Report on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Indian BFSI sector.

[Afropop] Thandiswa Mazwai has lived the modern history of African music. In the early '90s, when she was still a teenager, she pioneered the emerging kwaito sound in South Africa, first with a trio called Jack-Knife, and then as the lead vocalist and composer for Bongo Maffin. Thandiswa's 2004 debut album as a solo artist, Zabalaza, went double platinum and established her as a major star. Since then, she has delved into jazz, rock, classic African pop styles, and more. Her latest release, Sankofa, is an expansive

The market is trending towards integrating and stacking multiple chiplets into a single package to meet the growing demands of speed, connectivity, and intelligence.  However, designing and signing off chiplets and packages individually is time-...(read more)

I am attempting to use dbGetNeighbor() function inside the dynamic display HUD so that the distance to the next metal on that layer could be viewed. Think of another line in this dynamic table here... 

My SKILL code is essentially the following:

procedure(getNearestNeighborOnMetal(cv)
let((direction tmpBoundingBox)
direction = internal_function()
tmpBoundingBox = dbCreateRect(geGetEditCellView() "tmp" list(hiGetCommandPoint() hiGetCommandPoint()))
car(dbGetNeighbor(geGetEditCellView() tmpBoundingBox direction))
)
)

this returns the distance to the closest metal based on some tests.

Next, I try to register this function to work in the Dynamic Display / Info Balloon world by executing odcRegisterCustomFunc() for each and every object type (I know, absurd, but trying to debug)

In the dynamic display menu, I toggle the "Custom SKILL Function" check in layoutXL, then hit apply, then OK.

After this I find I am unable to view the changes reflected in any info balloons or in the drawing HUD (above) for this wire. I have tried replacing my function with the sample "customFunc" from the odcRegisterCustomFunc() documentation and was still unable to produce any new output.

Any help diagnosing the use of this feature would be very much appreciated

Hello,

I was looking to destructively and efficiently modify a list that was passed in as an argument to a procedure, by prepending an item to the list.

I noticed that cons lets you do this efficiently, but the operation is non-destructive. Hence this wouldn't work if you are trying to modify a function's list parameter in place.

Here is an example of trying to add "0" to the front of a list:

Starting from SPB23.1, a new option, Allow DRCs to surrounding metal, has been added in the Etch-Back form to allow DRCs to the surrounding objects. form to allow DRCs to the surrounding objects.

The Allow DRCs to surrounding metal option lets you see and adjust objects instead of the current behavior, which sacrifices the width of the mask for the trace.

• When this option is turned off, it maintains the EB mask to another object clearance.
• When this option is enabled, it keeps the EB mask to the EM trace edge clearance and shows a DRC if the EB mask to another object spacing is out of rule.

This is the 15th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

It’s election season, and promises are raining down on voters like rose petals on naïve newlyweds. Earlier this week, the Congress party announced a minimum income guarantee for the poor. This Friday, the Modi government released a budget full of sops. As the days go by, the promises will get bolder, and you might feel important that so much attention is being given to you. Well, the joke is on you.

Every election, HL Mencken once said, is “an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” A bunch of competing mafias fight to rule over you for the next five years. You decide who wins, on the basis of who can bribe you better with your own money. This is an absurd situation, which I tried to express in a limerick I wrote for this page a couple of years ago:

POLITICS: A neta who loves currency notes/ Told me what his line of work denotes./ ‘It is kind of funny./ We steal people’s money/And use some of it to buy their votes.’

We’re the dupes here, and we pay far more to keep this circus going than this circus costs. It would be okay if the parties, once they came to power, provided good governance. But voters have given up on that, and now only want patronage and handouts. That leads to one of the biggest problems in Indian politics: We are stuck in an equilibrium where all good politics is bad economics, and vice versa.

For example, the minimum guarantee for the poor is good politics, because the optics are great. It’s basically Garibi Hatao: that slogan made Indira Gandhi a political juggernaut in the 1970s, at the same time that she unleashed a series of economic policies that kept millions of people in garibi for decades longer than they should have been.

This time, the Congress has released no details, and keeping it vague makes sense because I find it hard to see how it can make economic sense. Depending on how they define ‘poor’, how much income they offer and what the cost is, the plan will either be ineffective or unworkable.

The Modi government’s interim budget announced a handout for poor farmers that seemed rather pointless. Given our agricultural distress, offering a poor farmer 500 bucks a month seems almost like mockery.

Such condescending handouts solve nothing. The poor want jobs and opportunities. Those come with growth, which requires structural reforms. Structural reforms don’t sound sexy as election promises. Handouts do.

A classic example is farm loan waivers. We have reached a stage in our politics where every party has to promise them to assuage farmers, who are a strong vote bank everywhere. You can’t blame farmers for wanting them – they are a necessary anaesthetic. But no government has yet made a serious attempt at tackling the root causes of our agricultural crisis.

Why is it that Good Politics in India is always Bad Economics? Let me put forth some possible reasons. One, voters tend to think in zero-sum ways, as if the pie is fixed, and the only way to bring people out of poverty is to redistribute. The truth is that trade is a positive-sum game, and nations can only be lifted out of poverty when the whole pie grows. But this is unintuitive.

Two, Indian politics revolves around identity and patronage. The spoils of power are limited – that is indeed a zero-sum game – so you’re likely to vote for whoever can look after the interests of your in-group rather than care about the economy as a whole.

Three, voters tend to stay uninformed for good reasons, because of what Public Choice economists call Rational Ignorance. A single vote is unlikely to make a difference in an election, so why put in the effort to understand the nuances of economics and governance? Just ask, what is in it for me, and go with whatever seems to be the best answer.

Four, Politicians have a short-term horizon, geared towards winning the next election. A good policy that may take years to play out is unattractive. A policy that will win them votes in the short term is preferable.

Sadly, no Indian party has shown a willingness to aim for the long term. The Congress has produced new Gandhis, but not new ideas. And while the BJP did make some solid promises in 2014, they did not walk that talk, and have proved to be, as Arun Shourie once called them, UPA + Cow. Even the Congress is adopting the cow, in fact, so maybe the BJP will add Temple to that mix?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This election season, my friends, the people of India are on the menu. You have been deveined and deboned, marinated with rhetoric, seasoned with narrative – now enter the oven and vote.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 20th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Amit Shah’s induction into the union cabinet is such an interesting moment. Even partisans who oppose the BJP, as I do, would admit that Shah is a political genius. Under his leadership, the BJP has become an electoral behemoth in the most complicated political landscape in the world. The big question that now arises is this: can Shah do for India what he did for the BJP?

This raises a perplexing question: in the last five years, as the BJP has flourished, India has languished. And yet, the leadership of both the party and the nation are more or less the same. Then why hasn’t the ability to manage the party translated to governing the country?

I would argue that there are two reasons for this. One, the skills required in those two tasks are different. Two, so are the incentives in play.

Let’s look at the skills first. Managing a party like the BJP is, in some ways, like managing a large multinational company. Shah is a master at top-down planning and micro-management. How he went about winning the 2014 elections, described in detail in Prashant Jha’s book How the BJP Wins, should be a Harvard Business School case study. The book describes how he fixed the BJP’s ground game in Uttar Pradesh, picking teams for 147,000 booths in Uttar Pradesh, monitoring them, and keeping them accountable.

Shah looked at the market segmentation in UP, and hit upon his now famous “60% formula”. He realised he could not deliver the votes of Muslims, Yadavs and Jatavs, who were 40% of the population. So he focussed on wooing the other 60%, including non-Yadav OBCs and non-Jatav Dalits. He carried out versions of these caste reconfigurations across states, and according to Jha, covered “over 5 lakh kilometres” between 2014 and 2017, consolidating market share in every state in this country. He nurtured “a pool of a thousand new OBC and Dalit leaders”, going well beyond the posturing of other parties.

That so many Dalits and OBCs voted for the BJP in 2019 is astonishing. Shah went past Mandal politics, managing to subsume previously antagonistic castes and sub-castes into a broad Hindutva identity. And as the BJP increased its depth, it expanded its breadth as well. What it has done in West Bengal, wiping out the Left and weakening Mamata Banerjee, is jaw-dropping. With hindsight, it may one day seem inevitable, but only a madman could have conceived it, and only a genius could have executed it.

Good man to be Home Minister then, eh? Not quite. A country is not like a large company or even a political party. It is much too complex to be managed from the top down, and a control freak is bound to flounder. The approach needed is very different.

Some tasks of governance, it is true, are tailor-made for efficient managers. Building infrastructure, taking care of roads and power, building toilets (even without an underlying drainage system) and PR campaigns can all be executed by good managers. But the deeper tasks of making an economy flourish require a different approach. They need a light touch, not a heavy hand.

The 20th century is full of cautionary tales that show that economies cannot be centrally planned from the top down. Examples of that ‘fatal conceit’, to use my hero Friedrich Hayek’s term, include the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and even the lady Modi most reminds me of, Indira Gandhi.

The task of the state, when it comes to the economy, is to administer a strong rule of law, and to make sure it is applied equally. No special favours to cronies or special interest groups. Just unleash the natural creativity of the people, and don’t try to micro-manage.

Sadly, the BJP’s impulse, like that of most governments of the past, is a statist one. India should have a small state that does a few things well. Instead, we have a large state that does many things badly, and acts as a parasite on its people.

As it happens, the few things that we should do well are all right up Shah’s managerial alley. For example, the rule of law is effectively absent in India today, especially for the poor. As Home Minister, Shah could fix this if he applied the same zeal to governing India as he did to growing the BJP. But will he?

And here we come to the question of incentives. What drives Amit Shah: maximising power, or serving the nation? What is good for the country will often coincide with what is good for the party – but not always. When they diverge, which path will Shah choose? So much rests on that.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

When using Shape > Create Bounding Shape on an arc, the outer side works well, but on the inner side it just draws a straight line from the begging to the end of the curve.  Is anyone aware of a fix for this?

I'm attaching  a picture as an example, it works great on lines.

I have tried replicating the setup described in a previous post (here), with the proposed solution.

The MDL measurements return a value of 0 for all exported result but the first.

Using Viva I can actually see the correct value for each contribution.

I am using :
- Spectre 23.1.0.538.isr10
- Viva IC23.1-64b.ISR8.40

What should I do differently?

Thanks!

**** test.measure ****

Measurement Name   :  noi_test
Analysis Type      :  noise
noi_total             =  6.9282e-06
r1_flicker            =  0
r1_thermal            =  0
r1_total              =  0
r2_flicker            =  0
r2_thermal            =  0
r2_total              =  0

I'm working on the code coverage. Doing a metrics analysis by default we see overall average grade and overall covered. But when i do a block analysis on an instance i see overall covered grade, code covered grade, block covered grade, statement covered grade, expression covered grade, toggle covered grade.

As I dont know the difference I started to read the IMC user guide and came to know there are 3 things we come across while doing a code coverage local, covered, average

From my understanding

local - child instances metrics doesnt reach the parent level. For example, we have an instance Q and its sub instances like Q.a, Q.b. Block Local grade of Q can be 100% even when its instances Q.a and Q.b a block local grades isnt at 100%.

In the attached image there is formula 

The key difference between average and covered is the weights.

Average : Mathematically taking the above scenario where Q.a, and Q.b has 10 blocks each. Q.a has covered 8 blocks and q.b has covered 2 blocks. Now if we take the normal average it should be total covered/ totatl number = 8+2/10+10 yielding 50%. But when we add weights saying Q.a is 70% and Q.b is 30% the new number would be (8*0.7+2*0.3) / (10*0.7+10*0.3) resulting 62%. Because of the weights we see 12% bump.

Covered: there is no role of weights.

Among these 3 metrics i've changed my default view to this in the image to get more realistic picture when i do analyze metrics. Do you guys agree with the approach?

India’s 2020 budget continues the process of opening up to overseas investment.

A government bailout for the ailing subsidiary of the telecoms powerhouse has fallen through. 

Figures show 2018 was India’s best year for manufacturing FDI in seven years.

Australia is seeking the world’s best and brightest talent to relocate to one of the safest, most economically stable and innovative countries in the world.

India is one of Australia’s fastest growing tourism markets. Tourism businesses can realise the potential of the Indian market by learning about travellers’ culture and service expectations.

There are strong prospects for Australian sheepmeat exporters, thanks to rising demand and reduced tariffs under Australia’s trade agreement with India.

Australian Hass avocados have received provisional access to the Indian market. New access was granted after Australia demonstrated that its high-quality avocados could meet India’s biosecurity and food import requirements.

Australia’s landmark AI-ECTA trade deal to come into force on 29 December

Coopers’ craft beers are available across India after Austrade helped secure a new nationwide distributor for the brewery.

Taylors Wines has launched in India, ahead of the AI-ECTA entering into force.

Hobart-based fisheries company, Australian Longline, is now exporting Patagonian toothfish to India.

Austrade hosted a Landing Pad for 9 First Nations businesses in Singapore. The program included activities, workshops and masterclasses on the essential tools for export success.

Tassal is exporting to India for the first time, aided by tariff cuts under the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement.

First Nations business Aldridge Railway Signals was named Exporter of the Year at Supply Nation’s Supplier Diversity Awards.

Secularism, Caste, and Class in Contemporary India Secularism, Caste, and Class in Contemporary India

Check here each week to keep up with the latest from John MacArthur's pulpit at Grace Community Church.

Check here each week to keep up with the latest from John MacArthur's pulpit at Grace Community Church.

Check here each week to keep up with the latest from John MacArthur's pulpit at Grace Community Church.

Check here each week to keep up with the latest from John MacArthur's pulpit at Grace Community Church.

Check here each week to keep up with the latest from John MacArthur's pulpit at Grace Community Church.

Check here each week to keep up with the latest from John MacArthur's pulpit at Grace Community Church.

Pakistani and Indian Journalists at Media Conference: Why Fight Each Other, When We’re All Fighting the Same Issues? Pakistani and Indian Journalists at Media Conference: Why Fight Each Other, When We’re All Fighting the Same Issues?

Engaging Arctic Indigenous Communities Meaningfully in Decision-making Affecting Their Food Security Engaging Arctic Indigenous Communities Meaningfully in Decision-making Affecting Their Food Security

Ayobami Sodiq, aka Spending, who is an ally of the late music star, Ilerioluwa Aloba aka Mohbad, has raised the alarm over alleged plots to prosecute him over the singer’s death. Spending’s legal counsel, Bonajo Badejo & Co, represented by Stephen Ehinmowo, in a statement on Tuesday and obtained by PUNCH Metro, raised concerns regarding

Troops of Operation FASAN YANMA on Tuesday repelled bandits’ attack on the Gatawa community in the Sabon Birmi Local Government Area of Sokoto State. Confirming the development, a member of the state House of Assembly representing Sabon Birmi 1, Aminu Boza, said the incident happened early on Tuesday morning. Boza, a critic of insecurity in

Bandits, on Sunday night, attacked two villages – Kwaga and Ungwan Zako – in Birnin-Gwari Local Government Area of Kaduna State, setting fire to harvested maize on six farms. The devastating attacks caused anger in the villages as locals lamented their losses. The PUNCH learnt that the attack came barely 48 hours after a peace

The House of Representatives is set to debate the general principles of a bill seeking to provide a sustainable source of funding for the National Youth Service Corps, for the training and empowerment of corps members. Titled “The NYSC Trust Fund (Establishment) Bill 2024,” the proposed legislation, sponsored by the lawmaker representing Nasarawa/Toro Federal Constituency