication barrier despite the number of levels.
If I see an organization that boasts of a flat hierarchy, I am going to be, if not highly suspicious, very cautious about it. At the end, it's all about people making the group to define their environment no matter how you structure it.
To summarize, I would say clogging, so far has been like exercising to me. Here is how
Here is the conductor’s take:
Conclusion: These guys were in right seats on a wrong bus to right destination.
However, it sounded too much of a coincidence to happen in real life. It all seemed like a money minting trick to them. They could not digest most of the details. D wasn’t even convinced if 777 was a real bus number. “When did RTO start rolling out three digit numbers for vehicles?”
Since, it seemed like money minting trick, being IT guys (who are blamed for inflating the prices of everything from real estate to baby food), they were quick to offer him extra money over the amount already paid for the tickets. The driver was a man of principle and wouldn’t take them even though the seats were there. It was literally a difficult spot to be in.
Next moment, they were calling their agent in Goa, who booked the ticket. He confirmed all the details that conductor mentioned and they realized that they indeed were on board a wrong bus.
But, that realization wasn’t enough and they started shifting some blame on the agent for getting them in the mess. (Blame shifting is another popular corporate trait and they had been around enough in the industry to have learnt it). A was at his rudest best, mafia style when he spoke to the agent. He was firing away choicest abuses to him on S's mobile on roaming. Tired of all this, they (A and the bus ticket agent) reached an agreement. The correct bus was lagging, so the current bus will drop them at a stop and the correct will take them from there. They were promised a representative at the said stop and A stuck on to him like a leech till they boarded the right bus.
The Cop
At this point, they were all too tired to handle any more excitement. (Even I am tired of writing this post now) As soon as they finished saying, "no more troubles", the bus came to a halt. Two policemen walked in. A got just too excited because he knew that they came searching for booze. Taking booze out of Goa is tantamount to smuggling. The police usually wouldn’t check buses, but they had to do it this time. Police had two options to start; the front seats, (1 and 2; K and S) or, the other side, taken by other passengers. In general, the first part of the search is quite extensive because of all the energy. A was audibly asking K if he was carrying anything questionable and K was pissed off to no end, so were others (a little less though). A continued doing so for quite some time at which point he was severely admonished to keep quiet.
Lucky they were, the search (and it was really extensive) started on the other side and had lost all its steam while they reached seat # 1 and 2 in the end. The plastic bottles didn’t respond at all to cop’s casual slap. The event passed without any fatal repercussion and the night was over without any more issues.
The mobile
The first thing in the morning, D realized his mobile was missing and was quick to admit that it was meant to happen. How could they have a peaceful day! They called his number and miraculously found his mobile ensconced safely in the luggage stand. That was the last shit that happened because the trip got over right after it.
Looking Back
The funny part of tragedies is, while they are happening, people wish them to not happen. However, if they pass without any permanent or fatal damage, they become memories. This trip would surely go down in the memories of those four guys throughout their life. No matter where they are now, I am sure once reminded of it, they will miss it.