Why I'm sad at the death of Google Wave and what I believe about the future of its innovations

I remember those weeks of last year when a buzz started around Google Wave - with the Sci/Tech section of Google News filled almost each day with stories about Wave. For a few days, I kept myself from reading about it, so that I could focus on work, in the hope that I would look at Wave in detail over some weekend.

I first got to know Wave when I watched a few videos of Google's I/O developer conference. I clearly remember clapping many times as the video unveiled feature-after-feature of Wave.

I was fascinated. Some of the things I had been thinking about for a few years were the design principles of Wave - no forwarding of messages (it unnecessarily duplicates messages, wasting tons of storage space) or attachments (a single copy that's pulled-on-demand). More lovely features - comment/reply right next to the content that your comment/reply applies to (wow!), playback a conversation (think before you Wave), a context sensitive spell-checker/correcter (this is how you do spell-correction), permissions built right into the design, drag-and-drop support, real-time updates, Robots (what a bloody fantastic idea), and Gadgets (another '!' idea).

Wave was billed as the future of electronic communication - the way modern communication ought to be done. It blended the myriad of communication methods we use today, and there was no reason Wave couldn't absorb yet more of the discrete ways of contemporary communication (voice, video, etc.). Wave has potentially many applications - comments (on blogs, websites), collaborative communication, document creation, social networking (imagine Facebook's Messages or Wall features built using Wave), wikis, and so many other things we can't even imagine right now.

I saw tremendous power in Wave, and no matter how unfriendly it might have appeared initially, Wave is not a bad idea. Bloggers and so-called "tech journalists" might have invested thousands of man-hours on initially gushing about and eventually bashing Wave, what they didn't grasp (and still haven't grasped) is that Wave is a fundamentally novel idea. The current UI of Wave is just one of the possible implementations of its features and underlying design principles, and it's perfectly possible to redesign the UI while preserving Wave functionally, if the need be.

However, fact of the matter is that Google is discontinuing Wave. I personally believe that it's an impatient and a premature move by Google. A bad move. Discontinuation of Wave only months after its public rollout and only over a year after its unveiling reveals potentially dangerous impatience and a severe lack of persistence, more so for a product billed as the future of communication (with Xbox, Microsoft has demonstrated that persistence pays, and Bing has begun paying off as well).

I very strongly believe in the fundamental rightness of Wave's design principles and its many features, and I predict that these will be back soon, either from Google or from others.

Post the committal of a crime, who deserves 'justice', the victim or the victim's family?

I was outraged Monday morning when I read a news story in The Tribune which said that murder charges against three Punjabi men (and the death sentence previously awarded) had been dropped by a UAE court, as a compromise had been reached between the families of the convicts and the victim's family.

WTF, I thought!

A poor guy was killed by the three men, and just because the victim's family has agreed to accept so-called blood money from the families of the murderers (arranged by some apparently prominent Punjabi in the UAE), is the dropping of murder charges by the Sharjah court even legal, let alone morally justifiable?

I - a patriotic and proud Punjabi myself - strongly believe that they're completely unjustified.

By punishing the killers, who are we trying to give justice to? The victim, of course. It's he who lost his life. It's he who is no longer alive. And just because his family is poor and ready to accept money for their son's life, does it legally justify the dropped charges/ punishment? The court knows that the three guys committed the murder. And despite this, its dropping of charges seems to be equivalent to saying - Ok. We know you are killers, and we know that killers deserve the strictest of punishments. But so what if that guy died? We're not punishing you-the-murderers, because as long as the dead guy's family is fine with this monetary compromise you guys have reached, we're fine too! After all, if the families of victims of murder, rape, theft, etc., are able to reach a "compromise" with the convict, there really isn't any need for the court to intervene. There is no such thing as an "absolute law". This court isn't here to clean the society. It's here only to handle those situations in which the poor victim has no family. Got it?

Really, it's sick! A crime and a criminal is over and above the family. How can a court close this loop without giving justice to the victim?

UPDATE [APR'12]: This video about the murder of Indian fishermen by Italian marines echoes some of the points I've mentioned above.

Infidelity and the cable TV

The other day, I observed an 18 year old guy watching TV. He was primarily watching a Hindi movie (which he had seen N number of times previously), but that doesn't mean that he wasn't also watching other stuff as well. What that means is that as soon an uninteresting scene or an (obviously boring) song would come, in a fraction of a second he would start flipping through channels and settle at another channel which looked interesting-enough to serve him for a few minutes (till the movie got interesting again).

Every few minutes he would switch back to the Hindi movie to check if it got interesting again, and if not, he would flip channels again and temporarily settle at something worthy. After about 30 minutes of this drama, he stumbled upon a channel which was playing a Hindi movie which he liked more than the one he was watching. Without a second thought, he started watching this one, ditching the previous one. But that didn't mean that the infidelity with the movie ended. The flip-channels-whenever-sucks drama continued.

I believe that the above is a typical case with many (or most) of us. Does this practice promote infidelity (Uncyclopedia; Urban Dictionary; Wikipedia) in the real life? Does the ease with which channels can be switched decrease one's fidelity? Does the multitude of television channels available on contemporary cable services program individuals to be disloyal and opportunistic, in relationships as well? Conversely, do people who practice infidelity flip channels more often? I don't know the answer, but I feel this might be true, or there might be a connection (subtle, at least).

Translation suggestion bar in Google Chrome should add a 'Wrong suggestion!' button for feedback

So that a user can kind of indicate to the translation suggestion feature that the suggestion you've provided is invalid, because the language that you've detected in this page simply isn't present!

An example is the image below, where there's no Malay in the webpage. Instead of clicking 'Nope' (which can have many meanings, as far as feedback is concerned), I would rather click 'Wrong suggestion!' button to make the system learn, or to merely build a log of pages where the feature malfunctions.

When I used the work feedback in this post, I refer to the following classic feedback model.

Ideal feedback model (source)

Recollecting my mistake in CASTLE MathQ'2001

I jointly won the CASTLE MathQ'2001, a state-level mathematics competition held in late 2001, in which 900 candidates appeared. While I was happy that I scored the highest marks, even if jointly, I had a somewhat strong regret at that time (whose intensity, and perhaps importance, has faded with time).

I remember that on the test day, when the allotted time was just about to finish, I had reached at the last question of the question paper. I was probably at a back bench, so when the time-over alarm had sounded and the test administrator had started collecting the answer-sheets, I still had a few seconds left before my sheet was taken. I knew that I had moments left, and aggressive as I believe I generally am, it was my intent to extract even the last possible drops of marks from this competition, in order to maximize my position. I was in battle-fighting mode that day, I remember clearly.

My brain wasn't working as well at that moment as it had been working all through the test, and I concluded that in the few seconds left, I wouldn't be able to solve the last question to reach at an indisputable answer. What to do? Guesstimate? Or just leave? 1 mark for a correct answer, a negative 0.25 for an incorrect answer, and no marks for a blank.

Last page of my actual MathQ'2001 question paper

My winning certificate :)

Not sure why, but right before my answer-sheet was taken, I just marked the most-likely-looking option as the answer.

And it turned out to be incorrect. I lost an extra 0.25 mark that I wouldn't otherwise have lost. A narrow win became a joint-win. The first prize - a Vintron Biz123 desktop computer - changed into a joint prize. And I regretted this a lot (at that time at least).

In a life insurance policy, you never win!

"...In any kind of insurance you are betting against the insurance company & the insurance company is betting against you.

The insurance company wins if you don't die early.

You win if you die early - so effectively you never win..."

LOL! How true!

Source: A discussion thread on an online forum [link 2]

Russia needs new aircraft engines which are accepted by Western airlines and lessors

Based on my current knowledge about the state of civil aircraft manufacturing industry in Russia and Ukraine, I can say with reasonable confidence that engines (also known as powerplants) are one of the key barriers to acceptance of current (An-148, Il-96, Tu-204, Tu-334) and upcoming (MS-21, Superjet 100) Russian/Ukrainian civil aircraft among Western customers (Note: MS-21 uses a P&W GTF engine as its standard powerplant, with the option of Aviadvigatel PD-14 engine). Western customers just do not trust the current breed of engines made by Aviadvigatel, Progress, et al.

I hypothesize that the acceptance of Russian/Ukrainian civil aircraft will continue to be zero/near-zero among mainstream Western operators until Russia/Ukraine:

1. Either develop all-new engines that are at-par with engines from CFM/GE/IAE/P&W/Rolls-Royce/Snecma;
2. Or equip existing and upcoming aircraft with Western engines.

Of course, neither of the above steps will help alone unless Russia/Ukraine also address the (many) other technical and service/support barriers (and possibly political barriers as well) preventing large operators worldwide from betting on these aircraft.

Aviadvigatel PS-90 turbofan powerplant (source)

What qualities are desirable in aircraft engines? I can think of these:

1. Low fuel burn
2. Low emissions
3. Low noise
4. Low vibration
5. Low weight
6. Low maintenance requirements
7. Low cost of the engine
8. Low cost of spares
9. High performance (meets requirements of the host aircraft)
10. High durability/reliability
11. High resilience/safety/tolerance
12. Automatic early warning systems (in case of malfunctioning)
13. High serviciability (cheap/easy to service and repair)
14. High availability of spare components
15. High compatibility (supports many of the currently popular and promising upcoming aircraft models)
16. High modifiability/upgradability (easy to downgrade, modify, or upgrade the basic design for different aircraft types)
17. High recyclability (easy and profitable to comprehensively recycle old/written-off engines)
18. Easy manageability (fully automated/computerized engine with easy management/operation)
19. Compliant with global standards for aircraft engines
20. Supports any alternative aviation fuels being standardized for near-future implementation

New engines such as the Aviadvigatel PD-14, PowerJet SaM146, and Progress D-27 are steps in the right direction, but Russia and Ukraine need to do a lot more - including, possibly, a consolidation of major engine-makers (akin to the formation of UAC) - before their indigenous engines are considered as a threat to Western engines.

A consolidation of major Russian/Ukrainian engine-makers looks as promising as PowerJet-like collaborations with Western makers - it'll create a large pool of engineering talent, funds, infrastructure, IP/patents and other assets, and hopefully result in new powerplants that bring sleepless nights to GE, Pratt and Rolls executives...

Aeroflot should use only Russian aircraft in its fleet, and set an example for other airlines

I second Putin's disappointment (here, here, and here) at Aeroflot's fleet expansion plans that include huge orders for Airbus and Boeing airplanes, but none for any Russian/Ukrainian plane (barring the Sukhoi Superjet 100 order, which pales in comparison to the Airbus and Boeing orders).

Aeroflot has to realize (or has to be made to realize) that its role is wider than of a for-profit company in the Russian Federation. Aeroflot is the de facto national airline of Russia, and its fleet is going to be looked at by both Eastern and Western airlines. If Aeroflot doesn't rely on Russian-made aircraft, the disastrous impression that this will leave on the potential customers of Russian-made aircraft is hard to underestimate.

Aeroflot Il-96 taking-off from Salzburg, Austria (source)

I'm (cautiously) hopeful that the newest breed of UAC aircraft - An-148, Il-96, MS-21, Superjet 100, Tu-334 and other cargo/special-purpose planes can fulfill at least many of Aeroflot's requirements (and Aeroflot might want to lease a few aircraft till its Russian-made aircraft are delivered). Aeroflot should adopt these fine aircraft with open arms, maintain these well (and thus prove to the world that with proper maintenance, the latest breed of Russian/Ukrainian aircraft perform as beautifully as the stewardesses of this fine airline), and set an example for other airlines to follow.

Update (16-Jul-10): And lo, the opening sentence of this 15-Jul-10 story on Aviation Week says exactly what I'm trying to say above.

Update (18-Jul-10): Not very happy to read that Aeroflot has ordered a bunch of A330 aircraft

Update (20-Jul-10): An insightful piece from The New York Times

Parents of underage drivers deserve punishment

Whenever I see kiddies literally flying their bikes/cars/scooters as if these were Boeings, I feel that it's their parents who must be held accountable for the potential danger that these underage drivers create for themselves and others.

Yes, guardians/parents should get strict punishment - both monetary and social - for giving vehicles to teens.

Sikh turbans must pass security checks at airports

Most Indians - especially Punjabis - are well aware of the existence of a large-sized subset of the Sikh population which is extreme, fundamentalist, radicalized and separatist. The Emperor Kanishka terrorist act of 1985 was a direct result of this subset, as have been numerous other large and small incidents (also see this, this, this, this, and this). Any regulation that relaxes security-checking for the turban opens up a potential security hole, especially since the turban is frequently large-enough to accommodate a small-sized bomb/weapon (large enough to bring down a commercial airliner).

And so, in my opinion, the turban - irrespective of which religion's individual wears it - must undergo routine/stringent security checks at all airports worldwide. Strong and loud voices by Sikhs that touching the turban is an insult should not deter the airport security agencies from thoroughly searching it. Religious sentiments of some cannot be allowed to come in the way of the safety and security of the public.

I, for one, want to feel 100% safe whenever I board an aircraft, no matter how much inconvenience it causes to me or to others. We can certainly do without another Emperor Kanishka.