One interesting observation about the ad: the search results that the girl deems to be good and informative are almost all Wikipedia hits. It's actually pretty similar to my situation: Google is basically a better Wikipedia searching tool than what Wikipedia provides.
Two of my old buddies, one an Indian, the other a Pakistani, could completely understand each other, yet both insisted that they spoke different languages (Punjabi/Hindi and Urdu respectively)
Another friend of mind, who left Pakistan as a 10 year old, always just shook his head with a smile and said "Dude, that's like a guy from Alabama saying someone from England speaks a different language."
It's really true. One might think that mutual intelligibility (ability for speakers of one to make themselves fully understood by speakers of the other) would be the standard for differentiating languages from dialects, but the distinction really ends up just being political. The spoken forms of Hindi and Urdu are entirely mutually intelligible but have two separate names.
Many varieties of Arabic and Chinese are mutually unintelligible but are called "dialects" of one Arabic or Chinese language, presumably to promote a unified Arab or Chinese identity. Speakers of Moroccan Arabic and Levantine Arabic or of Mandarin and Cantonese can't understand each other any better than speakers of Spanish and Italian can, but we don't call Spanish and Italian dialects of Modern Latin!
It gets even weirder when you have a dialect continuum, like with Polish-Russian-Ukrainian. Russian is somewhat mutually intelligible with both Polish and Ukrainian, but Polish and Ukrainian are not themselves mutually intelligible! So even if politics didn't play a role in the distinction between language and dialect, it would be hard if not impossible to come up with a universal distinction.
However, us Norwegians receive a lot of influence from our neighbors and so understanding of their slight differences in language comes as a side-effect of that. A kind of younger sibling complex. May the same apply to Poland and the Ukraine?
TO be fair Hindi, even though it grew more organically was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country, rather unfairly. At the time of India's independence, there were far more Tamil and Bengali speakers (not just native) than Hindi, but the central government forced Hindi to the rest of the country which did lead to a lot of understandable backlash, primarily in the South, which is why they dare not make it the official language of the country.
That is false. Citations please?
'and Bengali speakers'
This ignores the fact that Bengali attained its status because of British who ruled India from Calcutta and enabled Bengali hegemony. No native speakers learned Bengali as second language in rest of the undivided India. Only Bengali diaspora moved to different parts of country as part of British civil services.
'Hindi... was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country'
Another propaganda. Hindi-Urdu (or Hindustani) was the most spoken and widely understood language in undivided India. Hindustani was official language of British. It might lose to Bengali IFF one divides it into Hindi and Urdu. But that division happened AFTER independence, when the spoken Hindi was standardized to a Sanskrit base, and Arabic-Persian words were mercilessly pruned-off to enable non-Hindustani speaking people to grasp it easily. The only people who got the short end of the deal were Tamil, because Tamil language has got almost (almost) nothing to do with Sanskrit.
To blame a newly formed government of an enslaved country, of 'exerting political influence' is the racist tirade Tamils latched on to, after there beloved masters left the country and didn't leave them in charge.
Disagreed, if by Hindi you mean khari boli, a language restricted to the "cow belt". You gave an explanation why Bengali was prevalent, OP's point was that Bengali was prominent. Why it was so was besides the point.
>To blame a newly formed government of an enslaved country, of 'exerting political influence'
It still does not change the fact that it was imposed. BTW I am by mo means Tamil.
Khari boli is a dialect that, after independence, turned into standardized dialect of Hindi. But it was widely understood unlike Begali. And it was in no-way restricted to cow belt, even after ignoring how big that belt really is and how much population it holds. People in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat fully understand Hindustani. Hell, Ghandi was from Gujarat and he used Khari boli.
> You gave an explanation why Bengali was prevalent, OP's point was that Bengali was prominent. Why it was so was besides the point.
OP said there were more Bengali speakers than Hindustani. I am saying that it is not true.0 I will have to check what effect inclusion of Bangaldesh might have had, but remember we are talking about national language. It ought to be understandable to large parts of nation - large parts of ethnically different groups.
Btw, if you want to step onto political land-mine, try comparing grammar and vocabulary of Bengali and Bhojpuri/Bihari. The idea of Hindi vs Bengali will take a new meaning :) Language is indeed political.
> It still does not change the fact that it was imposed.
Hindi was supposed to be encouraged over English, but it has never been imposed. You just have to get down in Chennai railway station to know that. The anti-Hindi propaganda is purely political in nature. As a matter of fact, no body in even "cow-belt" (Haryana + Delhi + UP + Bihar) + Madhya Pradesh + Gujarat  speaks standardized Hindi (though they all understand Khari boli). If you speak it in Delhi - the heart of Hindustani as it was - you will literally be laughed at.
> BTW I am by mo means Tamil.
I don't care man! :) I am not a native speaker of khari boli either.
Hindi was not particularly well-spoken nor was it always well-received by the other person. We wound up talking in English most of the time.
My wife is from the west of Ukraine, and her home language is Ukrainian. However, she is totally fluent in Russian, as to be expected from someone growing up during the Soviet era.
Both Ukrainian and Russian are written using the Cyrillic alphabet, whereas Polish uses Roman letters.
She finds Polish fairly easy to understand, from an aural point of view, but does have difficulty reading it unless she mentally sounds out words phonetically.
My understanding is that Polish and Ukrainian languages are closer to each other, than Polish and Russian, or Ukrainian and Russian. It just so happens that almost all Ukrainians can easily slip between Ukrainian and Russian, with many Russian words now found in every day Ukrainian speech, due to political events of the last one hundred years.
Today, Ukraine is almost evenly split between ethnic Ukrainians in the west and ethnic Russians in the east. Kiev is the standout melting pot. This ethnic split is one reason why Ukrainian politics find themselves so often in a mess.
Russian and Ukrainian are East Slavic languages; Polish is a West Slavic language. None of these three languages is mutually intelligible with any other, but Russian and Ukrainian are much closer to each other than other pairings. For example, Polish words generally have a fixed stress position, which makes Polish speech sound foreign and bizarre to unaccustomed Russian/Ukrainian ears. Many features of grammar and syntax are also much more similar between Russian and Ukrainian compared to Polish.
This basic picture is clouded a little by the split between east Ukrainian, which is lexically much closer to Russian, and west Ukrainian, which is farther from Russian and has very many lexical borrowings from Polish, because west Ukraine had been a part of Poland for a long time. So someone from the west of Ukraine will hear many familiar words in Polish speech, and will find it easier to understand Polish than someone from the east of Ukraine. That's sort of an icing on a cake, however; it doesn't change the basic fact that Russian is still much closer to their native language. If you could find someone from the west of Ukraine who had never been exposed to anything but their native language (and it's rare, as you mention, because almost everybody knows Russian at least to some extent), they would almost certainly find it much easier to learn Russian than Polish.
(my native language is Russian and I grew up in east Ukraine)
(and don't get me started on Belorussian)
Similarly, a lot of Russians from Russia proper who have never been exposed to Ukrainian, find spoken Ukrainian very difficult to understand.
Polish language is quite close to Ukrainian in regard of vocabulary and maybe grammar, but is quite different phonetically and does not use Cyrillic like Russian.
Still, I can't agree that Ukraine is _ethnically_ divided in halves, ethnic Russians are near 17% of the population. Language question is much more vague, I think that more than 50% of Ukrainian population use Russian on daily basis (though it's hard to say how many of them use a mixed Russian-Ukrainian dialect, surzhyk and a lot of people actively use both languages) and it's very hard to find someone who does not understand Ukrainian and Russian at the same time.
Hard to find in Ukraine, since most people (both Russian and Ukrainian native speakers) have been constantly exposed to both, very easy to find in Russia :)
Having asked the wife, so yes it's anecdotal evidence, she feels both Polish and Slovakian are closer to Ukrainian than standard Russian. She cites the example of a friend from St Petersburg who can only understand a few words of Ukrainian. Perhaps my wife's Ukrainian is somewhat dialectical, incorporating many Polish/Slovakian elements.
Maybe someone from Spain or Italy could chime in here?
Regarding the Spanish/Italian example, the father of a friend of mine was fluent in Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Using an Italian grammar guide and his knowledge of Romance vocabulary from the other three languages, he learned Italian in a single flight from the US to Italy to the point where he was able to conduct business in Italy immediately upon landing.
(I'm utterly unable to understand people from the Dutch province of Zeeland when they're speaking to their parents. That's complete gibberish to me, though it doesn't have a special status as a local language, as far as I know. (unlike Nethersaxon, for example))
The reply from former NZ Prime Minister Rob Muldoon when asked if NZ would ever become part of Australia.
As a german, I always have problems understanding other germans when they speak english, so there's always that ;).
As a Romanian I understand best Italian, then Spanish, then French and lastly Portuguese which is little odd for me.
The lexical similarity of Romanian with Italian has been estimated at 77%, followed by French at 75%, Sardinian 83%, Catalan 73%, Portuguese and Rhaeto-Romance 72%, Spanish 71%.
In modern times Romanian vocabulary has been strongly influenced by French, Italian and other languages.
More on wikipedia if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language
BTW, are you Spanish?
>BTW, are you Spanish?
Things get better in writing, but there's still no comparison to Spanish.
After all there was a longer interaction with the latter: for historical reasons words and verbal constructs in southern dialects can give insights with regard to it or French.
Similarly, although Hindi is derived from Sanskrit, over the years, due to lots of Mughal invasions, and Urdu arts, poets, a lot of Urdu words are a part of Hindi. Hence they are easily understood in either part of the border.
It's a little like Galician or Catalonian (languages without an army or navy ;) ), the other latin languages spoken in Spain (then there is Basque, but that's a completely different thing): they have palpable differences to Spanish, but in most cases both tongues can reasonably understand each other without many problems (it also helps that most Galician and Catalonian speakers also speak Spanish, of course).
Still, I find French to be lexically closer to Italian, despite the phonetical differences.
However, colloquial Hindi and Urdu are somewhat-to-very similar and are indeed intertwined which is what allows most speakers of either language to understand each other.
Give me a word and in most cases I'll be able to tell if it originates from Hindi or Urdu.
Try Serbo-Croatian. But OTOH, most Slavic languages are fairly similar.
Not to mention dialects. Being a native south Serbian speaker, I had much better understanding of Macedonian and Bulgarian than those Croato-Serbian dialects spoken in the western or south Croatia.
I guess if it weren't for that political push to make Serbian and Croatian language the one language, those language would be much more different today than they are. Not to mention that simply choosing another Serbian dialect as standard Serbian, and another Croatian dialect dialect as standard Croatian would make those two languages unintelligible. Instead, it was a political choice to choose two most similar Serbian and Croatian dialect to be official standard language, and then enforce that at schools. I know that for example in southern Croatia people were forced to use standard Croato-Serbian at schools, and people in southern Serbia were, and still are forced to use Serbo-Croatian at schools, TV and all official institution.
Yes, language is a politics, and politics frequently molds languages in the direction it chooses. Orwell was not that far away with reality.
Dialogues of bollywood films used to have a fair sprinkling of Urdu words until late nineties. Film titles too used to be shown in three languages - Hindi, Urdu and English. Now a days we don't find much of that.
I wonder if, with the growing global connectedness due to the invention of the internet, we'll see a convergence of all spoken languages over the next hundreds or thousands of years.
I'm a native Urdu (Hindi hehe) speaker and though I can understand the gist of a fast-paced Punjabi conversation, jumping in to participate is whole different matter. Even with a little bit of practice, I doubt I'd be productive.
I always start shaking my head when either Croats or Serbs tell me that they speak different languages, because frankly, I can't even tell them apart. Sometimes they find my notion of their languages' sameness offensive, which in turn I find offensively childish.
Related story: I grew up in northeastern USA. When I was young someone from Scotland came in for business. I went fishing with him and my dad. I had a hard time understanding most of what he said.
It's kinda like Ubuntu vs Kubuntu. They're both Ubuntu, but with different Desktop Environments.
India Sanskrit-ized it, Pakistan Persian-ized and Arab-ized it. Otherwise both were basically the same languages with different scripts.
I use Reddit search more when I'm doing exploratory searching hoping to land on a site I've never been before, because it serves me already vetted/reviewed sites. In this way, Google is no longer a tool for me to do search, where I'm not sure where I'll end up, it's now a tool to get me where I know I want to go (which happens to be some wikipedia page most of the times).
I know quite a few people have this turned off due to some perceived "creepy" factor, but personally I cannot recommend it enough.
In a somewhat similar way, I get a lot of good mileage out of hnsearch when investigating different technologies that I am new to.
Wikipedia for results is definitely not the norm for Google searches in India---I just spent a month there and results can be anything from JustDial directory services (for phone numbers, since many local businesses don't have websites) to local newspapers (for reviews etc).
The utility of Google in India is that it provides you the best link across different websites. This is really important because India has a growing population of new Internet users (who don't have "go to" sites like Wikipedia and Yelp), and because it still doesn't have clear winners in many verticals (e.g. real estate)
isn't that true for most sites all around ? i, fwiw, normally just use site specific searches on almost all sites...
fast string search algorithm site:stackoverflow.com 
The results are much better than SO's custom search.
And chrome would do the right thing.
stackoverflow: fast string search algorithm
Played the clip to some people in the house, they got teary eyed. Don't need a translation to get the message across which just proves it's a very well made ad.
By that extension, lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia, and Egypt was the root cause of all Islamic terrorism. Saudi's actively promote a version of Islam that promotes religious discord in muslim populations across the world. I think the US missed a huge opportunity in encouraging more democracy during Arab spring and even the Iranian uprising.
Ironic as Musharraf instigated and led the last major Pakistan/India skirmish/war, then moved on to talking peace.
I disagree with this statement. Saudi Arabia (& Egypt for that matter) can't be held directly responsible as one of the root causes of the current Islamic terror situation. Their idea to spread Islam by funding Islamic madrassas (schools that are usually near an Islamic mosque that typically teach the Quran in Classical Arabic) in places such as Afghanistan and Indonesia with their petro-dollars in the 70's up to the 90's was just a bit too idealistic. Of course, the fact that these schools (especially once Bin Laden was kicked out of Saudi Arabia and fled to Afghanistan) became ground zero for recruiting and training simple village kids into today's suicide bombers was something I doubt they could envision.
Interestingly, since the rise of the Tablighi Jamaat in the 1970s the general mood of wealthy South African Indian Muslims has become a lot more conservative. Beards and headscarves everywhere (it isn't unusual to see women with full face veils in the swankiest Johannesburg and Durban shopping malls), and even among the less religious, the mood is generally more conservative. Political participation seems to be in decline, except for Muslim-centric issues like Palestine. Since the end of apartheid, insularity has, in many ways increased. Recent Turkish immigrants provide some liberal religious influence, but they are outnumbered by conservative Paskitani immigrants. But even without these immigrants, the trend was becoming conservative.
In all, there seems to have been a worldwide shift to conservatism and insularity amongst Muslims in the past few decades. Not just in backwaters like Afghanistan. Saudi money cannot be the only explanation.
From one of the caption: "The campus of the University of Kabul has changed little since then. It’s people who have changed. In the 50s-60s, the students preferred Western style clothes, and the young people of both sexes could freely communicate with each other."
Caption from the #7 photo: "Afghan girls coming home from school. "Afghan girls, as well as boys, were educated up to the high school level, and although girls (and boys) wore uniforms, the girls were not allowed to wear a chadri (burka) on their way to secondary school. Able young women attended college, as did the men." - Peg Podlich"
I'm not sure why exactly the pendulum swung so hard to conservative side, but it's been there ever since, much the determent of the people living there.
In Afghanistan, because in the wake of the Soviet takeover, the US (and Pakistan and some others) threw lots of money into funding religious extremists to fight the Communists, which was eventually successful, at least to the extent of forcing out the Soviets and establishing something like control by the religious extremists of much of the country (though competing warlords were still a factor.)
To a certain extent, similar factors are present in the Middle East (at least to the extent of religious extremism being a product of forces that were backed by superpowers for geopolitical reasons during the Cold War.)
There are different versions of Islam just like there are different versions of most other religions (e.g. Catholic vs Orthodox Christianity).
Saudi Arabia has a majority of Wahhabi followers. The Wahhabi sect of Islam promote extreme Islam, Shariah, etc..
These Wahhabi followers terrorize fellow Muslims who follow a different sect of Islam... their goal is to purge the world of infidel Islam and to put in Wahhabi Islam which they believe is the true version.
Saudi Arabia, as I said earlier has a majority of Wahhabis. They send these Wahhabi missionaries to other Muslim countries who follow moderate Islam and their goal is to convert the inhabitants to become extremists and in turn try to convert their fellow countrymen into extremists as well.
And just to make it clear, their conversion tactics include bombings, killings, etc.. So it isn't just a knock on the door and asking if someone has 15 minutes to talk about our lord and savior Muhhamed.
Source: my country has these scumbags.
Saudi Arabia may be pumping money into the "Wahabi cause" but it doesn't explain the whole picture.
The Pakistani Army controls a huge sector of the Pakistani economy, and benefits disproportionately in the budget. The only way they can maintain so much power is to have a low-level conflict going with India.
Tomorrow, if Pakistan and India signed a peace accord, and froze the borders where they are, the Pakistani Army would be basically useless. They don't want that.
It is literally Google saying, "Oh look, cute puppies!" when faced with a global barrage of criticism about its disdain for user privacy or its own past promises.
b. Google being "always under fire" by consumers, regulators and activists is no reason to start letting it off the hook. In fact, it should be the converse.
If you believe they're releasing this specifically because they're under fire, by that criteria it's never OK for them to release a "feelgood" ad.
As I recall, Google has been releasing feelgood ads for years - has it all been to nefarious purpose? They're a large consumer company. They're advertising - which includes tugging heartstrings if it gets them more customers.
Starting with "don't be evil." Whether Google has lived up to those lofty goals in the intervening years of working with the Chinese Government, the NSA, etc., I will leave to the reader to decide.
Parisian Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU
Dear Sophie Lee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk
I also love how people throw in the "multinational" qualifier as if this makes a company that much more evil.
Furthermore, I don't see the parent use the word "evil" in his comment.
That said, when a multinational that ferrets around billions of dollars in revenue around the world through obscure countries to avoid paying significant taxes in any of the countries it operates it , suddenly attempts to portray itself as warm, fuzzy and a big proponent of India-Pakistan friendship, forgive me for taking them at a lot less than face value.
Here's the article that was submitted to HN about a recent thing:
Here's the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162
Mainly though, the scale here is way off. Apologies for the sarcastic reply before.
It would be more accurate for me to say that Google has a demonstrated willingness to allow their employees to contribute to political activism using company resources. Absolutely, it has a selfish motive, but it's a central principle of capitalism to leverage selfish motives into public goods. (No comment on the principle itself.)
You've got a beautifully produced and captivating video, which makes no secret about advertising something. People enjoy it and engage with it, but then suddenly catch themselves: "Oh no! What if this advertisement was created... for profit?"
Of course it was! So what?
To created purely to give pleasure to people is one thing, it is an act of generosity and altruism, if it is done to manipulate, then it is something very different. PR and advertising are manipulations.
The worst thing is to see something like this, allow it to emotionally effect one, then discover at the end that is is a corporate manipulation. Dunno about others, but that makes me feel used.
This is literally the entire advertising industry's purpose. If you think any single advertisement is not solely intended to trick you into equating good feelings with a particular brand, product, or person then you are very naive.
There is no such thing as advertisement that is made just "to give pleasure to people", even when it comes from Google.
Firstly, I out lined a scenario where one didn't know the piece was an advert, and later discovered it was.
Second, I never said or implied an advert was to give pleasure.
If you want to call me naive, I then have to suggest you may be illiterate, or a at best imaginative.
You got me (almost) Google. And since when did they start showing ads in India?
What would be interesting to know is if India is basically virgin territory as far as Google (marketing) ideology. In other words, is Google free to start from scratch there, without (some clearly outlined) lofty promises?
= We have too much dangerous information that will turn us into a monster, so don't blame us when that happens
Kudos to the team involved in this and thanks for posting this.
The ad made me very emotional. It's a very human story. The fact that the characters in the story happen to be from India and Pakistan are almost tangential to the point. The same story could have been told about east and west Germany before unification, and it would have been just as powerful.
Here's it again (translation of only the BG song), timed for those who are interested:
0:59 : Those narrow streets of childhood jump in joy again ...
Tying those little sweet thefts along with it ...
1:35: (Same two lines above, then ... )
Where I would fly like a kite, like a bird ...
That was the time .. when my heart felt like a free peacock ...
2:21: When I would sit immersed in those paper boats all day long,
... or 'entangle' myself with those windows peeking outside ...
Oh, what a time that was, when there were no restrictions in the heart ...
... That was the time .. when it felt like a free peacock ...
I've watched this advert a half dozen times and I end up pretty misty eyed every time.
It's a sad fact that the departure of the British Empire from various colonial possessions frequently resulted in a power vacuum followed by deep internal conflicts which remain problematic today - Ireland, Israel, and India being three obvious examples.
Let's not be overly generous.
I won't speak to Ireland or Israel, but in the case of India, the political strife was not a coincidence - it was the all-but-deliberate result of the British. They actively funded terrorist groups on conflicting sides with the express goal of dividing the region not just geographically (Partition), but ideologically and politically.
(This is, of course, not too different from the US funding terrorist groups when it is politically convenient to do so, and then invading foreign countries to overthrow the rulers brought to power by those same terrorist groups, when it becomes politically convenient to do that instead.)
Can you give me some specific examples of terrorist groups? From my readings, the British just successfully managed to divide the Hindu and Muslim populations using discriminating policies (like the pig / cow oil on guns in the 1800s), and let the divisions play out. They did support Gandhi and Jinnah, but I never came across them actively funding terrorist organizations.
Not a "sad fact". It's how the "british empire" planned it, melticulously and with great effort and cunning.
It's a result of their "divide and conquer" way of ruling, in their colonial era, and it's something they pursued afterwards in order to keep it's post colonial grip on those places. With lackeys, puppet governments et al.
Oh, and add Cyprus/Nothern Cyprus, Ethiopia/Eritrea etc to the mix.
On a meta-level it's fascinating how the vast majority of countries in the world still tend to be mono-ethnic "nation states". Even in the most westernized parts of Europe there are overarching tendencies for nations to fly apart into their component sub-ethnicities rather than to stick together based on belief in common values. Look at Britain and the ongoing discontent of Wales and Scottland, let alone Northern Ireland. Or Belgium threatening to split into two countries. Or the Basques in Spain. Or the history of Czechoslovakia, the USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.
Not really. The East Pakistan/West Pakistan war (which resulted in an independant Bangladesh) was between Muslim groups with little religious difference, but huge language, class, and cultral bigotry, with the Urdu-speaking West Pakistani-dominated millitary having a significant role.
Islam was pretty irrelevant. And my impression is that much of the harshest religious conflict in India itself owes plenty to Hindu extremists.
(From my POV the biggest problem in Pakistan is that a minority of usually millitary-backed elites remain in power, no matter how corrupt or awful they are, because they attract US support so long as they pretended to battle Communism during the Cold War, and now radical Islam. But actual Pakistanis or real experts on Pakistani politics may wish to correct me.)
Denying that there are very real problems within the Islamic world, some of which are core to the religion, is an example of naivete, ignorance, or propaganda.
There's a complex two-way interplay between the particular forms of Christianity that are common in the deep South and the deep seated history of conflict, division, etc., in the region, but to portray the problems as the result of Christianity qua Christianity is, at best, simply useless.
What strikes me most is how little the language matters. You don't even have to watch it with subtitles to see how solid the editing was. Kudos to the entire team that worked on these videos.
In fact, many kids actually go to schools where English is the primary teaching language - it's not uncommon for kids to not know how to say the days of the week in Hindi.
Not sure about Urdu's status in Pakistan though.
...And, yes, I just Googled this question and got the answer from Wikipedia.
Just a bit unlikely that Ali would be able to read 'saunf' in Devanagari, isn't it?
Well played, Google. I'll refrain from criticizing you for the next hour or so! :-)
But I am surprised they showed people searching for flight status and weather. Google Now is supposed to already know you're going to Delhi and just show you the weather there without you asking. Same for the flight status.
Just agreeing with your sentiment, might as well share the downvotes.
Sorry. No cc https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=86...
But as a whole the content of the ad is very strong and positive that it can touch million more hearts!
Not as emotional, but quite good.
For Americans getting a visa seems to be easy. Maybe not for some other countries?
Even if people want to come closer the state and politics always gets in the way.
Probably not all across India. I am from the south and neither me nor my ancestors have any personal experiences from the partition. Don't get me wrong.. this is a great ad and I understand the emotion behind it. but this is only as moving as a similar story on the Israel-Palestine border(ok maybe a little more because of my high school history books and representation in popular culture).
Culturally, South India is more seperated from the North compared with North India (Punjab, Delhi, Kashmir) and Western regions of Pakistan.
To me this is a well produced ad which highlights the troubles of a particularly cruel time in India's history. Nothing personal about it.
He wrote a book about his experience: "A Long Way Home" (http://www.penguin.com.au/products/9780670077045/long-way-ho...)
"There were no actors seen in the Super Bowl commercial, and that was part of its charm: even though it broke one taboo, it maintained the company’s geeky dignity of logic and verifiability. The star was the stuff that appeared on the computer screen. But “Dear Sophie” is more of a classic form of Madison Avenue pitching. It’s probably something that Don Draper would come up with if Larry and Sergey were his clients. They would tell him that their product, the Chrome browser, has a lot going for it over its competitors, like speedier response and a single box to type in addresses and search queries. It runs Web applications more efficiently than other browsers, they’d tell him, and if everyone used it, it would hasten a new paradigm of cloud apps. Draper would say that all that stuff is well and good. But for our commercial, we’re going to show a tear-jerking evocation of a father compiling an online scrapbook for to his daughter as she grows up.
Straight out of the Kodak playbook–don’t brag about your specs, but play that song about Where Are You Going My Little One, and out will come the handkerchiefs. It’s also a stratagem used by banks and insurance companies."
Mind you, that was two years ago and feels somewhat like ancient history now.
The expected definition appeared.
And the first two "Images for jhajariya" were frames from the ad.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
The Pakistan - India divide is a tragedy of religion and politics, foreign and domestic.
God bless Capitalism!
Not to mention the script is totally different.
I mean I've had mythtv and commercial skipping for I guess over a decade now and I adblock all browsers etc but do people "out there" really sit thru almost four minute long advertisements? Back when I used to watch them, commercials were long enough for a bathroom break, sounds like commercial breaks are approaching "short workout followed by a shower" or perhaps "cook and eat some hot pockets" length of time.
Sometimes they're good, and I don't mind sitting through them. There's one featuring a British Bi-Athlete (skiing, shooting). I have no idea what it's advertising. I looked up the gun he was using and they do a really neat laser & target system. Like Tin Can Alley but for adults.
Long ads are much less impressive when they're repeatedly something I have zero interest in ("It's showtime, you've been coding like a beast "[SKIP]) or when they're lousy ads created by people who don't know what they're doing.
I usually leave them running in another tab until the content is ready. I understand why other people would hate them and want to ad block them.
Also: I have zero interest in gambling, and I never want to see a gambling ad, but I get loads. I wonder what recovering alcoholics or addicted gamblers could do to prevent those ads from appearing, other than using ad-block?
Its not hate so much as being an unactionable distraction that interferes with buy the perry the platypus wooden action figure it does nothing... oh wait see how annoying that interruption was and how little it added to the conversation?
Personally I prefer paid promotional product placement. So I was working on a S-100 circuit board in my basement "lab" last night using my Hakko model 937 digital temperature soldering iron with 1/16th inch tip (or whatever millimeters it is) and my Kester no-kleen #235 flux 0.02 dia solder (well you get the idea) Like how most hollywood computers happen to be Apples.
Ads for the internet are the same - their length is restricted only by the viewer's attention span. Seems like this ad's producer nailed it.
Slightly amused after realising that the first thing I then did was use Facebook search to find Google's page to share it.