Billion Dollar Whale shines because of the authors' ability to narrate a story. And, therein might lie some rubs too.
BDW is almost a movie script. TheBillion Dollar Whale shines because of the authors' ability to narrate a story. And, therein might lie some rubs too.
BDW is almost a movie script. The book is exceptionally well-written. Its focus on the main topic is exemplary. The authors do not digress to loosely-associated other stories, which are a feature of real-life. The focus is on Jho Low and some of the powerful people close to him. The discussion is almost completely about their crimes, interactions and high-lives. The presentation is chronological, the way it would suit a movie. Almost anything boring has been painstakingly weeded out.
The authors have to be commended for making the complex financial transactions fully understandable. The schemes used to defraud 1MDB must have been intricate. Yet, the book makes the whole transfers so simple that one wonders throughout how it did not blow up long before.
There are almost no qualifiers in the book. It presents everything as events that happened. The certainty with which the book is written would mean that there should not be any trial required for the men charged as there is no room for any counterarguments. Yet, the book - while laying out events over the years in great details - offers no proofs. The research work done by the authors to unfurl the scheme must have been tremendous, but it is quite likely that many episodes described here are exaggerated if not outright erroneous.
But, the book succeeds in driving home one point from the first word to the last: how can this happen in front of everyone in this age and time and at this scale?...more
This course is intended for high school or graduate school students, which this reviewer is not. For young, novice writers, the book is littered with This course is intended for high school or graduate school students, which this reviewer is not. For young, novice writers, the book is littered with many useful tips with relevant examples. The professor is engaging and with a sense of humour. Her delivery is perfect, and more importantly, the language used through the course itself is exemplary.
Yet, for experienced writers, there is a lot of extremely elementary mixed with occasional pearls. At times, the pedagogy turns grating when the Professor vexes eloquent on common-sensical factors needed for good analysis. ...more
Let's say I write a book. I claim that entire history is all about "tools" (or "beliefs" or "egos" etc). Suppose I take this enormously broad term andLet's say I write a book. I claim that entire history is all about "tools" (or "beliefs" or "egos" etc). Suppose I take this enormously broad term and at most break into two or some more categories - the tower equivalent could be "tools used to dominate" (other human beings or elements) and the square equivalent could be "tools used to cooperate". I pick a few dozens of random events from thousands of years of human history - let's say from the time of Hamurabi through to the rise of three monotheistic religions, episodes from Chinese and Indian histories before the Renaissance and the wars and the technology boom but also including some truly random ones like the Cambridge Five, the Pound ERM attack etc. I use wiki-length discussions of episodes I choose to suit my definition of "tools" and roles played by them. Imagine this book where I do all this to claim that history is all about "tools" from rocks to guns to pens or computers.
Mr Fergusson, one of the best historians of our time, has done something similar in this book to justify the effect of a massively loose term "network" (and "hierarchy") on history. The historic episodes sketched are handpicked and treated staggeringly perfunctorily. The network effects were never explained in details but almost always declared. Since almost all historical events involve more than one human being, and with some at least cooperating, the author's use of network encompassed almost all interrelations and interactions that are not completely adversarial. The ridiculous "tool" example above could easily be used as the history-shaping object in the same manner in which the author uses "networks"....more
Michael Lewis explores the Trump transition, an important but less discussed topic, in his inimitable style, brings forth some great narratives but miMichael Lewis explores the Trump transition, an important but less discussed topic, in his inimitable style, brings forth some great narratives but misses in taking the right lessons, likely because they would have contradicted his long-held beliefs.
Before I discuss the contradictions and the reasons behind my rating, some words on the content. A lot of content of this short audiobook is available through the author's own articles in recent days in newspapers as well as the free audiobook "The Coming Storm". Only a third of the audiobook is new for those like me who have gone through the free stuff. For those completely new to the subject matter, the individual sections are fascinating, although short and somewhat disjointed.
Mr Lewis is a long time believer of more control and regulatory oversight. He would want good people involved in policymaking to rein in the profit-seeking capitalists who often do a lot of harm through their excesses. The author again narrates the deeds of well-intentioned, highly talented, hardworking and selfless public servants whose efforts help thousands at near zero cost. This is shown in a stark contrast to the works of certain villainous profiteers who not only have undeserving wealth in the author's stories but also are fraudulent, stealing from the public domain and without much to offer to the society.
Far too often, Mr Lewis' public servants appear same as Ayn Rand's capitalists in her stories. Ms Rand justified capitalism (processes, mechanism etc) through the deeds of heroes who were just too perfect. Ms Rand could never understand that without the perfect beings, the laissez-faire recommended by her would only result in misery for millions. Mr Lewis tends to make similar mistakes while arguing for more policy vigilance in many of his recent works, although in more engaging and far less extreme ways compared to many other fanatic promoters of various "ism"s.
Not in this book though. In Trump and his cohorts, Mr Lewis talks about the deeply flawed, new regulatory masters who can inflict immense harm with their lack of preparedness and short-termism. Yet, Mr Lewis seems to yearn for the emergence of perfect public officials and bureaucrats to somehow cure all social evils. He expects all the society to facilitate this somehow while kicking out those not perfect.
The reality is that if too much power is concentrated with the government, there will always be risks of wrong people coming to power and inflicting enormous harm simply through the power vested in them. A lot of economic and real-life problems are better solved by leaving them to the market forces. If some weather companies are making money without adding value or some traders are benefiting from algorithms too quick, the solution is often not in widening the regulatory remit.
The author is right elsewhere: there are many issues that no one but public sector could address. They are in ensuring the support for the weak (of many kinds), reducing the externalities of the private sector activities, or focussing on those long-term critical projects that do not have any short-term benefits.
This audiobook could have been different if the author had taken the opportunity to discuss the implications of wrong policymakers....more
In this almost podcast length lecture, Michael Lewis raises an important issue for now and from hereon for a long time, but beyond the provocative, onIn this almost podcast length lecture, Michael Lewis raises an important issue for now and from hereon for a long time, but beyond the provocative, one-sided, extremely short discussion, the author provides neither solutions nor even the key discussion points.
Let's take an extreme case: a government builds a road. Using the free or near-free travel on the road, an entrepreneur builds a factory some distance away, that produces life-saving contraptions largely made from the thin air, that the person then sells only at a high price and becomes a millionaire, is this fair?
Data without analysis has little value. And, one cannot analyze without data. We have entered an era where a lot of data in the public domain has a tremendous potential use for the society once manipulated rightly. As always, the issues of whether the public domain data is being sold to private profiteers at the right enough prices or not is worth discussing, but the answers likely lie in allowing the market forces to develop further rather than calling for the end results of whatever analysis to be made available nearly free. A market-based pricing could lead to an ever-improving analysis materializing quickly. And, if something has critical, society-wide needs, a government could find ways to subsidize, develop itself etc without hurting the market-based process or stifling any innovation.
Perhaps the good author's suggestions have more merit. However, the short book provides no explanations. In the end, the book could end up making many angry at whatever that might be in existence, but to a destructive rather than a constructive end....more
Fear is lucid in portraying what goes on in Trump's White House. The author exposes many details which are fascinating. That said, the book contains nFear is lucid in portraying what goes on in Trump's White House. The author exposes many details which are fascinating. That said, the book contains nearly nothing that would convert almost any of the President's admirers into haters, or vice versa.
Given the information available in popular media, almost anyone can imagine the way the West Wing works under the erratic and firebrand President. The book confirms - through interactions, conversations and confrontations, many of them are likely created by the author based on some facts - almost all these scenarios. There are some details that could be novel to some, but overall the book disappoints by not providing anything earthshattering. The coterie around has some sensible folks who are trying to rein in the President, and that's a comfortable thing to learn. It also has a handful with dangerous agendas, which is not new but still distressing. Donald Trump's own quirks on display are the same as what one has been used to in myriads of ways....more
The central idea of Identity is sound, but not pathbreaking. Through many all-time philosophers’ ideas, quick historic examples from all parts of the The central idea of Identity is sound, but not pathbreaking. Through many all-time philosophers’ ideas, quick historic examples from all parts of the world and neat theoretical frameworks, Dr Fukuyama’s short book makes many interesting points. But, the climax is a cop out. The author ends with a shoutout for certain types of actions from nameless people in line with his personal views of what is right and what is not (which are not dissimilar to mine), but it has almost little connection with what comes before in the book.
The disjoint at the end comes at the cost of far better arguments, if not far important and unusual conclusions.
Let me try and explain Dr Fukuyama’s framework in a different and simplistic language to see what radical discussions were possible, even if they are deeply uncomfortable. Of course, my “general theory” is not what the author says but derived based on my understanding of his erudite writing. My language below is amateurish, for immediate impact, and my explanations are too short and too simplistic. But they will help provide a flavour of what was missed and why I decided to rate the book a star lower than where it could have been because of the way it ended.
Based on various things said in the book, the following are some of the things that could be said about “us”:
* “We humans have a tendency to make a race out of everything”: In domains small or large, we, through our competitive streaks, make a race out of something or the other. It could be about who has the most money, or most power, or in some type of religious societies even who is most spiritual or who has most spouses. Very few of us can stay away from these rat races in our surround and not get emotionally affected by them. In fact, most of us are emotionally a part (reflected through our life goals, feelings, actions etc) of multiple of them at any stage in our life. * “All humans are born unequal”: In any of these types of contests, everyone has different chances of scoring high based on biological, personal, cultural, environmental, and chance factors. If there ever exists a race where there is no winner or loser possible, we will disregard it and create a contest out of something else. * “We hate being behind”: Through two big terms sprinkled through the book, Dr Fukuyama implies that ideally we all like to dominate others by being at or near the top in these contests if we can. But, if we can not make there, at least in some critical “races”, our pride, ego, dignity, self-worth is attacked for being behind even if we might be better off in many other ways (in most cases, those who are behind in the critical contests could be sliding in absolute terms as well and not just relatively although it is the relative that ends up counting more eventually). Our personal identity feels violated by feeling like a loser in most important of the life races. And psychologically, this makes us look for something better. * “When behind, we like to gang-up with others similar to us”: Once we feel hurt, some of us will find a way to bond with others in the same boat, but these group formations are rarely all-encompassing. The groups of dissatisfied could be based on other outwardly factors like race, religion, gender, proximity or almost anything else common, often as a result of certain ambitious individuals who take advantage of the underlying angst as the base and other common factors as the glue for the group to come together as one. * “As a group, we might turn against the guys in front but often against the other losers”: When groups become large and begin to act to effect some change so that its members could improve their contest positions, they might rebel against the winners by taking away something from them, but not always. Perhaps more often, the groups begin going after those who are not a part of the group (immigrants or people of different race/religion are two examples) even if they are further behind in the contest. Implicitly, the groups believe that their members’ lives could improve simply with the elimination of the out-groups which might make more opportunities available to those in the group. * “Even if one system changes for another, soon there will be another race”: This is the point where Dr Fukuyama balks. If every political system eventually creates some inequality, which leads to slowly rising resentments, personal dignity loss felt by many and group identities, with the risk of the change in the system at some point, there will come a point where the system will be replaced with another system. There is no system that will survive forever including liberalism or capitalism if some risks of a change exist all the time. Some may last longer like monarchies or colonialism and some have extremely short spans, like communism, but if the author means what I understood, inequalities are inherent in whatever we create. No matter how much attention we pay to eliminate some of these inequalities in well-intentioned systems, a large number of people will find reasons to feel hurt about something or the other in best of systems over time.
With the fast information flow and ability for groups to form and reform quickly, one can argue that nationalism, liberalism, and all the other existing isms as well as their foreseeable followers are bound to come under repeated attacks by unhappy groups at every point. Not only that no system can be perfect for all with inequalities of some type inevitable in every system, but even if some systems are better than others for most humans in absolute terms, there is nothing that says that the better will remain forever. In fact, the better systems in absolute terms (compared to other like capitalism versus fascism or communism perhaps) may have even worse inequalities within.
To say it differently, there is no end of human history, until as beings we annihilate ourselves or are taken over by another more intelligent. Until human societies exist, we will keep bumbling from one system to another in our quest to find something that is better than today’s. This ever-changing history means some end for everything we hold dear today. And, the next systems - which does not have to be worse, as it does not have to be better - will make some of us in love with the current deeply uncomfortable.
Of course, such conclusions are disheartening. And, perhaps there are ways out. But, the disappointment for me is that the book completely ignored the logical fallouts of what it was saying at the most critical point. ...more
The Looming Tower, written in "real time" when Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were still existent, is an incomplete history. Many of the book's stories - almoThe Looming Tower, written in "real time" when Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were still existent, is an incomplete history. Many of the book's stories - almost pioneering at the time when written - have been improved in numerous articles or even books written ever since. The Amazon version has given an excellent screen version of a part of the book.
Yet, this is a classic because of the history of the key Al-Qaeda members, the political events and rationales that led to its accidental formation (particularly those that happened two to four decades before 9/11), the continuously changing equations between these members and of course some of the CIA/FBI blunders. The book is far more balanced and true to the real life on the last part compared to the TV version which has perhaps distorted the reality somewhat excessively.
The book will remain a definitive, well-written discourse on what led to the WTC disaster. The rest has been and will be in written and other forms. Those who are exposed to the Amazon version of the Looming Tower before reading the book, like this reviewer, the book will prove to be a massive revelation....more
21 lessons is different from Harari's previous works. He is less of an expert historian here, and more of just another commentator. He decides to prov21 lessons is different from Harari's previous works. He is less of an expert historian here, and more of just another commentator. He decides to provide views on the burning topics of the day. This is a dangerous thing for any scholar of any field. "Commenting" has been made into a specialized profession by its loudest and most extreme practitioners in popular media. I was sceptical whether otherwise brilliant Mr Harari would be able to say much new or even take any strong positions while expounding on topics that few intellectuals of other fields like to tread on publicly.
Mr Harari does not mince words. He has his strong views, backed by evidence and arguments from his fields. That said, some of the arguments are novel and great but more are not. This reviewer found the sections on challenges facing liberalism well-argued, those on where AI could be better (even if mostly a repeat from the author's previous books), the ones on nationalism/religions unoriginal while those on meditation nothing but a personal experience.
To a degree, this is just another bank with "views" that is likely to convert extremely few from their established positions. While there is little to learn, the author's punchy writing style, anecdotes and interesting chunks of information/examples/analogies make it an easy read. ...more
This reviewer is too close to the subject matter to provide a review applicable to most other readers. These are my impressions from my viewpoint.
For This reviewer is too close to the subject matter to provide a review applicable to most other readers. These are my impressions from my viewpoint.
For the most part, the book provides a lucid, well-written account of "stories" of India's rich and powerful. Like in most societies since time immemorial, India's elite has substantial control of the nation's affairs. The author argues that the disproportionality is far more than normal or beneficial, which is fair. The tales also suggest the unusual and often super-legal/illegal ways of this control - which is also correct. India is quite unique in the way it works, like perhaps every major society when observed from close. The book provides a fascinating and fast-moving, story-book like narrative of the "Raj". This could work for anyone who is not familiar as well as even those who are well aware of almost all events and personalities.
The author's journalistic background, and writing style, are also quite helpful. One may debate many of the impressions smattered across the book, but none of the criticisms of any individuals or the system are extreme, new or hurtful. There is malice towards all, and the bias is to expose the underbelly of the system without discussion of any of the nation's positives - a brave attitude in a society that normally does not take criticisms well, particularly from a foreign writer.
To me, the negatives are elsewhere: the book amounts to a discussion of the symptoms rather than either the root causes or consequences. This reviewer, because of his background, can perhaps write a book on why we are where we are and what type of future it entails (which is more cyclical and not necessarily serially disruptive). In a way, the book is for an audience more interested in the salacious details of some of the stories (and the stories keep on coming with each one more interesting than the other) rather than any philosophical discussion of why which is bound to turn more contentious in a country like India. The approach likely makes the book more readable, but with a short shelf-life and of even less utility....more
Why Nations Fail fails because of rampant over-generalising and model-fitting.
What the book propounds - inclusive and non-extractive institutions as wWhy Nations Fail fails because of rampant over-generalising and model-fitting.
What the book propounds - inclusive and non-extractive institutions as well as pluralistic politics - is morally and ethically right. They are also “theories” that are likely to work well within a populist book, with most its readers applauding such frameworks of successful nations’ key drivers. One may even argue that logically politics and institutions that are inclusive, pluralistic and non-extracting, should be the pillars of any society that is clamouring to be cheered as successful, however defined (or deemed a failure definitionally, if such qualities are not present). But to say that these factors, or their absence, were the causes of nations that have failed since “neolithic times” is grossly negligent for anyone claiming to be doing a serious academic work.
In its quick reading of histories of over fifty “countries” or “nations” spanning millennia, the book has played fast and loose with history to conclude what it wanted to. Forget about the fact that nation-states are a mere twentieth-century phenomenon, and many of the “successes” and “failures” before were of ruling classes, empires rather than civilisations, the book’s problem starts when it begins to classify various “nations” as successful and failures whimsically.
The British are called a success - clearly, this sounds plausible. Yet, the book deems Hapsburg as a failure even though the British empire (notwithstanding the survival of the royal family) failed the same way as the Hapsburg. And, many of the Hapsburg controlled regions - like Vienna - has been no less wealthy than say London most of the times in the last few centuries. The book deems the Mayans, the Ottomans, the Romans, the Romanovs and others that lasted centuries as failures without pausing for a moment why they lasted so long and whether they were not “successful” enough for long whiles at various points in their life cycles.
Take what the book hails as the successful ones: one can easily argue that the role played by Britain’s non-inclusive and extractive colonial policies in its success were larger and more meaningful than domestic, inclusive policies/politics that the authors hail. After all, there is ample evidence that the Spaniards and other colonial masters were staggeringly successful for as long as they could retain their hold over the colonies.
The authors forecast that China is not "successful" so far and will fail eventually as its institutions are extractive. It is unclear how China’s institutions now are any less inclusive than best practices anywhere some hundred years ago. Botswana, which has nearly the same per capita income as China with nearly a thousandth population, is deemed successful because it seems to have inclusive and non-extractive institutions. I am sure there are many in the world who would dispute so many claims on both nations.
Subjective impressions are used not only to brandish some as successful and others as not, but also in whether certain “nations” - often as they stand now versus what their political realities were at various times - had inclusive politics/institutions or not. For example, the categorisations of South Korea and Japan on both success/failure axis as well as the inclusive/exclusive one defy all logic. On extremely flimsy arguments, post-Meiji Japan is deemed as inclusive, while its economy or nation is called successful all through the last 150 or so years: there is almost wilful apathy to the state that Japan was both pre-war (II) and up until the eighties. South Korea is also cheered with an even briefer review of the pre-1990s’ policies that were perhaps no more inclusive from China’s then, let alone now. On the other hand, Singapore is ignored, like India and most of South Asia which would have proved even more difficult to fit the model, that is almost shown as fail-proof except in the brief section towards the end.
The explanations behind the supposed failures of Colombia, Peru - particularly explanations that call its politics or institutions as not the right kind to fit the model - are as jarring as those that go on to commend Brazil’s Lula-led events. To emphasise, even when one does not have anything to dispute the calling of some as successful or failed, or the basic rationale given behind such an outcome, there is still a lot that is disputable in the quick ways in which arguments are used to fit the model.
The book makes some good points around how small differences compound over time through virtuous/vicious cycles to result in vastly different outcomes over centuries. The authors’ do not take them far enough though: the roles played by a band of individuals - both positively and negatively - in the saga of every society’s evolution.
In other words, how do some societies create institutions that benefit the long-term happiness of its inhabitants and/or survival of their ruling classes while others do not, is often a function of few individuals’ decisions, innovations or ambitions. Institutions do not suddenly spring up as inclusive. Most societies have undergone upheavals of different kinds regularly over centuries. They lead to empire/establishment falls either through rebellions, revolutions by the oppressed or victories by someone not from the same ruling clan. Yet few of these upheavals eventually result in outcomes that made a majority happier lastingly. At various times, most societies know what to bring down, and achieve this serendipitously or proactively in a relatively easy manner. For most such societies, what is most difficult is to create the right framework after destroying the wrong one. Inclusive institutions, wherever they have come up, are often due to the efforts of a few men at the right place and time, rather than by great design.
Overall, the book has too many problems to count even while it makes some palatable broad points about what a good society should have....more
This is a good course summarising many helpful and practical methods that would aid one's thinking process. While the book itself is unlikely to changThis is a good course summarising many helpful and practical methods that would aid one's thinking process. While the book itself is unlikely to change anyone's life methods in one go forever, but reading books on "creativity" topics or listening to such a course every once in a while provides a good recurring cue to those committed to innovative thinking. There is nothing radical or novel in this course, and the course's utility lies in its uncomplicated simplicity.
This reviewer has a problem in the extremely broad definition of "creativity" employed to include almost every one and every thought/execution process that is not completely routine. As a result, the book never makes an effort to ferment completely extraordinary ideation/creation (regardless of whether this is successful or not) except in stating that if you think/implement "creatively" aka somewhat different often enough and with persistence, some of your output will be truly extraordinary. This is certainly true for most, but sobering to think that there is not much that can aid persistence. That said, there are many good examples and discussions that make the course a worthwhile exercise....more
Mr Varoufakis' autobiography as a policymaker is a must read despite flaws.
This is perhaps the best book to narrate how inadequate and shortsighted poMr Varoufakis' autobiography as a policymaker is a must read despite flaws.
This is perhaps the best book to narrate how inadequate and shortsighted powerbrokers who decide the fate of tens of millions are. Their behind the scenes negotiations are as uncertain in the way they go about as their subsequent decisions appear in their decisiveness. And if the author's views are believed, the decisions are often based on factors that are anything but salubrious. The long-term future of Euro is particularly bleak as one such crisis someday in future will unravel forces that will not be contained as they have been so far.
The biography is particularly engaging because of the way it is written. The ex Finance Minister is not only thoroughly knowledgable and passionate but has a way with words. He makes most intricate default details understandable and is even better describing his emotions. As a result, here is a page turner on a real life tragedy, full of twists and drama with its own hero and a bunch of villains!
That said, the book is a saga from one single Vantage Point (remember that 2008 movie?!). The author's passionate case for a debt restructuring for humanitarian, political and economic purposes is not as valid as he makes it out to be. Counterfactuals are impossible to prove, but had his conditions were implemented, it was quite possible that Euro would have cracked three years ago with many others asking for similar forgiveness/concessions and even Germany for political purposes giving up after a while if not many others. This could have led to immediate more misery all across Europe including Greece despite one round of concessions. The author spares no thoughts for potential secondary impacts of his suggestions in the near-term, let alone the moral hazards and other issues in the long-term. Eurozone's problems are definitely solved and are perhaps without permanent solutions, but the author's path was not the unequivocal best case for all involved that he makes it out to be.
That shortcoming aside, this is definitely a must read....more
The key questions while analyzing Nietzsche should be whose Nietzsche and which Nietzsche! And these were the questions never asked, let alone be addrThe key questions while analyzing Nietzsche should be whose Nietzsche and which Nietzsche! And these were the questions never asked, let alone be addressed, anywhere in the lecture series.
As the respected professors well argue, Nietzsche is substantially misunderstood. And likely not by some, but by all. This is because his writings rarely made clear what he stood for, even though he could easily point out what he did not, which was effectively everything. Nietzsche disliked a lot in religions and the way they arbitrarily shaped people's lives/psychologies/mentality, but he could not stand atheists or rationalists too. Nietzsche found many faults in Kantian absolutism but he was not a relativist liberal himself. He was against theories that considered existence as something seeking maximization of utility/pleasure, or with evolutionary purposes, even though his own concepts of passion, will to power or superman were extremely loosely defined and some sort of variants of the other, far clearly defined utilitarian and evolutionary theories.
Nietzsche's voluminous and parabolic (as well as self-contradicting - below) writings allowed different types of people to conjure up their own philosopher. Perhaps, the real-life Nietzsche at some point in his life is exactly what the professors here paint painstakingly. And perhaps not. Going by Nietzsche's own philosophy, there is not much point trying to assert who the real Nietzsche was as it is not only indeterminable but also unimportant. The Nietzsches of people's perceptions are real and hence, more important - for the varying ideas they represent and events that follow.
At some point, Nietzsche loved Robert Wagner. And then he could not stand him. The same is true for his views on Schopenhauer. These are just two examples. Nietzsche's views were not static or consistent through his life. Like all of us, Nietzsche kept on evolving as he aged with material changes in his philosophical leanings and thoughts as well. Some of his views must have been largely unchanged (likely those linked to religions' undesirable tendencies to focus on a life beyond) but what the philosopher's writings meant while discussing reason, passions, superman etc were perhaps not only different at different times but likely contradictory.
The lectures miss all the points discussed above. The professors present their Nietzsche, spending a lot of energy squashing Nietzsche as seen by many of his other types of fans while completely missing a> the reasons behind such varying interpretations; b> genuine critique of his work, including his own evolution; c> effects his thoughts have had on the subsequent philosophers/leaders. The lectures provide some good summary of key concepts discussed by Nietzche but not much more....more
This is a poorly written book that provides a unique perspective on a great historic subject.
Bolshevik revolution was doomed from the start because ofThis is a poorly written book that provides a unique perspective on a great historic subject.
Bolshevik revolution was doomed from the start because of its demands for total submission from the followers and foundation of inherent suspicion of everyone, including its most ardent followers. The author travels from the pre-revolution decades through to the War, the pair of revolutions of 1917 that led to the fall of the Tsar and the arrival of the Bolsheviks with all their cruelties, the Civil War, the death of Lenin and fall of Trotsky along with the rise of Stalin all leading to Moscow Trials and the Great Purge. Eventually, the revolution devoured almost all of its pioneering revolutionaries and initial generation followers, many of whom resided in the House of Government.
The book's brooding style is unlikely to appeal to most readers. The author is not a historian. He has his own strong views on all aspects that from his vantage-point underpinned the events or defined the personalities of the era. The tales are carefully selected and duly narrated to fully back these views with little room for any counterpoints. The author's all too frequent digressions into subjects barely connected to the main events provide rich details at times (say by describing the curtains, or food or social gatherings in the building to vivify the way everyone lived) or make highly controversial claims on tenuous grounds (like leaning on biblical arguments to point to the misguided millenarianism of communism). Overall, these digressions - often extremely lengthy - never allow the readers to completely immerse in the main subject matter. The author also fails in sufficiently developing any personality, and as a result, most readers are likely to feel little pain at individual tragedies even while feeling horrified at the scale.
There are certainly far better books on Stalin's reign of terror. This one will find a place in the best on the subject for its unique POV. The author's strong conviction of communism being another millenarian faith is unlikely to find too many echoes though....more
Enlightenment is a book in two parts. One, which is nearly the first 90% of the book, is the less interesting, less important, but the most impactful Enlightenment is a book in two parts. One, which is nearly the first 90% of the book, is the less interesting, less important, but the most impactful is the one that had to be written, while the other - the last 10% on Humanism - is the one that has to be read! The two have tenuous connections, despite the author’s best efforts. Overall, the book contains much that is obvious and some unbearably blue-sky, but for its balanced tone, nuggets of information all through, the section on humanism in the end and most importantly, the sheer positivity, it is a worthwhile read.
The author starts with an important point: our daily news is all about whatever that does not work. The din of such reports feeds a widespread paranoia of humanity heading towards one or the other disaster. The book lists dozens of all-important aspects of life quality where there is nothing but relentless improvement in the last few decades or centuries. Data of all kind is blasted at the reader to brush aside any possibilities of counterarguments. In the process, points mentioned are more often than not extremely obvious, although the author does take a strong positive stand on certain controversial aspects too. These sections also include some good theories and arguments, albeit in the author’s consistent, factual style rather than many other popular book writers. For example, Nasim Taleb would make tall claims about the concept of “ergodicity”, something he feels he has invented, to refute that income inequality is a rising problem. Mr Pinker, pronounced as someone Mr Taleb cannot stand, would arrive at the same conclusions on inequality not being a problem with four powerful points but none with any fancy titles. One of the four, which is apparently used by many academics for decades, is ergodicity in all but name.
While the author is reasonably balanced most of the times while countering the dissenting theories, he allows himself to be blindsided by his pre-decided favourable opinions about the progress as well. For example, the author makes valid points on how past doomsday forecasts of “peak stuff” have never been proven true. Yet, he is far too rational to really take that as any evidence of somehow this will never happen in future as well. For someone who knows that progress is not preordained, it should not be difficult to appreciate the value of fears. More often than not, we have conquered many diseases, disasters, wars and other societal issues simply by imagining their nightmare unfolding, leading to few from somewhere in the system arriving at the best solutions. As the author said, it is the higher vigilance - in response to the fears of terrorism-related events or crimes - that has led to a sharp reduction in crime. Yes, inequality may not be as bad as some believe, or pollution might be curable, but none of these problems is going to be sorted if everyone decides to simply count the positives.
Despite some great data, and a chest-thumping positive assessment of humanity’s progress - topics that are making the book wildly famous - the book’s best sections are towards the end on the philosophy of humanism. Philosophers and intellectuals have historically fallen into two traps: a. Over-philosophising metaphysically while completely missing the practical or ontological parts, thus needlessly complicating even the simplest of aspects of morality or ethics and b. Focusing too much on the perceived or real, generalised or specific ills without recognising the continuous progress humans make. The author’s call for the reason to rule, science to guide, our innate humanity to drive is powerful, even if simplistic. In fact, the naivety in the author’s optimism is both the book’s biggest strength and its biggest weakness. It allows the book to take a tack that makes the book unique and feel-good. But, it also makes the author sweep far too many real issues under the carpet in the most callous fashion. One such example is the way the threat posed by faster machines is handled in less than a few statements by simply announcing that they cannot have any purpose (which is even more galling given the book’s later sections on physicality of concepts like soul, mind or conscience)
The Butterfly Effect is less a book and more a series of audio programs on a single theme. Free Porn and its effects on all sets of people are extremeThe Butterfly Effect is less a book and more a series of audio programs on a single theme. Free Porn and its effects on all sets of people are extremely important topics. The author - or the producer of the programs - must be commended for writing on the theme and doing the research they did. Many of the stories are heart-rending as well as eye-opening. The book succeeds in humanising the industry workers, porn users and refrains from passing needless value-judgments.
Yet, the series covers far less of the topic than it needed to. The way the episodes (or chapters?) are produced shows the unplanned nature of the work - a great way to start any research work, but not the best way to end it or present it. For example, the production team could have easily gone on for ten more episodes, rather than just seven in the book, and found at least equally more interesting stories and compelling additional topics. While there is a binding theme, the work lacks purpose or goals and this is mostly a fault of the way the audiobook is laid out. ...more
This is a hastily written popular book with a catchy title but only with a host of rehashed ideas and no novel lines of thoughts or conclusions.
The shThis is a hastily written popular book with a catchy title but only with a host of rehashed ideas and no novel lines of thoughts or conclusions.
The short book starts by excessively focusing on the latest developments in the space travel. For a book with such a wide scope, the initial chapters - that detail the cold war space race, NASA's history, Musk/Bezos' programs and many other technical details of where space travel is today - are wasted and a harbinger of the confusion that permeates all through the book. The author is talking about the future, and as a result, is expected to hedge any forecasts, but its the failure to define the objective that hurts the book the most.
As we know, one day, our earth, solar system, galaxy and even the universe will end. The author's future of humanity is linked to how we deal with these catastrophes. For sure, there is some discussion about AI, transhumanism, genetically modified life-spans, a potential man+machine age or even man-made disastrous spirals (pollution, nuclear), but the discussions on these subjects are perfunctory and not even newspaper article length. The author completely skips how this could shape our social, economic or political lives. In their place, he has long discussions on scientific factors that would determine various scenarios for our galaxy, sun and the earth, while relatively short, speculative conclusions on the way humanity or post-human intelligence would escape it.
While there is a lot to learn in the book for the uninitiated, most topics covered in the book have more exhaustive and purposeful discussions in other modern popular science books....more
The Great Game is one of those books that tells one something one does not know every page if not in every paragraph. This is likely to be true for moThe Great Game is one of those books that tells one something one does not know every page if not in every paragraph. This is likely to be true for most readers from any parts of the world including those at least from the periphery of Central Asia (like this reviewer) and farther if not even from the core.
More importantly, the knowledge of what happened in the 19th Century Anglo-Russian rivalry provides a lot of context to many major events that came thereafter including some even now. One can even say that without the awareness of this great game, one simply lacks the context of not only 19th century colonial rule in India but also any wars that involved China, Russia, Japan or Britain all the way through to the second world war.
The book excels in providing an engaging account of the profusion of events over nearly a century and involving tens of different rulers/empires. Each character is likely to be completely new to anyone unfamiliar with the subject, even if not each location or sub-culture. And the author's great success is in keeping it all understandable and interesting despite the information overload. This is partly achieved through good, and yet simple, narration and partly through the constant discussion of various events' or personalities' impacts on what happened later.
The viewpoint is unapologetically British, which is jarring oftentimes. A similar book now would certainly tap more into Russian, Chinese and Indian records to provide a far more balanced view. This is assuming that there is little about the events in recorded history of Afghanistan or any parts of Turkestan, which would be far more relevant. While who is brave or who is trecherous is defined only based on whether their actions serve the Raj or not, which may not sit well with most readers, the bigger problem with the book is the missing out on huge events in the same area because of this British focus. This was the period when Khanates ended all across Turkestan as the region was largely subsumed by Russia and the rest by China. As a result, numerous events that gave rise to the modern history of not only Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, or Xinjiang have not been given sufficient due, but the book also ends up giving extremely light touches to relevant events concerning Kashmir, Tibet or Afghanistan that have links to the geopolitics involving the largest powers of our era.
That said, there has to be an unending supply of stories and viewpoints while talking about the silk road region. What the author has covered still provides enormous good reading and a large amount of relevant knowledge. ...more
A balanced book on an important subject with a plethora of good information, innovative categorisations to explain the issues at hand and many rationaA balanced book on an important subject with a plethora of good information, innovative categorisations to explain the issues at hand and many rational discussions even if without strong conclusions. Certainly, a must-read for anyone thinking about what potentially lies ahead.
The author experiments boldly, particularly with the fictitious scenario of an all-dominating AI, to describe the issues at hand. The explanation helps set up the rest of the discussion, unlike in many other books, where AI scare-mongering is often without sufficient context. With the help of the main examples, the author is able to discuss the nuances of possible future courses in detail and without burdening the reader with technical jargons.
Just like the AI example, the Life 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 categorisation appears tacky at the start. Yet, once again, the concoction helps in shaping some excellent discussions on various evolutions and what the arrow of life is possibly pointing to now with the AI. These sections are dotted with amazing facts (for example, our DNA stores 1.6GB worth of data roughly while the brain capacity is around 100TB - to highlight the difference between life 1.0 and life 2.0 or the biomass of bacteria is about 400bn tonnes, same as plants with humans at 0.4bn while the material rearrangement by humans is approaching the same scale as planetary biomass) and concepts (e.g. substrate independence or efficiency gains possible in energy, memory or processing with AI compared to the tiny point at which we are currently).
The book is one of the rare balanced ones on the topic, which will also prove useful to most who want to understand all sides. The author is not only honest in his admission about why so much is unknowable but thorough in explaining different sides, their main points, inherent assumptions, where they could be right/wrong and contrasting against others. The equivocation in conclusions is rather refreshing as a result.
The end sections on his own research foundation and some of its high profile sponsors are certainly jarring. However, it should not take away much from the excellent discussion that is almost whole of the book....more
Loading...
