Comments for sid uberoi

Comment on Sid Uberoi by sidharth

sidharth — Sun, 09 May 2010 12:16:40 +0000

I got the full scoop from my dad about the family name.

It's a long story, but the main point is that the origins of the name "Uberoi" are in Urdu, where it was spelled with the character for "U." When it eventually got translated into English, many variations arose.

Our family never officially deviated from the original, but the "Oberoi" spelling became more attractive with the success of the hoteliers. Thus, some of us dabbled in the "Oberoi" spelling.

So, contrary to what I suggest in the original post, "Oberoi" is not the original spelling, but rather the most well-known of many variations of "Uberoi."

People are fond of saying "Punjabis changed the name from Oberoi to Uberoi because they just had to be different." This is wildly incorrect, since it is a Punjabi name, only mutated upon contact with other ethnic groups. The characterization of Punjabis as ostentatious and self-important, however, is spot on.

Comment on Sid Uberoi by Editor - Andrew Cavette

Editor - Andrew Cavette — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:23:49 +0000

"Andrew Cavette" married a bunch of folks in the 1800s… dang, missed 'em.

Good story.

Comment on Sid Uberoi by sidharth

sidharth — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:57:47 +0000

Thanks for the note, Val. Great to hear from you.

If I ever decide to keep in touch with my namesake, I know how to find him. I know his name.

Comment on Sid Uberoi by Valerie

Valerie — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:29:41 +0000

Hey Sid- great story! It took me forty years to find my namesake. She lives in Ohio and we've corresponded a little. It was very odd that first time to google my name and find another person living under my name!

Hope life is good-
Val xx

Comment on Admit It To Yourself by Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:36:25 +0000

My ear hair cells are infinite.

Comment on Promises Promises by Robert

Robert — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:30:29 +0000

I am nervous to put into writing my thoughts on this matter. Are they enforceable if I do?

Comment on Guilty Pleasure: Ancient Human Origins by sidharth

sidharth — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:59:48 +0000

But you're a code poet, a totally different breed of poet! I think you're underselling yourself, friend.

Send me a cashier's check for $99.99 and in a few short months, I'll show you how to market yourself into early retirement!

Comment on Guilty Pleasure: Ancient Human Origins by Robert

Robert — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:31:29 +0000

Um… poetry. It's a niche market and considered downright anachronistic by some. Want to stop a cocktail party conversation dead? "I write poetry." Yup.

Comment on The Myth of Multitasking by sidharth

sidharth — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:03:33 +0000

Thanks for a great comment, Mr. TheKid. Maybe the term is uni-tasking. As I mention in the post, I think the best approach is to take one task at a time, and to avoid doing any work on other tasks until you finish the one you're currently working on.

I don't believe that some people work better when multitasking, so I don't really buy your "personal differences" argument. Looking strictly at the quality of their work, I think everyone works better with all their attention on one task, no matter how "automatized" or habituated we get to a task (e.g. driving). Sure, you are good enough at driving that you could talk on the phone too, but I don't think there's a real argument that talking on the phone while driving makes you a better driver.

You also suggest that some tasks actually contain a series of smaller sub-tasks. I totally concur. That doesn't change the fact that people work best attacking each step (or sub-step) in serial, rather than in parallel. If you're baking a cake, it's probably better to add the eggs into the flour before or after you grease the pan, but not at the same time! But I dunno, you might have four arms.

Also, Mr. Dillon is the master of the universe. Any picture we ever find on the web, he has already used in one of his lectures. Fact.

Comment on The Myth of Multitasking by WILLYTHEKID

WILLYTHEKID — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:58:40 +0000

What is the opposite of multitasking? Uni-tasking? Isn't each task made up of many small tasks? Where are we drawing the line here? I think that one person's multi-task is another persons uni-task. Some tasks probably fit an individual's work style better than others. When completing a task for which we're more suited, we're able to throw some more complex tasks in the pot. No? I like the topic, and the picture reminds me of one that might have been in our book for Mr. Dillon's class.