I’ve got the following text from an AI analysis on Google and I’m using it here as a quote, although I had no idea who’s written it or when—the analysis is not revealing its source, if any. Of course, it’s only a part of the analysis that impressed me most, and therefore I thought of putting it down here for all people of the same ilk. And yes, I’ve tweaked it bit to cover more of the categories of people obviously involved. "Many emerging or existing artists/writers/discoverers feel ignored, with their work going unnoticed, which is often a burden of being in creative industries , rather than a reflection of talent." Very right indeed! Creative people who have put out their work in the public domain would most naturally like to be noticed and be told if their work is poor or mediocre or even good. When nothing of that sort happens they most naturally get frustrated and even indignant that nobody is even aware of their work and the very few who have indeed gone throug...
After many years India is fast adopting a positive ruthless attitude and is winning matches consistently. Defeated Aus in ODI 2-0, Aus in Test 2-0 and defeated England in ODI with a 4-0 lead. But some people, so much used to a negative mindset, are giving odd reactions.
One reporter of a channel started babbling what England is doing and what it's supposed to do. Well, it's a fact that the weaker team always loses and you don't ask, hey buggers, why are you so weak! You criticize them identifying the areas of weakness. But you have to laud the winning team for its victory. Mercifully the reporter was cut short.
Another scribe wrote that England lost the last two matches due to the D-L method. Yes, the D-L rules are complex, but it cannot possibly harm the better team. In the Kanpur ODI (Nov 20, 2008) India was in a sound position, 198/5 needing only 43 runs off 9 overs and at that point they won by 16 runs due to D-L. What's wrong in that?
In the Bangalore ODI (Nov 23, 2008) D-L put India only at great disadvantage: they started the innings for a 50 over match, then they faced 44 overs and after the last interruption the match was reduced to just 22 overs. Having played 17 overs already India had only five overs left suddenly. This was a defeat situation, because they didn't play for a 22 over match. But Team India changed gear brilliantly and plundered 60 runs off five overs and so the D-L rationalization made the final target a very stiff one. Even then Engaland had a great chance, but Team India played better and won. What's wrong in that?
Be positive, yaar.
Comments
Post a Comment
Hi! Welcome! Please comment what you feel! 😊