Tuesday, 1 August 2017

A new series on what an artist learnt from Malayalam serials

A former news features editor at Bangalore Mirror, photographer, artist and traveller, Sudha Pillai’s most recent project is Ladies Saloon 007, on Instagram. Soon after it took off, she found herself spending her evenings watching Malayalam serials with her mother. “When we hear the crazy, regressive things [in the dialogues], my mother and I pass comments. Those two hours are like our private stand up comedy show. Sometimes, we laugh, and sometimes, we get really angry,” she says. That’s when she decided to share the joy – making art out of their shared shock and hilarity. Pillai’s new series ‘What I learn about relationships from Malayalam TV serials’ is created with black line drawing, lots of wit, and a dash of red colour.

“Every illustration is a culmination of various scenes and dialogues that I watched,” she says. A wife’s love (that can get rid of the husband’s ear wax), death threats for lolz, and the heroism of a dude who married a dark-skinned girl— her drawings point out how absurd Indian television is. Although her illustrations depict Malayalam serials, these stereotypes are an Akhand Bharat phenomenon, embraced lovingly by multiple TV industries. If you watch Telugu, Tamil, Hindi or Bengali ones, you’ll find them just as familiar.
“I’ve heard people refer to certain serials, and how certain characters behave, when they’re trying to deal with real life situations,” she says. That raises the stakes for Pillai. “I believe that if satire doesn’t play a big role in your life, you end up really angry 24 x 7 because of the things that are happening around us currently.” Pillai’s own series is wonderfully cathartic.

Check out the full series on Instagram here.

(Source: The ladies Finger)

Work from home people earn more, quit less, and are happier than their office-bound counterparts

Working from home gets a bad rap. Google the phrase and examine the results—you’ll see scams or low-level jobs, followed by links calling out “legitimate” virtual jobs.

But Stanford Graduate School of Business professor Nicholas Bloom says requiring employees to be in the office is an outdated work tradition, set up during the Industrial Revolution. Such inflexibility ignores today’s sophisticated communications methods and long commutes, and actually hurts firms and employees.

“Working from home is a future-looking technology,” Bloom told an audience during TEDxStanford, which took place in April. “I think it has enormous potential.”

To test his claim, Bloom studied China’s largest travel agency, Ctrip. Headquartered in Shanghai, the company has 20,000 employees and a market capitalization of about $20 billion.

The company’s leaders—conscious of how expensive real estate is in Shanghai—were interested in the impact of working from home. Could they continue to grow while avoiding exorbitant office space costs? They solicited worker volunteers for a study in which half worked from home for nine months, coming into the office one day a week, and half worked only from the office.

Bloom tracked these two groups for about two years. The results? “We found massive, massive improvement in performance—a 13% improvement in performance from people working at home,” Bloom says.


Two reasons led to that uptick: First, people working from home actually work their full shift. In the office, people might be delayed by traffic, take a long lunch with a colleague, or leave work early to let a repair person in. They are less likely to be on the clock for the full workday.

Second, Bloom says, people at home are able to concentrate better. “The office is actually an amazingly noisy environment. There’s a cake in the break room; Bob’s leaving, come join. The World Cup sweepstakes is going. Whatever it is, the office is super-distracting.”

Also, his study found that resignations at the company dropped by 50% when employees were allowed to work from home. “Not only do the employees benefit (by working from home), but the managers benefit because they can spend less of their time painfully advertising, recruiting, training, and promoting.”

Bloom says the experiment led Ctrip to roll out a work-from-home option to all its employees. The company reported that it made about $2,000 more profit per person at home, Bloom says.

Bloom hopes this example helps kill the negative stereotypes of working from home. “For employees, they’re much more productive and happier. For managers, you don’t have to spend so much time recruiting and training people. For firms, you make far more profit. For society, there’s a huge saving of reducing congestion, driving times, and ultimately, pollution.

“There’s not much to lose, and there’s a lot to gain,” he says.

(Source: Quartz)

Grace Kelly’s wedding dress is cited as a masterpiece and best-remembered bridal gown of all time

One of the best-remembered and most beautiful bridal gowns of all time, and one of the most famous since the mid-20th-century was the wedding dress which the American actress Grace Kelly wore on the day of her marriage to Prince Rainer III of Monaco on April 19th, 1956. The gown was once described as one that intensified the matrimonial passion and inspired nuptial fashion; it was a prime influence on many women which endeavored to imitate Kelly’s silk and lace fabric masterpiece. Even recently, the dress is still influential; the wedding gown that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, wore on April 29th, 2011, was said to have been inspired by Princess Grace’s wedding dress.

Kelly’s wedding entailed two separate occasions, the first was a civil ceremony and the second -a church marriage, held on consecutive days. Kelly had lots of help planning and carrying out her wedding day; she was assisted by Helen Rose, MGM Studio’s costume designer. Virginia Darcy was also there to lend a helping hand; she was the designer of the now best-remembered wedding dress of all time and Kelly’s hairstylist at the MGM studio.


Edith Head, a famous American costume designer and close friend of Kelly’s, assumed that she would be asked to design the wedding dress. Instead, Kelly asked Helen Rose, a costume designer in the wardrobe department of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), to create a gown for her. MGM Studios presented the wedding gown to Kelly as a gift.

On April 18th, 1956, the civil ceremony in Monaco was held in the Palace’s elegant throne room. The dress worn by Kelly was made of lustrous silk fabric, covered in cream-colored French Alençon lace, colored in pastel pink. It was designed with a custom-fit upper section, a flared skirt, and a neckline-fitted round collar. She wore fine kid leather gloves and a Juliet meshed cap. The wedding dress for the legally-required civil ceremony was also designed by Helen Rose, who designed the wedding gown for the most important church ceremony. The civil marriage was legally sanctified by Monaco’s Minister of Justice, Marcel Portanier, in accordance with the civil code of Monaco and in the presence of representatives from twenty-four countries and eighty exclusively invited guests.

The formal church wedding ceremony of Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier, performed at St. Nicholas Cathedral, was held on April 19th, 1956. The Roman Catholic high mass was conducted by the Bishop of Monaco. The bridal gown for this ceremony was absolutely stunning and elegant! It was a high, rounded collared, long-sleeved gown with a custom-fit bodice and billowing skirt. The materials for this magnificent gown included one hundred yards of silk net, smooth ribbed satin, twenty-five yards of fine, lustrous silk fabric, fine lightweight netting, and the intricate 125-year-old Brussels “Point de Rose” lace.

Adorned with jewels such as seed pearls and orange blossoms, the Juliet cap that she wore was beautiful. The veil, made of a lightweight, very fine netting, had a length of 90 yards. Other bridal adornments included a small Bible and a flower bouquet of lily-of-the-valley. An estimate of the manufacturing cost and material cost of the bridal gown is $7,266.68 USD, and this amount wouldn’t even include designer fees.
Grace Kelly
Kelly and Rose worked very closely together, to create the design of the gown, and the two women searched for inspiration in the MGM costume archives. The MGM movie Invitation portrays a bridal gown that is remarkably similar to Kelly’s.

When the details of the wedding dress were disclosed two days before the wedding, it was given a description of “serenely regal” by the media. While one columnist made the observation that it was a beautiful dress but not an outstanding one, the consensus of the media was that the gown was magnificent. The New York Times, perhaps promoting the awareness of a clothing rivalry between Europe and America, called it a lovely example of an American product. In an expression presented by another reporter, the bridal dress train was described as streaming like a waterway of whipped cream along the luxurious red floor.

The wedding announcement, widely covered by the media, brought about some controversy due to the many commercial establishments trying to exploit her name. A declaration was made by Max Factor that it would provide, as a gift, the cosmetics to complement her wedding dress. The hosiery maker, Willy’s de Mond, proclaimed it would give Kelly stockings trimmed with pearls. All of these kinds of controversial claims were later denied by Princess Grace.

The present owner of the dress is the Philadelphia Museum of Art. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of Grace Kelly’s wedding, the gown was displayed at the museum in April and May of 2006. The museum reported that this may have been its most popular exhibition.

(Source: The Vintage News) 

Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says

Experts suggest patients should stop taking the drugs when they feel better rather than completing their prescription

Telling patients to stop taking antibiotics when they feel better may be preferable to instructing them to finish the course, according to a group of experts who argue that the rule long embedded in the minds of doctors and the public is wrong and should be overturned.

Patients have traditionally been told that they must complete courses of antibiotics, the theory being that taking too few tablets will allow the bacteria causing their disease to mutate and become resistant to the drug.

But Martin Llewelyn, a professor in infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex medical school, and colleagues claim that this is not the case. In an analysis in the British Medical Journal, the experts say “the idea that stopping antibiotic treatment early encourages antibiotic resistance is not supported by evidence, while taking antibiotics for longer than necessary increases the risk of resistance”.

There are some diseases where the bug can become resistant if the drugs are not taken for long enough. The most obvious example is tuberculosis, they say. But most of the bacteria that cause people to become ill are found on everybody’s hands in the community, causing no harm, such as E coli and Staphylococcus aureus. People fall ill only when the bug gets into the bloodstream or the gut. The longer such bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, the more likely it is that resistance will develop.

The experts say there has been too little research into the ideal length of a course of antibiotics, which also varies from one individual to the next, depending in part on what antibiotics they have taken in the past.

In hospital, patients can be tested to work out when to stop the drugs. “Outside hospital, where repeated testing may not be feasible, patients might be best advised to stop treatment when they feel better,” they say. That, they add, is in direct contravention of World Health Organisation advice.

Other experts in infectious diseases backed the group. “I have always thought it to be illogical to say that stopping antibiotic treatment early promotes the emergence of drug-resistant organisms,” said Peter Openshaw, president of the British Society for Immunology.

“This brief but authoritative review supports the idea that antibiotics may be used more sparingly, pointing out that the evidence for a long duration of therapy is, at best, tenuous. Far from being irresponsible, shortening the duration of a course of antibiotics might make antibiotic resistance less likely.”

Alison Holmes, a professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London, said a great British authority, Prof Harold Lambert, had made the same point in a Lancet article entitled “Don’t keep taking the tablets” as early as 1999. “It remains astonishing that apart from some specific infections and conditions, we still do not know more about the optimum duration of courses or indeed doses in many conditions, yet this dogma has been pervasive and persistent.”

Jodi Lindsay, a professor of microbial pathogenesis at St George’s, University of London, said it was sensible advice. “The evidence for ‘completing the course’ is poor, and the length of the course of antibiotics has been estimated based on a fear of under-treating rather than any studies,” she said. “The evidence for shorter courses of antibiotics being equal to longer courses, in terms of cure or outcome, is generally good, although more studies would help and there are a few exceptions when longer courses are better – for example, TB.”

But the Royal College of GPs expressed concerns. “Recommended courses of antibiotics are not random,” said its chair, Prof Helen Stokes-Lampard. “They are tailored to individual conditions and in many cases, courses are quite short – for urinary tract infections, for example, three days is often enough to cure the infection.

“We are concerned about the concept of patients stopping taking their medication midway through a course once they ‘feel better’, because improvement in symptoms does not necessarily mean the infection has been completely eradicated. It’s important that patients have clear messages and the mantra to always take the full course of antibiotics is well known. Changing this will simply confuse people.”

England’s chief medical officer, Prof Dame Sally Davies, said: “The message to the public remains the same: people should always follow the advice of healthcare professionals. To update policies, we need further research to inform them.

“[The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] is currently developing guidance for managing common infections, which will look at all available evidence on appropriate prescribing of antibiotics.

“The Department of Health will continue to review the evidence on prescribing and drug-resistant infections, as we aim to continue the great progress we have made at home and abroad on this issue.”

(Source: The Guardian)

Driver's chilling revelation: Indrani sat on dead Sheena's face, decked her up before torching body

Driver and co-accused in the Sheena Bora murder case deposed before the CBI court. According to his horrifying account, Indrani Mukerjea strangled Sheena, sat on her face and burnt her body in a forest.

Shyamwar Rai, the driver and co-accused in the Sheena Bora murder case who turned an approver last year, deposed before the CBI court in Mumbai today.

He gave chilling details of the murder plot and told the CBI court that Indrani Mukerjea strangled Sheena Bora to death and sat on her face before burning her body in a remote location.

Shyamwar Rai's account is as horrific as it can get.

According to driver Shyamwar, in April 24, 2012, the three -- Bora's mother Indrani Mukerjea, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and himself -- picked up Sheena Bora.

She was later given a spiked cocktail in the car and was "sitting quietly with her eyes closed".

In the rear seat of the car, Indrani's ex-husband grabbed Sheena's hair and Indrani strangled her. When Shyamwar tried to cover Sheena's mouth, she bit his thumb.

"Indrani Madam was strangling Sheena with her hands... I could hear Sheena gasping and making gagging sounds. After a while, everything was quiet. Sheena became quiet."

Shyamwar admitted in his confession how Indrani immediately after murdering Sheena asked him to drive to a hotel.

While on their way to the hotel, Shyamwar said that Indrani fussed about a 3BHK flat that was given to Sheena. According to him, Indrani later sat on Sheena's face in a fit of rage.

"Indrani Madam sat on Sheena's face and said - here's your three-bedroom flat," driver Shyamwar Rai said during his questioning at the CBI court.

And after reaching a remote location," Indrani madam applied lipstick on Sheena Bora and made sure that her hair looked good."

"Madam took a saree and a pair of gloves out of the bag, and kept them on the body. She even kept the bag on her. She then poured petrol over her and left the can there. Indrani madam took out matchsticks from her pockets and burnt her," Shyamwar said.

In a threatening reaffirmation to Shyamwar, Indrani told him to not to speak a word about it and threatened him with "dire consequences".


INSIDE THE COURTROOM
Before his statement at the CBI court, driver Shyamwar seemed restless and by the time he finished it he told the public prosecutor Kavita Patil that he was exhausted.

When Shyamwar's statement was being heard, Indrani along with her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna and Peter Mukerjea were closely observant. However, Shyamwar avoided eye contact with his former employers.

Incidentally, when Shyamwar  was narrating Indrani's deeds after the murder, the latter let out a chuckle in the court.

Shyamwar also told that Indrani had plans to kill Sheena Bora's brother Mikhail.

Shyamwar admitted in the court he conducted a recce on two remote locations one for each. Out of the two places, Indrani zeroed down on Raigadh.

Driver Shyamwar Rai's deposition will continue on Tuesday.

(Source: India Today)