ASI’s note to Financial Exp. over eclipse article is naïve

The public outreach arm of the Astronomical Society of India has written to the Financial Express expressing concern over their August 7 article, which advised people to fast during a lunar eclipse. The ASI called the article “anti-science”, requested that FE print a clarification and finally give them room to write an article about the science of eclipses. The full note is available to read here.

I’m glad that the ASI reached out to FE and offered their help to set things right instead of simply condemning FE or demanding that it retract the article. However, this may not be enough.

Consider the following paragraph from their note:

We are disappointed to find that a prestigious national paper like yours deems it fit to publish an article exhorting people to not eat during an eclipse, in this day and age. We wish you had checked with any science institution in the country before publishing such an article. Your own newspaper had published articles praising the science education and communication work done by the late Professors Yash Pal and Pushpa Bhargava merely a week ago. To go against this spirit in the same week by publishing such an article that is blatantly anti-science in nature, without even talking to scientists about it, is very sad indeed.

Frankly, apart from a few (that I can count off on the fingers of one hand), every other MSM publication in India has little or no sense of balance when it comes to science communication. The point in publishing an article asking people to fast during eclipses, bathe right after in cold water with their clothes on or claim that a planet could slam into Earth sometime this year and kill us all is not a matter of education.

Education requires taking responsibility for a group of people and conscientiously empowering them. What newspapers like FE are doing is simply capitalising on demand. If one section of the audience is interested in knowing more about which rituals to follow during an eclipse, FE & co. will give them what they want. That’s where the traffic is.

This is why it’s important to understand the business of journalism, especially if you’re a science writer because science journalism is among the most screwed-over areas of journalism in the country. If you fix the business – for example if you provide FE an incentive to publish au fait science stories that’s stronger than the incentive to generate more traffic (and presumably earn money by pleasing advertisers) – you will immediately have more room for good science journalism.

However, such an incentive is very difficult to provide because the profit–by-volume way has an almost complete stranglehold over Indian MSM today. And it’s important to remember that it’s not all bad. Yes, it forces editors to acquiesce every now and then (if not more often) to their business/financial interests, but it’s also what’s keeping most of Indian journalism that’s published on the internet alive. It’s one thing to say FE should grow a conscience but quite another to expect them to live off of it. It’s very difficult.

So a group like the ASI expecting a publication like FE to have “checked with any science institution in the country before publishing such an article” misses the point. ‘Checking with scientists’ makes for a boring story that’s also very difficult to sell. And FE was irresponsible for having given superstition such a big stage. But my point is that I’m reluctant to be angry with the article’s author or editor beyond this because the underlying problem is quite something else.

I admit I will be surprised if FE allows the scientists to write an article about the “beautiful natural events” that eclipses are – but I will be way, way more surprised if they print the clarification, and even more surprised if they retract their original article. Better yet for FE for both articles to live on their pages with equal levels of qualification (i.e. none).

It’s like the politician Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who funds Republic TV, said in an interview,

rajeev_mp_market share

A blogging problem

Since June 2017, I’ve amassed 14 domains, accounts on four VPS providers, provisioned scores of servers, initiated a zillion sites and moved my own blog around from one domain and platform to the next at least half-dozen times. I rationalised each of these decisions in different ways:

  • “The domain I have now doesn’t sound right to me – the one I’m looking at does”
  • “The VPS I’m using was taken down by hackers for a week about a year go – I deserve to be on a safer one”
  • “The CMS I’m on isn’t exactly pro-blogger, and I’m not sure if it’s going to be around 10 years from now – I should move”

… and combinations thereof.

All this time (basically the last 40 days), I’d succumbed to this strange restlessness that had me jumping from one rock on the internet to the next, relying on quick, almost-whimsical, decisions and plainly ignoring the fact that – hey – I’d been happily blogging on WordPress.com for the last 3,000+ days. Since June 30, I’d been so concerned about things like ‘keeping my blog on the web forever’ and blogging using just the ‘right’ tools that, somehow, I’d been able to completely disregard the fact that I’d had no complaints with WordPress.com for eight years straight.

Probable causes:

  • Some more free time on my day job (good)
  • Longstanding fascination with ICT (good)
  • Taking readership, not readers, for granted (neutral – I’d have said ‘bad’ if I’d been proven wrong, but don’t treat this as an invitation to do so!)
  • A lot of FOMO (terrible)

With this blog, I hope to get my shit together and also acknowledge the fact that I’m likely not the target demographic for most advertisements about “simplifying the publishing experience”, etc. For example, Ghost’s claim that its Markdown editor will ensure I write better because I don’t have to take my hands off my keyboard for formatting. As it happens, I don’t mind WYSIWYG editors at all; I know all the keyboard shortcuts. Another example: “WordPress is too cluttered, CMS X is very lean” – but the clutter has never bothered me. Yet another: “It’s better to have a self-hosted blog where you can control everything – including whether or not your blog stays online if the CMS it’s on shuts down.” But this same doubt can be had about hosting services as well – plus, again, WordPress seems to be doing just fine. And so forth.

On the other hand, what I’ve gained through all this is a better idea of how tech and (online) publishing intersect, the practices of VPS providers and the scope and price-points of various tools available to the serious blogger (see example below). I also figured out Git, Github/Gitlab Pages, AWS Lambda and the Ghost CLI, creating macros on Atom, and can now set up websites with Ghost, Jekyll, Hugo and Nanoc, apart from WordPress.

Finally: I’ve had some great readers who stuck on and read/shared/commented on my writing no matter that it was constantly on the move, thankfully. I owe it to them – if not anyone else – to be consistent and rooted. On that note, welcome to Synecdo𝛘 (si-nec-duh-khee). This is a fresh start (although it contains all that I’ve written since June 2012). I promise I’ll always be here – even if I’m elsewhere at the same time.


Example: It’s no longer possible to have a blog with

  • Good design
  • All the basic CMS features
  • A staid reputation, and
  • A large community around it

for free.

The ‘large community’ bit does eliminate a lot of the contenders, leaving behind Drupal, Ghost, Medium, Squarespace, Tumblr and WordPress. Drupal seems too complicated for the needs of blogging (more so than WP) and the absence of a hosted version makes the learning curve steeper. The feature-set on Medium is quite limited relative to the rest. Tumblr blogs are free but they’re also hard to take seriously.

WordPress.com has a free version but it doesn’t have support (except allowing you to post in the forums) and doesn’t allow custom domains. The lowest premium tier with both options costs $36 a year. Moreover, v.4.x seems to be having a severe identity crisis. WordPress.org, the self-hosted version, is too buggy to handle by yourself, especially if you want things to just work. The best among the good-and-affordable managed WordPress solutions I’ve been able to find is Flywheel, $15 a month.

SquareSpace has no free versions. It costs $16 a month or $144 a year. You can’t run SquareSpace by yourself either. It’s proprietary and there’s no open-source option. This is also why I don’t trust website-builders like Wix and Weebly.

Ghost also has no free versions. You could spin up a Ghost CMS on a VPS but the cheapest one (that I’m also willing to trust) is Vultr’s $2.5 option. But I’m not sure if its specs are enough to run the new Ghost v1.5 without hiccups. You could run with the $5/mo option available on Vultr, Digital Ocean, Linode or Lightsail, assuming you’re okay with using a CLI and managing the instance yourself (Digital Ocean is the only one that comes with a one-click install for Ghost but it’s applicable only from the $10/mo option). Ghost (Pro), the hosted version, costs at least $29 a month or $228 a year.

Other options include static-site generators (SSGs) like Hugo and Jekyll, which can be run on Gitlab and Github, respectively, but not unless you’re okay with having to manage every last detail of your blog’s setup. Similarly, unless you’ve a certain bent of mind, the publishing experience isn’t entirely smooth either. The harder alternative is to host SSGs on the cloud.

In sum: The option with the most peace of mind at the lowest cost seems to be WordPress.com’s $36 a year plan. Many veterans of blogging believe that there is some wisdom in moving to the self-hosted version especially because you can then have the “mutiny of identity”. In this case, there are three options:

  1. Self-hosted WP: Linode’s $5/mo (better support than Vultr while Lightsail throttles their servers when CPU usage climbs). Downside: Installing WP is a pain.
  2. Managed WP: Flywheel’s $15 a month offering (because WordPress.org is less secure than WordPress.com tends to be and you’ll find all the extra help useful).
  3. WordPress.com: the $99 a year ‘Premium’ plan (comes with excellent customisation options). Downside: WordPress doesn’t offer monthly billing, so you’re expected to be able to spend $99 at a time.

A misremembering

Two Indian scientists who passed away recently – Yash Pal and Pushpa Mittra Bhargava – spent a large part of their lives ensuring that lay people had access to bona fide scientific material and that our appreciation of science, and nature, stemmed from a realistic understanding of its inherent beauty.

When they died, we celebrated them and their efforts as if we were going to remember them for posterity, as if we were going to honour their legacies by committing ourselves to their advice. But, it seems, just for a day. Sample this Financial Express headline:

And here’s an excerpt from the ‘story’:

So, what is the ”logic” behind certain practices associated with the lunar eclipse among Hindus? The Hindus believe that the cycles of the moon have an impact on the human body. Renowned spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has shared his insights on his blog regarding this.

“The cycles of the moon have an impact on the human system, physically, psychologically and energy wise. During lunar eclipses, what would happen in 28 days over a full lunar cycle happens subtly over a course of two to three hours…in terms of energy, the earth’s energy mistakes this eclipse as a full cycle of the moon. Certain things happen in the planet where anything that has moved away from its natural condition will deteriorate very fast. That is why there is a change in the way cooked food is before and after the eclipse. What was nourishing food turns into poison, it is better to keep the stomach empty at this time,” Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has written on his blog.

There isn’t a shred of science presented in the article, which seems to have been put together to appease a section of the audience that is more concerned about following rituals than anything else. Eating during an eclipse, or any celestial event of any kind, doesn’t affect the body. This is not to say that fasting as an observance – whether for a day or a month, out of faith or in pursuit of some kind of ‘detoxification’ – does not have effects. It may. But to fast because the Moon or the planets will “affect” the human body is absurd. The responsible thing for the publication to do would have been to help people understand this. That neither are chemistries thrown out of whack nor are biological processes suspended.

In fact, the only things kicked out of their natural order appear to be the editors of Financial Express, their gullible readers and, of course, Jaggi Vasudev. Incidentally, the latter’s respect for allegedly natural forces hasn’t stopped him from illegally constructing over 125,000 sq. metres of real estate in Coimbatore – which a retired judge of the Madras high court has said will pollute the Noyyal river and affect the “entire western region of Tamil Nadu”.

A sad irony in all of this is that one of Yash Pal’s more famous contributions to the narrative of popular science in India concerned a solar eclipse. To quote from the obituary that Gauhar Raza wrote in The Wire:

In the early 1980s, when a total solar eclipse shadowed India’s north, Doordarshan had issued repeated warnings that people should not go out in the open. These warnings were based on half-cooked scientific knowledge and religious superstitions. Most cities and villages witnessed what could be called a total curfew. During the eclipse, many people were confined to their houses and performed religious ceremonies. But by 1995, things had changed largely thanks to the efforts of the People’s Science Movement – as had Doordarshan, thanks to Pal’s efforts.

For the first time, in more than 3,000 years of our history, people came out in large numbers and watched and celebrated total solar eclipses all over the country. I remember Pal had been on Doordarshan explaining the natural phenomenon, and at one point almost shouted at the cameraperson when he realised the camera was facing him when it should’ve been pointing at the Sun. Most people appearing on the national channel would have preferred their face for maximum time instead of any other image. But here was a committed scientist who wanted the nation to witness the eclipse, a beautiful natural phenomenon that people had missed for centuries due to superstitions.

Where are these “people in large numbers” today? Have they now transformed into the “2.7k shares” that the Financial Express article blares? Perhaps some shared it to ridicule it; either way, the article is a reminder of what Pal and Bhargava were up against in their lifetime and the unfinished agenda they left behind.

Twilight of rationalism

Between the murders of anti-superstition activists Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare and rationalist M.M. Kalburgi, and the promotion of pseudoscience centred around cow-urine and other pet Hindutva themes, rationalism in India is clearly under strain. The Centre regularly interferes in the affairs of universities and colleges known to encourage contrarian thinking. The effect: many voices have been threatened into silence that could have otherwise spoken up against pseudoscience and superstitions that often only serve to cement Hindutva majoritarianism. The most harmful manifestation of this has been the glorification of cows and the demonisation of those who “harm” them.

On August 2, a Dalit woman was lynched in Agra by a mob that accused her of being a ‘witch’ (or a ghost, according to another report) who wanted to cut off the braids of young women. Hindustan Times reported, “In rural parts of Agra, people are making hand impressions of henna and turmeric at the entrance of their houses, while others are putting up lemon and chillies ‘to ward off the evil barber’.” Since then, allegations have surfaced of a ‘malevolent barber’ being on the loose from Aligarh and Delhi. In Jodhpur and Bikaner, WhatsApp messages about a group of ‘shapeshifting’ godmen intent on cutting the braids of young women for their rituals made the rounds a month before four people were lynched to death by a mob in Jharkhand. The victims were accused of attempting to kidnap children for similar rituals; they weren’t doing any such thing.

Some Hindu superstitions hold that shaving off a woman’s hair can bring ill-luck or bereavement, and that growing it out can help “emit Shakti waves”. And because we’re worried about losing them, we’re creating demons out of thin air.

Indian ministers have since 2014 made various dubious claims about the feats of “ancient India” and the supernatural abilities of bovine (let’s call them for what they are) shit and piss. This includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well. With such brazen disparagement of scientific thinking prevalent in the corridors of power, it is no surprise that government initiatives have been mooted to promote untested forms of medicine and healthcare, against such devastating diseases as diabetes and cancer.

In April 2017, the Department of Science and Technology even proposed that a ‘national steering committee’ be set up to “scientifically validate” the effects of consuming panchgavya – a five-part concoction of cow dung, cow urine, milk, curd and ghee. The committee will have no less than 19 members working over three years. Meanwhile, the funding for eliminating tuberculosis, which India has promised to do by 2025, was cut by Rs 13 crore earlier this year.

Rise of doublespeak

As Modi’s star has risen, it has also elevated the fortunes of Baba Ramdev, a yoga guru turned FMCG player. The company he leads, called Patanjali, purchased a series of newspaper ads in 2015 that made many unrealistic claims about the quality and provenance of its products. Bhargava had written at the time for The Wire:

The ad says, “After an intense research of 25 years, and conducting tests on over 1 crore people, our Ayurveda Mission is to give a healthy lifestyle to the people of the country successfully.” If “intense” research has been carried out for 25 years, it must have been done by research scientists in an institution and the results put in public domain – for example, by publishing them in respected periodicals as is the practice universally. No such publication is mentioned in the ad or is known to exist. In the absence of any such publication, one may legitimately ask: who were these scientists and what were their qualifications? What was the name and location of the institute? What was the research methodology used? Even if you have all the test results of one individual recorded on one page, for one crore individuals you would need at least one crore pages of recorded data; with 300 pages per volume,  the number of volumes of data would be well over thirty thousand. Where are they? Will Ramdev answer these questions? In fact, should not answers to at least some of these questions have been provided in the ad to make it credible, especially when the claim that is being made would seem to be extremely unlikely to be correct on the face of it?

Whatever lessons we claimed to have learnt from rationalists is rendered hollow in the face of the monumental doublespeak that India has been confronted with, and our seeming inability to surmount it. On the one hand, the political establishment promises growth and development by leveraging space applications and information technology – both of which rely on cutting-edge advancements in the likes of physics, mathematics and computing. But on the other, it promotes irrationality and pseudoscience. Nowhere was this hypocrisy more evident than in a recent Mann Ki Baat episode, when Modi soliloquised that “man should revere nature” and “be one with it” – even as he has led his government’s efforts to reduce environmental impact assessments to “a mere formality”.

Just paying lip-service to Pal and Bhargava is pointless, even counterproductive. It is at best a cheap pass to be able to claim that we remember their teachings when in fact we have nothing to show for it. The best way to remember them by would be to emulate their sensibilities and, at every opportunity, to extricate our senses from the fevered grip of ignorance and blind faith.

The WireAugust 8, 2017

Blogging with Gitlab

About a week ago, I figured out how to use Hugo, first with Caddy and then with Dropbox and Gitlab. Hugo + Gitlab in particular is an amazing combo because it’s so easy to set up and run with:

  1. Create an account on Gitlab
  2. Fork this repo: https://gitlab.com/pages/hugo
  3. Import a theme of your choice
  4. Update settings in config.toml and social.toml
  5. THAT’S IT.

No code. Working on it has been a hoot as well. I use Atom to compose my posts (I was able to create a macro that made it easier for me to populate the front-matter while the Markdown Preview package recreates Ghost’s writing environment very well) and Cycligent to commit. Granted, this adds two more steps to the shortest publishing process (headline, body, tags, publish) but I don’t mind losing the extra 30 seconds.

And just like that, most of Ghost’s principal features are taken care of:

  • Markdown + live preview
  • Content tagging
  • Team sites
  • Scheduled publishing
  • SEO and social integration (with Cloudflare Apps)
  • HTTPS (either with Cloudflare or Let’s Encrypt)
  • RSS and integrations (Slack, etc.)
  • Email subscriptions (with MailChimp)
  • Open-source access
  • Theme-editing

(Not sure a CDN is necessary with static sites but if you’d like one, Cloudflare’s is pretty good.)

What’s not taken care of: backups. Although I’m sure there’s a way, e.g. by firing up your page on Gitlab CE hosted on a VPS or syncing your repo with a local copy once in a while. Best part (if you take the latter option): zero cost for the entire thing. Gitlab caps repo sizes at 10 GB, which is amazing – potentially humungous if you host your images elsewhere and import them by URL. Plus Gitlab also takes care of the security, continuous integration/delivery, etc.

All of this has made me curious about where an entity like Ghost has left to go in its efforts to simplify the publishing process, etc. Ghost made sense in a world where WordPress was crowded, other CMSs were going to be as niche/unaffordable as they are and SSGs came with a non-gentle learning curve. However, Gitlab makes it dead-easy to run with an SSG like Hugo. If someone created a GUI for Hugo like they did with Cactus (now defunct), it would – as they say – “just work”. Hell, if Bitnami releases a Hugo (or Octopress) stack soon for Lightsail, Ghost might have nothing else to do but stick to its journalism plan.

Featured image credit: Snufkin/pixabay.

What Ghost v1.0 says about its future plans

I’ve just checked out the Ghost 1.0 CMS. The upgrade from v. 0.11.9 happened last evening and since then I’ve been crawling through the new UI on the front- and back-ends. The back-end has always looked quite polished on Ghost but now it’s starting to look a bit sophisticated as well.

Upgrading to v. 1.0 was an interesting experience, at least for me, because for about nine years (before moving to Ghost earlier this year), I’d been blogging on WordPress. And like most of you know, WordPress has a shitload of controls for authors. Ghost’s raison d’être itself was that it would be a much more publishing-focused CMS that would do away with many of these controls, which had found place in WordPress because WordPress wanted to be the “CMS for all”.

So, whatever it was like to move from WordPress to Ghost the first time (on v. 0.11.9) was reflected in what it was like to go from Ghost 0.11.9 to 1.0, considering 1.0 was such a major upgrade for Ghost. It forced me to think about which aspects of the CMS I regularly used, which ones I prized, and how changes in their UI/UX affected the way I worked. Some quick points:

  • Casper 2.0.2 (the new default theme) looks and feels clean, although the homepage is too magaziney. I suspect this is because Ghost has been trying to woo journalists, and thus
    • Casper 2 imposes a display hierarchy on the homepage,
    • Forces the author to find/use images to go with each post,
    • Highlights the first para of each post, a.k.a. the lede (to avoid which I’ll be using an ‘x’ at the top of every post), and
    • Ghost has fetched the ‘excerpt’ field out of the advanced area in the post editor area and into the basic settings sidebar

    This makes me concerned about whether Ghost in the future will ditch bloggers and refashion itself as a journalism-centric platform. Let’s hope not, and also that theme modification controls (in the CMS) are in Ghost’s future. Favourite feature for the moment: the big body font-size on article display pages. Worst feature: the even bigger font-size for blockquotes.

  • I get into my groove when writing a piece faster if I’m using the right font. And WordPress really began to mess with the font in its WYSIWYG editor since about last year, when the font being used on the theme would be used within the editor, too. Usually, the font I find it easier to read with (Georgia) is not the font I find it easier to write with (sans-serif fonts). Ghost 0.11.9, I was glad to see, wasn’t trying to do any such thing. However, v 1.0 is: the front-end body font and the back-end Markdown preview font are both Georgia. (The Monaco font applied to the Markdown text is not really pleasing to the eyes.)
  • V. 1.0 is still buggy in some ways, which I suppose is to be expected. But I was disappointed that the upgrade happened while Ghost’s developers still haven’t fixed the subscriptions feature. I really don’t see what the point is in collecting emails nowif I’m not going to be allowed to start sending emails right away as well. This annoys me more so because, on v. 1.0, clicking the ‘Subscribe’ button on the homepage opens a full-screen subscription message + input field that blots out everything else. So much just to collect emails?
  • Earlier, when you published a post, then made some change and hit ‘Update’, it was a single click. Now it’s two clicks: clicking ‘Update’ and then clicking ‘Update’ again. And it’s three if you want to update and unpublish the piece at the same time, although I wonder how many writers want to do this. Is this also a journalism thing?

I hope the folks at Ghost bear in mind that many expect the exercise of blogging to have much less friction than publishing-as-a-journalist does. Ideally, publishing a good-looking blog post would be a four-step process: headline, body, tags, publish. I shouldn’t be penalised for not using images or not bothering with an excerpt. Sure, a developer might be able to fix all of the issues I’m talking about because Ghost is after all an open source product. But I’m not a developer – nor are many other Ghost users.

  • Kudos for
    • Not compromising on the ease of navigating the CMS (usually when a UI gets more options, it starts to turn into a maze)
    • Optional ‘night shift’ mode on the back-end was a nice touch – how about implementing it on the front-end as well?
    • Good idea listing recent posts with the same tag in the ‘related posts’ area at the end of each post

Featured image credit: Alexas_Fotos/pixabay.

‘The stories that define us’

A postscript to the opinions v. reportage question, and why I’m not a fan of a label saying ‘Opinion’ atop oped pieces on a news website:

Many consider the opposite of balance to be imbalance, and the opposite of being neutral to be biased – or vice versa, in both cases. We don’t stop to consider situations in which being neutral is an unhealthy privilege, and situations in which being ‘balanced’ means to dignify an opinion so hegemonic or authoritarian that it shouldn’t have taken root in a democracy in the first place.

The kind of pieces in which I’d imagine some form of “neutral and objective” middle ground exists are pieces dealing with (relatively) simple stories or when dealing with complex issues in really simple ways. To paraphrase the words of a friend, “These are not the sort of pieces that eventually define us”. For example, notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in the practice of science itself, a science reporter can be eminently expected to arrive at one version of the truth because, at some level, that is the expectation of (natural) science itself. “What caused this disease? The X bug.” End of story. But it’s downright fallacious to extrapolate this into areas where politics and sociology dominate.

We need to acknowledge a hierarchy of complexity in the products of journalism, and further acknowledge that neutrality is a fair expectation only towards the base of that hierarchy.

I’m all for reporters being asked to present both sides of the story therewith – but they should also remain aware that as they take on issues more sophisticated, issues in which they can’t remain spectators removed from the proceedings, issues that are coloured by who we are and how we choose to participate in them, they can’t assume the “both sides of the story” rule will still hold. It will hold less and less, until it holds not at all.

Journalists are not ethnographers, who are duty-bound to remain “scientific” in their assessment of a situation. Journalism has always been orders of magnitude more political than ethnography has (there’s a reason only one of them is called an estate by itself), and also less subject to the terms of science. By all means, present both sides of the story when a gated community in South Delhi complains that their ward’s councillor isn’t doing enough to get rid of mosquitoes – but don’t tell me you’re going to try to stay balanced when “gated community” is replaced with “slum of Dalits”.

On the other hand, from the simplest to the toughest stories, the one rule that will always hold from the base of that hierarchy to its pinnacle, that will always have your back, is to be biased but to be honest about having that bias. Because the truth is that there is seldom just one truth out there.

Thanks for the conversation, N.S.

Featured image credit: bogitw/pixabay.