JIMMY'S BLOG

Social media understands the concept of people’s feelings. It also knows clearly that people like points, likes, comments, and things that feel like popularity. Social media companies have kept that algorithm for profit. The profit comes from engagement, and engagement comes from rewarding outrage. Outrage means more traffic and more masses.   Like there is a winner in a game, they have created this stage for people to play where you win by being notorious/outrageous. But that is not how the real world actually works.   The people who are successful/happy in your industry/community/tribes/groups are not and never act like the way influencers on social media do. In actual reality, these influencers have given lesser time in knowledge/studies than the time Greta Thunberg has given in attending school. The majority of influencers available, hardly have any potential to talk about things, which are based on facts/logic/thinking. Think about it, your HR or your company is not rewarding the

Violence never was ostracized from our world’s culture. In history we see, the kings were violent, but the King never tried to comply or try to have a peace treaty because the kings in those days knew that if they give a reply to a proposal for peace, his people would doubt his power, intelligence, leadership, etc.   Psychological morale was a great thing to not forget about during those days. Movies may show/teach us good kings tried to accept proposals for peace or they care about the lives of people in the army, but the actual objectivity tells us that most of the kings used torture, war, massacre’s, bloodshed to bring down the psychological morale of the enemies and elevate it for his own army and people.    How can we say that racism was there in the king’s rule? Because, what we must realize is, there were no census or data about what population is major or minor.   King’s use the situation as they have the incentive to use the religious language, which means that according to t

A vibrant persona that is built around something, does not make it easy for people to have a skeptical/negative point of view and give balanced feedback of what they think about?    It is obvious that people around the world know that there is no scarcity of scammers and fake people/ideas. Yet, we do not see any proper criticism of those ideas/people, which is constructive in a way that is necessary to stop the amplification of such ideas/people.   An innumerable amount of motivational (an industry that is filled with money and greedy plus immature people) speakers are available, yet people still cannot bring in an idea that “If depressed, if lonely, if having an anxiety, a counselor is better options than an un-educated immature motivational speaker who has solutions about things that were not even asked for.”   The one thing that every last person on the earth is good at, is their own feelings. Every one of us knows, how to play the tic tac toe game online. But, very few of us kno

The things that seem will become successful in the future do not present the fact that they are remarkable or utilitarian or as great as they are represented.   People so much hyped about Facebook named meta and the new face of the industry in this market shall rise, must realize that people who you saw who are optimistic are not the consumers of meta/Facebook/any-such new technology, they are content creators, businessmen, and investors.   First thing, Warren Buffet investing in Coco-Cola does not signify he appreciates the product. It only signifies the product is addictive and people won't hold back to using it and so there's an opportunity that may help him as an individual and can make utility out of it for him.   Second thing: Mark Zuckerberg, Gary Vaynerchuck, etc. who you see are optimistic about meta and other such technologies coming out, does not signify that these services are remarkable or utilitarian to the consumers. They are giving opinions from their point of

One of a lot of things that US is pathetic at is medical bills and charging more than real utility.   The capitalism and the people who brag about a full capitalistic society is more efficient and better than socialism, liberalism, etc. does not realize that: The bill that you pay for medical facility is US is almost as expensive as of a net worth of a person (and lot of people’s net worth will be equal to the bill they will have after a critical surgery or a medical procedure "in US") in the Country itself.   The thing is Government at some level should and must interfere, because if they don’t the human is such a disgusting creature that it won’t hold back anything to take money out of the others. Just like Byju’s has done these things in Ed-tech sector. (it is an organization which has done nothing more than scams and shown the face of evil marketing)   Imagining, you went to the hospital, where everyone there involved in making money right from the bed you use there to

Jokes/memes/stand-up all are one of the ways people express their thoughts. But there is one thing we miss about humor/comedy and that is, it represents the reality of past and present observed by people who share and create it. The memes and jokes show you reality that’s why you laugh at it, because it is a reality shared by all of us.   When you’ll censor and go against religious/cultural humors, the question that these people didn’t ask is: what makes you think it was done on purpose? How you come to this that it mocks your community and at the end what is in it for you? The obvious question people never answer correctly is, “if they have a short temper to take those jokes, why should we tolerate?”   The answer is: either you choose to become someone like them OR you become someone who can say that we don’t do things like that and represent your community in respective ways.   The humor is also one of the things that keeps the story of the topic around for a long time which is sim

LinkedIn does not seem to be a specific target audience platform. There is either Instagram, Facebook, Gmail, etc., which has everyone on it or there is Hey by Basecamp very specific about who is it for.   LinkedIn is not or has not that exact specificity like Hey (from Basecamp) has, but the only common thing that its user has is a resume or a way for users to use it like Instagram too (showing off or sharing what you feel or what's in you or what your thoughts are, [at least that is how people are using it now]). It means it lies in between the spectrum of who is it for, in between someone to everyone?     Again, businesses mostly don't share what their CEOs or employees are thinking or feeling, but they share what they can make utilitarian for consumers. People don't want to know what you are feeling. Every YouTuber thinks like this "because people are watching me, I must keep creating it, it must be a valuable and intellectual thing" , in reality, they (consum

This actually has very little to do with objective reality. Brand is something discussed with graphs, mathematics, etc. i.e., let’s see what is suitable for our brand or not?   Ads means, a reality where celebrity status works. If you are in an entertainment business that has nothing to do with some socially ethical deliverance of a message which people admire a lot, you would want to figure out how sounding ethically, morally and right can benefit you to build an image of your own which sounds ethically acceptable? Because in this endorsement, i.e., celebrities sharing ideas of “No Fire Crackers celebration” on Diwali (mostly) or any other celebrations, they know it does not require any debate, any scientific nuance, discussion or approval from someone to check my credibility. This will only require me posting a positive message on my social handles where I already have thousands and millions of followers which in turn help me built my image to show and proof these people that "