![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/image.png?resize=720%2C378&ssl=1\")
There’s something revealing about looking back at a year of watching films. The choices we make, the ratings we give – they form a portrait of where we’ve been emotionally, what stories we needed, and what cinema continues to offer us. This year brought a compelling mix of contemporary releases, rediscovered classics, and regional cinema that reaffirmed why we keep returning to the screen.
\n\n\n\nIf there’s one title that dominated conversations this year, it’s Netflix’s Adolescence. This four-part limited series earned your highest rating and for good reason—it’s being hailed as one of the best things Netflix has ever produced. The series employs authentic single-take episodes (no stitched-together shots, according to the cinematographer), creating an immersive, almost unbearable intensity as it explores a 13-year-old accused of murder. Owen Cooper’s performance has been called one of the finest child performances ever captured on film. It’s the kind of viewing experience that demands you sit with your emotions long after the credits roll—essential viewing that elevates the limited series format to genuine cinema.
\n\n\n\nFor decades, Guillermo del Toro has been the filmmaker who asks us to find compassion for monsters. With Frankenstein, he finally brings his lifelong obsession with Mary Shelley’s creation to the screen, and the result is nothing short of magnificent. Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi deliver transformative performances, with Elordi nearly unrecognizable under practical makeup that recalls del Toro’s signature handcrafted aesthetic. Mia Goth’s ethereal presence and Kate Hawley’s stunning costume work deserve their own exhibition. The film carries del Toro’s Mexican heritage in its DNA—death isn’t feared here but contemplated with the reverence of Día de los Muertos. It’s a fairytale for adults, gorgeous and gory, with a heart that beats beneath its Gothic exterior.
\n\n\n\nWith Formula 1 content everywhere these days, it took until October to finally experience Ron Howard’s Rush—and what a revelation it was. The Hunt-Lauda rivalry of 1976 becomes a meditation on what drives people to risk everything. Daniel Brühl’s portrayal earned the real Niki Lauda’s endorsement for its accuracy, while Chris Hemsworth delivered what many consider his finest performance as the flamboyant James Hunt. The racing sequences don’t just show speed—they make you feel the danger, the precision, the thin line between glory and catastrophe. For anyone who feels the pull of motorsport, this isn’t just a good film—it’s the definitive F1 movie.
\n\n\n\nClosing out November, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri proved Martin McDonagh’s mastery of tragicomedy remains unmatched. Frances McDormand’s Mildred Hayes channels grief into fury with billboards demanding justice for her murdered daughter, setting off a chain of events that challenges everyone’s moral certainties. Sam Rockwell’s transformation from despicable to sympathetic earned his Oscar, while Woody Harrelson brings unexpected warmth to a conflicted lawman. The film refuses to judge its characters simply, instead presenting deeply flawed humans navigating impossible situations—a portrait of anger, forgiveness, and the impossibility of neat resolutions.
\n\n\n\nThe year brought essential encounters with the masters. Rear Window confirmed Hitchcock’s genius—how does a film confined almost entirely to one apartment generate such unbearable tension? The answer lies in Jimmy Stewart’s voyeuristic photographer, Grace Kelly’s impeccable presence, and Hitchcock’s understanding that what we imagine is always more terrifying than what we see.
\n\n\n\nRashomon proved equally revelatory. Kurosawa’s meditation on subjective truth feels more relevant than ever in an age of competing narratives. Its structure has been imitated countless times, but the original still cuts deepest.
\n\n\n\nEdward Norton’s debut in Primal Fear remains one of cinema’s great introductions. His transformation from stammering altar boy to something far more sinister showcases the kind of performance that announces a major talent. Richard Gere’s slick defense attorney provides the perfect foil, but this is Norton’s show—and watching it in 2025, knowing his subsequent career, only heightens the appreciation for what he accomplished here.
\n\n\n\nThe Passion of the Christ demands your full attention. Mel Gibson’s unflinching depiction of Christ’s final hours remains as visceral and controversial as ever—but also deeply moving for those open to its spiritual intensity. Jim Caviezel’s physical commitment to the role transcends mere acting.
\n\n\n\nThis year brought wonderful returns to Malayalam cinema’s golden age and its contemporary renaissance. Lankadahanam (1971) and Panchavadi (1973) showcase the artistry that defined South Indian cinema’s classical period. Meanwhile, Officer on Duty earned perfect marks among 2025 releases, continuing Malayalam cinema’s remarkable ability to craft compelling narratives.
\n\n\n\nBatman v Superman: Dawn of Justice earned five stars this year—a bold rating for a film that divided audiences upon release. Zack Snyder’s operatic vision of these iconic characters deserves reconsideration: the warehouse fight sequence alone stands as one of the best Batman action scenes ever filmed, and Ben Affleck’s weary Dark Knight brings genuine gravitas to the role.
\n\n\n\nSuperman (2025) brought the Man of Steel into the current superhero landscape with strong results, while The Fantastic 4: First Steps and Thunderbolts* added solid entries to the Marvel lineup.
\n\n\n\nA notable trend this year: short film discoveries. The Smiling Man, Other Side of the Box, and Man on a Train—all earned perfect ratings. These compact nightmares prove that horror doesn’t need two hours to get under your skin. Sometimes five minutes is all it takes.
\n\n\n\nThe Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare delivered exactly what a Guy Ritchie WWII film promises: Henry Cavill and Alan Ritchson slicing through Nazis with style, Eiza González stealing scenes in stunning 1940s costumes, and enough irreverent action to make two hours fly by. It’s not trying to be profound—it’s trying to be fun, and it succeeds magnificently.
\n\n\n\nWarrior (2011) provided late-year emotional devastation through MMA, proving Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton can make you care deeply about fictional brothers pummeling each other in a cage.
\n\n\n\nTrue crime and documentary content found its way into the viewing log consistently—AUM: The Cult at the End of the World, Trainwreck: Balloon Boy, and various installments in the Trainwreck series provided those rabbit-hole viewing sessions we all know too well.
\n\n\n\nIf 2025 proved anything, it’s that Apple TV has become the home of prestige science fiction television. Two series dominated the conversation this year, both exploring what it means to be human when that very humanity is under assault.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/image-2.png?resize=750%2C278&ssl=1\")
Severance returned after a nearly three-year wait that only intensified anticipation. The wait was worth it. Ben Stiller and Dan Erickson’s workplace thriller picked up exactly where the jaw-dropping Season 1 finale left off, with Mark Scout (Adam Scott) having just discovered the truth about his severed existence. The second season expanded the mythology of Lumon Industries while deepening its satirical bite on corporate culture—the meaningless tasks, the cult-like devotion to founders, the way companies claim to own not just our time but our very consciousness.
\n\n\n\nThe series became Apple TV’s most-watched show ever, surpassing even Ted Lasso. The Letterboxd community embraced it as essential viewing, with reviewers comparing it favorably to The Truman Show and Black Mirror while noting it might surpass both. The production design alone—those endless white corridors, the retro-futurist aesthetic, the goat room (yes, a room full of grazing goats supervised by Gwendoline Christie)—creates a world both sterile and deeply unsettling. Adam Scott continues to deliver career-best work, embodying the split between his “innie” and “outie” with subtle precision. The question driving the series remains hauntingly relevant: In a world that demands we separate our work selves from our true selves, are we losing something essential about what makes us human?
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/image-1.png?resize=750%2C423&ssl=1\")
Then came Pluribus, Vince Gilligan’s return to television after the Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul universe. Where Severance asks what happens when we’re divided, Pluribus asks what happens when everyone else is unified—and you’re the only one left out.
\n\n\n\nRhea Seehorn stars as Carol Sturka, a fantasy author who may be the most miserable person on Earth—and suddenly, she’s one of only 13 people immune to “the Joining,” an extraterrestrial virus that transforms humanity into a peaceful, content hive mind. The premise sounds like invasion horror, but Gilligan flips the script: the “Others” aren’t trying to destroy Carol. They’re unfailingly polite, accommodating, even loving. They just want her to join them. The horror isn’t in their aggression—it’s in their sincerity.
\n\n\n\nThe series broke Apple TV’s viewership record for a drama launch, surpassing even Severance Season 2. Critics have awarded it a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, praising its originality and Seehorn’s performance as a woman whose defining trait—her misery—becomes humanity’s last defense against enforced happiness. Gilligan draws from The Twilight Zone and Invasion of the Body Snatchers while crafting something entirely new: a meditation on whether contentment can be a form of oppression, and whether the right to be unhappy is worth defending.
\n\n\n\nTogether, these two series represent television at its most ambitious. Severance interrogates the divide between work and life; Pluribus questions the divide between self and collective. Both trust their audiences with complex ideas, refuse easy answers, and prove that science fiction remains our most powerful genre for examining the present moment. In a year full of excellent viewing, they stand as the crown jewels of prestige television.
\n\n\n\nWhat emerges from this year’s viewing is a portrait of range and openness. From Kurosawa to superhero spectacle, from Malayalam classics to Netflix limited series, from F1 drama to Gothic horror—the thread connecting these experiences is a willingness to engage fully with whatever cinema offers.
\n\n\n\nThe five-star films of 2025 share one quality: they don’t hold back. Adolescence forces you to confront uncomfortable truths about youth and violence. Frankenstein asks you to love a monster. Rush puts you in the cockpit at 200 mph. Three Billboards refuses to let anyone off the hook.
\n\n\n\nThat’s what great cinema does. It doesn’t play it safe. And neither, apparently, does this viewer.
\n\n\n\n\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/pexels-photo-3379934.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-12-01T03:04:44.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-12-01T03:05:55.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "479", "kind": "post", "slug": "how-journaling-shapes-habits-and-keeps-you-mindful", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/how-journaling-shapes-habits-and-keeps-you-mindful/", "title": "How Journaling Shapes Habits and Keeps You Mindful", "excerpt": "You have probably heard the advice before: keep a journal. It shows up in productivity blogs, self-help books, and casual conversations about getting your life together. The recommendation is everywhere, yet the reasoning behind it often remains unclear. Why does writing things down matter? What makes journaling different from simply thinking about your day? The […]", "contentHtml": "You have probably heard the advice before: keep a journal. It shows up in productivity blogs, self-help books, and casual conversations about getting your life together. The recommendation is everywhere, yet the reasoning behind it often remains unclear. Why does writing things down matter? What makes journaling different from simply thinking about your day?
\nThe answer lies not in the act of recording events, but in what that recording makes possible. Journaling creates a structure for awareness, and awareness is the foundation of both habit formation and mindfulness. Over the past year, I have used Logseq to maintain a daily journal. What started as a simple experiment has become the framework that helps me live more intentionally.
\n\nHabits form through repetition and reinforcement, but they also require visibility. You cannot improve what you do not measure, and you cannot measure what you do not track. Journaling provides that measurement system without the weight of external judgment.
\nWhen you open your journal each day and face your template, you are confronting whether you followed through on what matters to you. Did you take care of your physical health? Did you manage your mental wellbeing? Did you invest time in relationships? The template itself becomes a gentle accountability partner, asking these questions consistently.
\nThis is where the power of a structured template emerges. My Logseq journal follows a simple format with specific categories: a day summary, physical health, mental health, work, food tracking, relationships, finances, movies, and self-improvement. Each category represents a commitment to pay attention to that aspect of life. The hashtags organize information, but more importantly, they organize attention.
\nThe repetition builds something deeper than data. When you ask yourself the same questions daily, you begin to see patterns. You notice that skipping breakfast affects your afternoon energy. You recognize that neglecting relationships for a week creates distance. You observe that ignoring your mental health compounds stress. These patterns become visible only through consistent tracking, and once they are visible, they become actionable.
\nThe structure of your journaling template matters because it defines what you consider important enough to monitor. Each section serves a specific purpose in building awareness and supporting habit formation.
\nThe day summary forces synthesis. At the end of each day, you must identify what actually mattered versus what simply filled time. This practice trains you to distinguish between meaningful activity and mere busyness. Over weeks and months, patterns emerge about where your time goes and whether that allocation aligns with your priorities.
\nSeparating physical and mental health creates space to see how these dimensions of wellbeing interact. You might discover that your physical health remains consistent while your mental health fluctuates, or that attending to one directly influences the other. Without separate tracking, these relationships remain invisible.
\nFood tracking serves as a window into unconscious patterns. This is not about counting calories or following strict dietary rules. It is about consciousness. When you write down what you ate for each meal, you begin noticing habits you did not realize you had. Perhaps you skip lunch when stressed, or you reach for comfort food when tired, or you actually feel significantly better after cooking at home. The act of recording makes these patterns clear.
\nWork, relationships, and finances represent the domains where your daily choices either serve your long-term goals or work against them. A daily check-in prevents drift. Without this intentional pause, weeks can pass where you neglect important relationships, allow work to consume all available time, or make small financial decisions that accumulate in unhelpful directions.
\nThe sections on movies and self-improvement reflect how you invest in yourself. Are you consuming content mindlessly to fill time, or are you choosing deliberately? Are you learning, growing, and developing skills? These questions might seem less urgent than health or work, but they reveal whether you are treating yourself as someone worth investing in.
\n![\"Visualize](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Suzy-Hazelwood-Photo.jpg?resize=750%2C421&ssl=1\")
Photo by Suzy Hazelwood: https://www.pexels.com/photo/an-abstract-artwork-5870930/
Starting a journaling practice feels deceptively simple, which is precisely why many people struggle with it. The barrier is not complexity but consistency. Here is how to begin in a way that supports long-term success.
\nChoose your tool first. I use Logseq because it is functional rather than precious. You are not trying to maintain a beautiful journal that deserves display. You are building a working document for self-awareness. Digital tools offer advantages for consistency because you can access them from anywhere, search through past entries, and modify templates as your needs evolve. However, if you prefer pen and paper, that works equally well. The medium matters less than the commitment.
\nCreate a template that matches your actual life, not an idealized version. Start with five to seven categories that genuinely matter to you. You can always add more later, but beginning with too many creates overwhelm. My template works for me because it covers the areas I want to develop intentionally. Your template should reflect your priorities, not mine.
\nEstablish a specific time for journaling. The practice needs to become automatic, and automaticity comes from routine. Many people find that journaling at the end of the day works best because they can reflect on what happened. Others prefer morning journaling to set intentions. The timing matters less than the consistency. Choose a time when you can realistically sit down for five to ten minutes without interruption.
\nStart small. Your first entries do not need to be comprehensive or profound. Write one sentence for each category if that is all you can manage. The goal is to establish the habit, not to produce perfect reflections. Many people abandon journaling because they set unrealistic standards for what an entry should look like. Give yourself permission to be brief, boring, or repetitive. You are building a practice, not crafting literature.
\nThe first week of journaling feels manageable. The first month tests your commitment. The first three months determine whether journaling becomes a genuine habit or another abandoned resolution.
\nConsistency requires removing friction. Keep your journal easily accessible. If you journal digitally, pin the application to your taskbar or home screen. If you use a physical notebook, keep it on your desk or nightstand. The fewer barriers between you and the act of journaling, the more likely you are to maintain the practice.
\nAccept that you will miss days. This is not failure. Missing one day does not mean the habit is broken. What breaks habits is letting one missed day become two, then three, then a week. When you miss a day, simply return the next day without judgment or elaborate catch-up entries. The goal is consistency over perfection.
\nTrack your streak if that motivates you, but do not let it become a source of pressure. Some people find that seeing a chain of consecutive days encourages them to keep going. Others find that once they break a streak, they lose motivation entirely. Know which type of person you are and structure your approach accordingly.
\nNotice when resistance appears. There will be days when you do not want to journal. Pay attention to why. Sometimes resistance signals exhaustion and your actual need is rest, not another task. Other times, resistance appears because you know journaling will make you confront something you would rather avoid. Learning to distinguish between these types of resistance helps you respond appropriately.
\nMindfulness is not something you need to add on top of journaling. It emerges naturally from the practice itself. The moment you sit down to fill out your template, you are already practicing presence. You are asking fundamental questions: What happened today? How did I show up? What did I choose?
\nThis daily pause interrupts autopilot mode. Most people move through their days in a semi-conscious state, reacting to demands and following established patterns without deliberate thought. Journaling creates a designated moment where you step back and observe. You become aware of your own life as it is happening, rather than only reflecting on it later with regret about what you missed.
\nThe act of writing slows down thinking. When thoughts remain in your head, they move quickly, often in circles. Writing forces you to organize those thoughts into coherent sentences. This process creates clarity. You understand your own experiences better when you translate them into words.
\nOver time, this daily practice of observation changes how you move through the rest of your day. You begin noticing things in real time because you know you will journal about them later. Did I take care of my health today? Did I respond to that difficult email constructively? Did I make time for the relationships that matter? These questions start influencing your choices before the day ends, not just during your reflection period.
\nOne week of journaling shows you immediate patterns. One month reveals trends. Three months provides data you can actually use to make meaningful changes. The habit of journaling feeds into every other habit you are trying to build because you have created a written record of who you are becoming.
\nThis record serves multiple purposes. It provides accountability that is gentle yet persistent. It creates evidence of progress that might otherwise feel invisible. It reveals the gap between your intentions and your actions, and that gap is where growth happens.
\nYou cannot close that gap until you can see it clearly. Journaling makes it visible. When you review past entries, you see how often you mentioned wanting to exercise but did not, or how many days you felt stressed but took no action to address it, or how frequently you said relationships were important but failed to prioritize them. This visibility is uncomfortable, but it is also necessary.
\nThe opposite is equally valuable. You also see evidence of progress and consistency that you might not otherwise recognize. You notice that you have cooked dinner at home for two weeks straight, or that you have maintained your morning routine despite a busy period, or that you responded to a difficult situation with more patience than you would have months ago. These small wins accumulate, and journaling ensures you see them.
\nMy template works for me because it addresses the areas where I need accountability and awareness. Your template should do the same for you, which means it might look completely different. Some people need more categories for creative work. Others need sections for parenting or caregiving. Some people track symptoms of chronic conditions. Others monitor mood fluctuations or energy levels throughout the day.
\nThe universal principle is this: your journal should help you see yourself more clearly. It should reveal patterns, support intentions, and create space for honest reflection. It should be functional rather than performative, a tool for growth rather than a document to impress anyone.
\nAs you build consistency, remain willing to adjust. If a category consistently remains empty, remove it or replace it with something more relevant. If you realize you need more specificity in one area, add subcategories. Your template should evolve as you do.
\nThe fundamental shift that journaling creates is moving from “What should I do?” to “What did I actually do?” That gap between intention and action becomes visible on the page. Once you can see it, you can begin to close it.
\nThis is where both habits and mindfulness live. In the space between what you mean to do and what you actually do. In the moment when you choose awareness over autopilot. In the daily practice of paying attention to your own life.
\nStarting a journal is simple. Open a document, create a template, and write something. Building consistency requires more: it requires returning to that practice day after day, even when it feels tedious or uncomfortable. But the payoff compounds. You develop habits that serve you. You become more aware of how you spend your time and energy. You build a relationship with yourself based on honesty rather than aspiration.
\nThe journal becomes a mirror that shows you who you are right now, and paradoxically, that clear view is what makes it possible to become who you want to be.
\nPS: Let me know if you would like to know how to set up logseq to start journaling. I will write one up in case anyone is interested.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Journal-Book-and-Pencils.jpg", "publishedAt": "2025-10-27T02:34:56.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-10-27T02:44:47.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "454", "kind": "post", "slug": "php-9-the-looming-wave-of-deprecations", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/php-9-the-looming-wave-of-deprecations/", "title": "Commit Log#4 – PHP 9: The Looming Wave of Deprecations", "excerpt": "PHP 9 is bringing a sweeping removal of legacy features, stricter rules, and major breaking changes. Learn how deprecations will reshape web development, what it means for your projects, and how to prepare.", "contentHtml": "\nImagine you have been sailing smoothly with your PHP project, proud that you managed to keep it on 8.x while others are still stuck further back. Life feels stable, maybe even a little boring. Then along comes PHP 9, and suddenly half your code looks like it belongs in a museum exhibit. What once worked without fuss now throws warnings, errors, or simply refuses to run. Your syslog turns into an exasperating farrago1 of junk. That is the storm people are already calling “deprecation hell,” and it is not just a small bump in the road. PHP 9 is shaping up to be a turning point in how we manage and maintain web applications.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/thanos-snap.webp?resize=750%2C483&ssl=1\")
PHP 9 is not just another version bump. It is a full-scale cleanup of the language, clearing out years of old features that have been marked as deprecated but still hanging around. Developers who have leaned on those quirks for convenience are about to face some hard choices.
\n\n\n\nThe scope is huge. Everything deprecated in PHP 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 will be removed in one sweep. What has felt like a slow trickle of warnings over the past few years is about to hit as one massive breaking change. For many projects, it will feel less like an update and more like a reckoning.
\n\n\n\nLet’s start with something that looks harmless: the ++ and — operators. Those little shortcuts you use to bump numbers up or down are getting a serious shake-up in PHP 9.
\n\n\n\nRemember the odd behavior where $foo = 'a9'; $foo++; would quietly turn into 'b0'? That quirky trick is gone. In PHP 9, it will throw a TypeError before you can even wonder what just happened. The same goes for incrementing an empty string or a boolean. What used to “just work” in PHP’s anything-goes style will now stop your code in its tracks.
At first glance, this might feel like a small detail. But think about how many codebases out there rely on PHP’s loose type juggling without even realizing it. Overnight, that convenience becomes a breaking change that could bring your app to a halt.
\n\n\n\nThe upside is that this change closes the door on years of inconsistent behavior. Instead of quietly producing unexpected results, PHP will now make its rules clear and predictable. It may sting during migration, but in the long run it means fewer hidden bugs and fewer head-scratching moments when your app behaves in ways you never intended.
\n\n\n\nFor years, PHP has been relaxed about how you drop variables into strings. You could write \"$foo\", \"{$foo}\", \"${foo}\", or even \"${expr}\", and PHP would happily figure it out.
With PHP 9, that flexibility is being reined in. The ${foo} and ${expr} styles are gone for good. If you have code like \"Hello ${world}!\", it is not a matter of preference anymore – that snippet simply will not run.
This feels like a small tweak, but it forces consistency. Instead of juggling multiple ways to do the same thing, PHP is nudging developers toward one clear, predictable approach. It means a bit of rewriting now, but it also makes code easier to read and maintain in the long run.
\n\n\n\nThis is where things get serious. In PHP 9, unserialization errors are no longer gentle warnings you can shrug off. They are being promoted to full-blown exceptions. That familiar nudge – Warning: unserialize(): Error at offset 0 of 3 bytes – will now explode into an UnserializationFailedException that halts execution.
For many applications, this is going to sting. Codebases that have been quietly brushing off data corruption or malformed input will suddenly stop working. The problems were always there, but PHP 9 forces you to face them head-on instead of letting them slip by unnoticed.
\n\n\n\nThe upside is clear: it is far better to catch bad data loudly and early than to let it creep through your system unnoticed. Still, for projects that never planned for this, the upgrade could feel like pulling the pin on a grenade sitting in the middle of your stack.
\n\n\n\nAnother big change in PHP 9 is the push to simplify overloaded function signatures. For years, some functions have tried to handle multiple jobs depending on how many arguments you threw at them. It worked, but it also made code harder to read and maintain.
\n\n\n\nTake array_keys() as an example. Right now, you can call it with just an array, or you can tack on extra parameters to filter values. In PHP 9, those extra responsibilities are being split off into new, more focused functions. So instead of writing array_keys($myArray, 'searchValue', true), you will now use array_keys_filter($myArray, 'searchValue', true).
The same principle applies to constructors like DatePeriod, which are being given dedicated creation methods instead of trying to cover every use case with one overloaded signature.
It means more explicit function names, but also fewer surprises when reading code. The goal is clarity over cleverness – and while it may take some habit-breaking, future developers (including your future self) will thank you for it.
\n\n\n\nOne of the most jarring changes in PHP 9 is how it handles undefined variables and properties. In earlier versions, something like echo $foo; when $foo did not exist would just toss out a notice or warning you could easily overlook. In PHP 9, that same line will now throw a fatal error and bring your application to a halt.
This is more than a technical adjustment – it is a philosophical shift. PHP has long been known as the “forgiving” language, letting developers get away with sloppy handling of variables. With PHP 9, that safety net is gone. The message is clear: if a variable or property does not exist, you are expected to deal with it properly.
\n\n\n\nIt may feel harsh at first, but the tradeoff is code that is cleaner, safer, and less likely to fail silently in production.
\n\n\n\nThis is where the “hell” part of deprecation hell really shows itself. Normally, PHP follows a steady rhythm: a feature is deprecated in one version, then fully removed in the next major release. With PHP 9, that rhythm changes. Instead of trimming just what was deprecated in 8.4, it is sweeping away everything that has been marked deprecated across the entire 8.x series.
\n\n\n\nThe result is a backlog of years’ worth of changes all coming due at once. And the impact will not be small. Developer surveys in 2025 show that 38 percent of teams already cite testing as the most time-consuming part of a PHP upgrade, while 35 percent say refactoring eats up most of their effort. When PHP 9 lands, those numbers are almost certain to climb.
\n\n\n\nThe ripple effects of PHP 9 go far beyond syntax changes. A large part of the ecosystem is still running on unsupported versions, and when the new release forces a reckoning, it will set off a modernization wave that divides actively maintained projects from those that are essentially abandoned.
\n\n\n\nThe cost of keeping up will not be trivial. Depending on the size and complexity of an application, PHP migrations can run anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even well-maintained systems will feel the pressure, while older or loosely managed ones may struggle to justify the investment.
\n\n\n\nFrameworks like Laravel and Symfony will almost certainly adapt quickly and shield their users from some of the pain. But the real challenge lies with WordPress plugins, custom CMSs, and legacy applications running on outdated frameworks or raw PHP. Many of these will face a stark choice: invest heavily in modernization or remain frozen on unsupported versions.
\n\n\n\nWhat emerges is a two-tier ecosystem. On one side, modern and well-funded projects move forward confidently. On the other, smaller or neglected systems risk being left behind. At that point, it is not just a question of technical debt – it is a question of survival in the PHP world.
\n\n\n\nFor all the talk of breakage, PHP 9’s stricter approach signals a real coming-of-age moment for the language. By cutting out ambiguous behavior and enforcing consistency, PHP is positioning itself as a platform developers can count on for serious, large-scale work. The benefits are tangible too: better performance through JIT compilation, a more robust random number generator, and a maturing type system with features like generics that make code safer and easier to maintain.
\n\n\n\nOf course, none of that matters if teams cannot make the leap. Migration will take planning and effort. Tools like Rector can help automate parts of the refactoring, but they are not magic wands. The real safety net comes from starting early, building strong test suites, and steadily tackling deprecations before they turn into fatal errors. The PHP team has extended the support cycle from three years to four, which buys a little more breathing room, but for large and complex applications even four years can feel short.
\n\n\n\nThe projects that treat PHP 9 as an opportunity to clean house will come out faster, safer, and more maintainable. The ones that wait too long may find themselves stranded. In that sense, the storm is not just a threat – it is also a chance to set a stronger foundation for the future.
\n\n\n\n![\"code](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/pexels-photo-3861969.jpeg?resize=750%2C500&ssl=1\")
PHP 9 is more than just another version upgrade. It marks a generational shift that will reshape how we approach building and maintaining applications. The old mindset of “it works, don’t touch it” is fading fast. In this new environment, active maintenance, proper testing, and regular updates are no longer optional – they are survival tools.
\n\n\n\nThat does not have to be bad news. The wider web development world has been moving toward rigorous practices for years, and PHP 9 is simply accelerating that shift. Teams that already embrace modern workflows – comprehensive test coverage, continuous integration, and steady dependency updates – will find themselves in a strong position. Those who resist will risk being left behind, stuck maintaining fragile legacy systems.
\n\n\n\nThe real story of PHP 9 is not just about fixing broken code. It is about changing how we think about long-term maintenance and development. In that sense, what feels like deprecation hell today may turn out to be the push PHP has needed to truly modernize.
\n\n\n\nWhether you feel ready or not, PHP 9 is coming. It will fundamentally change what it means to be a PHP developer. The real question is not whether you will be affected by the storm of deprecations, but whether you are prepared to weather it and emerge stronger on the other side.
\n\n\n\nReferences:
\n\n\n\nWhat starts as quick relief often turns into a loop of tiny fees, shortfalls, and stress. This is a ground-level look at how that loop forms – in the U.S. with Earned Wage Access, and in India with instant-loan apps – and how to step off it without losing your dignity or your budget.
\n\n\n\nThe bill hit like a door slamming in a gust of wind. A necessary dental procedure, no way around it, and then the number: about 6,000 dollars. Insurance covered some, but not enough to stop my stomach from dropping. I paid what I could, shuffled a few other payments, and told myself I’d make it work. I earn decently in the U.S., but from that week on, my money behaved like water in a cupped hand. Gas. Groceries. Childcare. A utility bill I hadn’t planned for. My account balance always lingered around in 2 digit numbers. The space between paydays shrank to almost nothing.
\n\n\n\nThat’s when the Instagram ads found me. Bright banners. Friendly copy. Get cash now. No interest, just a small fee. Instant transfer. I almost tapped. Who wouldn’t want to turn down the noise in their head for a few days? Before I did, I paused. I opened a new tab. The marketing felt warm. The fine print felt cool. There’s always a trade: a tip here, an expedite fee there, a subscription you barely notice. The pitch says you’re accessing what’s already yours. But if tomorrow’s paycheck arrives already spoken for, what exactly did today’s quick fix buy you? I could see the path: take a little now, get a lighter check Friday, need a little more next Tuesday. It’s a loop with a friendly onramp.
\n\n\n\nIt reminded me of a call with a close friend in India. He works gigs that make the month feel like a series of app pings. During a slow patch he took a 7-day loan that promised speed and convenience. The first week brought relief. Rent and groceries covered. He’d square it on the due date. Day seven came with a lump sum and a processing fee that looked small on screen and large in real life. He pushed part of it to one card, another part to a second, and opened a third app to clear the first. The calls started when he missed a reminder. Not violent, not at first, just persistent. Friendly check-ins turned sharp. He stopped answering unknown numbers. He started sleeping with his phone on silent. Anxiety spreads like that – one notification at a time.
\n\n\n\nWhen we spoke again, I could hear the fatigue. He was doing math in the background while we chatted, counting steps on a dark staircase. The work wasn’t the problem; he was taking every shift he could. After a full day as a developer, he drove Uber and Ola at night. Sometimes Swiggy deliveries. He was hustling. The problem was compression. Short tenures. Big due dates. One missed day and the next week bends out of shape. He’s not careless. He’s careful. But careful still loses when the timing is against you.
\n\n\n\nMy situation and his are different in a hundred ways, but the feeling rhymes. One big, necessary expense can tip a balanced life into a tightrope walk. You don’t need a lecture to understand that. You feel it in your chest when a bill lands two days before payday. The apps don’t look like traps. They look like bridges. They work, until the tolls make the crossing longer than the river.
\n\n\n\nI didn’t take the advance that night. I opened a spreadsheet instead and tried to unknot the next two pay cycles. It’s less exciting than instant cash and a lot more honest. My friend started untangling too. He called a regulated lender, moved two bills to different dates, and told the third app to wait. None of it was easy. None of it was instant. But for both of us, the goal shifted to the same thing: stop tomorrow from paying for today.
\n\n\n\nThis isn’t a finger-pointing story. It’s two people on either side of the world trying not to get washed away by timing and fees. If you’ve ever stared at a due date and wished for a time machine, you already know the stakes. What follows isn’t a scolding or a policy brief. It’s a simple, ground-level map of how these tools work, how the loop forms, and how to step off it.
\n\n\n\nAlso, this is not a financial advice, and I am one of the worst to advise on the matter. Read this as an anecdotal note, if it helps you, Me Gusta!!
\n\n\n\n![\"Abstract](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/pexels-photo-3573555-1.jpeg?resize=750%2C422&ssl=1\")
American Earned Wage Access apps are very good at not sounding like loans. You worked Monday through Wednesday, so why wait until Friday to get paid? No credit checks, no interest, just your own money a little early.
\n\n\n\nThere are two flavors. Employer-linked apps plug into payroll and timekeeping, so when someone asks for 100 dollars, the system already knows the hours worked. Direct-to-consumer apps don’t connect to an employer; they analyze bank deposits and try to predict what you’ll earn.
\n\n\n\nThe first kind adds certainty. If you want the money instantly, you usually pay a small fee. If you’re willing to wait a day, it’s often free. The appeal is obvious, but the behavior it creates is slippery. A one-time emergency becomes a Tuesday habit. You take 100 today, Friday’s check is lighter, so next week you take 75. Those tiny fees add up quietly, and before long the app is part of your cash flow rather than a rare tool for a bad week.
\n\n\n\nThe second kind adds risk. Algorithms guess your future income from your past deposits. If you miss shifts or your hours drop, you can end up owing against money you didn’t actually earn. What was sold as wage access starts to behave like short-term borrowing.
\n\n\n\nIndia’s instant-loan world evolved differently. The regulated side includes players that partner with licensed banks and NBFCs. They aren’t cheap, but they live inside clear rules with real disclosures and grievance channels. The unregulated side is the wild west. Apps appear overnight with shiny ads, push APKs outside official stores, and offer small loans for impossibly short windows. A 2,000 rupee advance can snowball into costs that feel like triple-digit annual interest once all the “processing” and daily fees are stacked. The Tamil phrases speed vaddi and meter vaddi capture it perfectly: the meter keeps running.
\n\n\n\nCollections in that shadowy space can be brutal. Miss a payment and they scrape your contacts, call your boss, text your family, and turn private money trouble into public shame. Some borrowers report deep violations – photos lifted from phones, images doctored and circulated. I’ve personally received shaming messages about a neighbor who missed a tiny loan. That’s how invasive it gets.
\n\n\n\nSo yes, both markets sell relief from the same problem: the days between bills and pay. But the failure modes are different. In the U.S., the danger is slow erosion – smaller checks, more advances, a constant squeeze. In the unregulated Indian market, the danger is escalation – crushing fees, compressed timelines, harassment that bleeds into every corner of your life.
\n\n\n\nIn the U.S., everyday costs have outpaced wage growth. Housing, healthcare, childcare – pick three. Schedules wobble. A surprise expense can turn a normal month into a circus act. That’s when quick-pay tools feel less like a choice and more like oxygen.
\n\n\n\nIn India, financial inclusion has exploded on paper. Almost everyone has a bank account now, thanks to Jan Dhan and digital rails like UPI. But many accounts sit dormant, and access to safe, affordable credit still lags. When incomes are irregular and bills are fixed, the fastest option tends to win – even if it’s the worst one.
\n\n\n\nBalances are numbers on a screen. Money stress is a weight on your ribcage. It’s the guilty feeling when another bill shows up. It’s the tense dinner table. It’s the quiet click of Do Not Disturb at night.
\n\n\n\nFor some Indians caught in unregulated loan webs, the stress is not abstract. There are stories of borrowers who took a few thousand rupees and ended up facing daily threats, doctored photos, and public humiliation. Some paid, and the harassment still didn’t stop. These aren’t statistics. They’re sleepless nights and frayed nerves and thoughts nobody wants to admit out loud.
\n\n\n\nWhen help starts to hurt, you lose more than money. You lose rest, patience, even trust in your own judgment.
\n\n\n\nYou can find charts, but the pattern is simple. People with predictable bills and unpredictable income live on a knife edge. Hourly workers who get five shifts one week and three the next. Recent graduates and first-time renters learning how thin a month can stretch. Migrant workers and single-income families juggling health issues or caregiving. When time and earnings both wobble, even careful people get cornered.
\n\n\n\nIn the U.S., research shows most frequent EWA users are hourly and gig workers, many with sub-prime credit. In India, the riskiest apps target younger, digital-first users who lack good information about formal credit. Different countries, same vulnerability.
\n\n\n\nRegulators are moving, if unevenly. In the U.S., there’s an ongoing debate about whether EWA is a payroll benefit or a form of credit that should sit under Truth in Lending rules. Some states now require licensing, clear disclosures, and bans on tips disguised as donations. Others are exploring how to treat EWA providers more like lenders so abuses don’t slip through.
\n\n\n\nIndia has moved faster on paper. The RBI’s digital lending guidelines demand transparency, limit data grabs, and create grievance channels. There’s a whitelist for legitimate apps and ongoing takedowns of shady ones. Enforcement remains a whack-a-mole game, but the direction is right.
\n\n\n\nNone of this is perfect. All of it helps.
\n\n\n\nThere are moments when a short, well-structured advance is the least bad option. A car repair you know you can clear next payday. A medical bill you can resolve within one cycle. If your employer offers a subsidized EWA program with hard caps, default free transfers, and payroll integration, that’s the safer version because it’s harder to overuse.
\n\n\n\nIn India, stick to regulated lenders with published fee schedules, clear interest components, and real support lines. If an app wants your contacts or photos, walk away. If it requires a side-loaded APK, run.
\n\n\n\nThe tool should be a bridge you cross once, not a road you start living on. Go in with an exit plan.
\n\n\n\nGive yourself 30 days to breathe. For two pay cycles, hit pause on new advances. List every fixed bill. Call providers and shift due dates to cluster near payday. You’re not cutting essentials; you’re buying time. Use those weeks to carve out a small buffer – 50 or 100 dollars in a separate account. A tiny cushion turns emergencies into inconveniences.
\n\n\n\nIf you need outside help, look for options that don’t start the debt carousel. Credit unions in the U.S. often have small-dollar loans with capped rates and installments. Some employers have hardship funds. Community groups and faith organizations sometimes offer zero-interest help. In a pinch, a short burst of extra shifts or selling unused stuff is better than a fee treadmill.
\n\n\n\nIf you’re already in the loop, try a simple three-paycheck plan. First paycheck clears the advance. Second paycheck rebuilds the buffer. Third paycheck resets your normal cash flow. It’s boring. It works.
\n\n\n\nTurn off autopay for anything that might trigger an overdraft. Set low-balance alerts. Consider using a separate account just for bills so a mistake in daily spending doesn’t domino through your month.
\n\n\n\nIf you’re in India and must use a digital lender, protect your privacy. Deny contact and photo permissions. Revoke access after closing the loan. Ask for data deletion in writing. Keep your financial life off the same phone you use for family photos if you can.
\n\n\n\nFinally, use this quick red-flag/green-flag checklist whenever you’re considering a cash-flow tool:
\n\n\n\n| Red Flags | Green Flags |
|---|---|
| “Tipping” feels mandatory or non-optional | No pressure to tip; upfront, optional donations |
| Paywalls for immediate access | Free or slower transfer clearly presented |
| Loan terms or total cost unclear | Transparent fees, clear APR, written terms |
| Demands access to contacts or photos | Minimal permissions – only what’s necessary |
| Relentless reminders or aggressive pings | Polite reminders with opt-out options |
Guardrails – like this checklist, a buffer, and deliberate planning – don’t eliminate emergencies. What they do is stop emergencies from becoming entanglements. When tools are used cautiously and with purpose, they can serve you – without tying you down.
\n\n\n\nQuick cash can be a lifesaver. Used often, it becomes a leak. The healthier model is simple limits, no pressure to tip, next-day transfers that are free by default, and strong privacy rules. Pair that with real financial coaching – workshops, a budgeting app, even a smart chatbot – and people’s stress drops while savings tick up. When employers add early shift schedules, transparent sick time, or hardship funds, the need for advances goes down. That’s the point.
\n\n\n\nSmall buffers beat small fees. Fifty dollars of slack will save you more stress than five dollars of speed.
\n\n\n\nThis guide is only useful if it meets you where you are. What worked for you? Did an app, an employer program, or a community group help you climb out of the loop? What would you add to the plan? Share your story. The more we compare notes, the better the bridges we’ll build – bridges that carry us over tough weeks without pulling us under.
\n\n\n\n![\"black](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/pexels-photo-33216754.jpeg?resize=750%2C1125&ssl=1\")
No one can deny that financial stability gives us that ZEN state!!
\n\n\n\n\n\nIf buying is not owning, piracy is not stealing. Period! – Anonymous
\n
This is going to be a long rant. But I am sure you can very well relate to it.
\n\n\n\nI’ve been window shopping for cars recently as my lease is about to end. While looking at options, I stumbled on the BBC news about Volkswagen ID.3 in the UK. On paper, it looks great—sleek design, clean electric drive, everything I’d expect from a next-gen car. But then came the catch: if I wanted a little extra horsepower, a few more kilowatts that the car is already capable of, I’d have to pay for it. Not once, but as a subscription. Think about that. The engine is sitting there under the hood, fully capable, but unless I keep swiping my card every month, I can’t unlock its full potential.
\n\n\n\nThe same story hit me at home in a much smaller way though. I bought F1 25 for my Xbox. Paid for the game, paid for the console. Yet when I tried to play multiplayer with friends, I found out I need a separate monthly subscription – GamePass, just to unlock that part of the game. It’s not about buying access to an entire library of games—that I can understand—it’s paying extra just to use features of something I already bought.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt makes me wonder: are we really in an age of innovation, or have companies figured out how to dress up legalized rent-seeking as progress? Innovation seems to take us one step forward, but these subscription plans drag us three steps back. If this is the future of ownership, where exactly are we headed?
\n
The more you look around, the more you realize this isn’t just a car thing or a gaming thing. It’s everywhere. Take cars, for example. Volkswagen isn’t alone. BMW got roasted a while back for trying to charge drivers a subscription fee to use heated seats. The seats were already installed in the car—you were literally sitting on the hardware—but you had to pay a monthly fee to turn the heat on. Tesla has pulled similar stunts with software-locked features, where you pay extra to “unlock” capabilities that the car is already equipped to handle.
\n\n\n\nGaming isn’t much different. My frustration with F1 25 multiplayer is part of a bigger story. Xbox users know this well: if you want to play online, you need Xbox Game Pass Core or one of its higher tiers. You can spend $70 on a game, but unless you keep paying for the privilege of connecting to other players, you don’t get the full experience. It’s like buying a cricket bat but being told you can only use it in friendly matches unless you pay a monthly stadium access fee.
\n\n\n\nAnd then there are home appliances and fitness gadgets. Smart fridges that promise advanced features only if you stay subscribed. Peloton bikes that cost thousands but become half-useless without a monthly plan. Even printers—HP tried to lock people into an ink subscription model where the printer itself would refuse to work with cartridges outside the plan.
\n\n\n\nIt’s a pattern that’s hard to miss. You buy the hardware, you bring it home, and yet a good chunk of its value is trapped behind digital locks. What used to be a simple transaction—pay once, own it—has quietly morphed into an endless rental agreement.
\n\n\n\nIf you ask the companies, they’ll tell you this model is all about flexibility. They’ll say subscriptions give you the freedom to pay only for what you need, when you need it. Some spin it as a way to lower the upfront cost—you don’t have to pay for everything at once, just activate features later. And of course, they love to remind us that ongoing payments supposedly help them provide better updates, smoother services, and continued support.
\n\n\n\nSounds nice on paper, doesn’t it? But peel back the marketing gloss and the story looks a lot less noble. What’s really happening is a carefully engineered cycle of FOMO—fear of missing out—where you’re nudged to pay more just so you don’t feel like you’re stuck with a crippled product. It’s not flexibility; it’s artificial scarcity. The hardware is sitting there in your car, your console, your fridge—fully capable, already paid for—but locked away behind digital bars. You’re basically renting slices of something you should already own.
\n\n\n\nAnd let’s not kid ourselves: the point isn’t to make life easier for customers. The point is to turn every possible feature into a revenue stream. One-time sales don’t excite investors anymore, but recurring subscriptions? That’s Wall Street gold. Companies have figured out that disabling features you’ve already bought and then charging you to unlock them is one of the most reliable ways to pad their bottom line.
\n\n\n\nThe absurdity of it all is hard to ignore. You’re not paying for new innovation. You’re paying to use what’s already sitting in your driveway, your living room, or your kitchen, held hostage until you cough up a monthly fee.
\n\n\n\nWhen you step back and crunch the numbers, what once was a simple purchase becomes a bottomless money pit.
\n\n\n\nIt starts with business sense: companies used to rely on one-time sales, where you paid once and walked away. Now, the mantra is “recurring revenue” or “MRR”- Monthly Recurring Revenue —and for good reason. Wall Street absolutely loves it. Companies with subscriptions tend to get higher valuations because their income is predictable and sustainable. It’s not just wishful thinking. Research has shown that businesses embracing recurring revenue consistently command bigger multiples compared to those relying on one-time buys . It’s like paying for stability: investors will happily pay more when they know where the money is coming from.
\n\n\n\nThat predictability comes at a cost—your cost. A monthly fee might sound harmless, but over the years it adds up. That Xbox multiplayer charge or the power-unlocker fee on your car—over five years? It could easily eclipse what the feature would cost outright. Problems usually boil down to the lifetime math: you keep paying just to keep what’s already yours.
\n\n\n\nWorse yet, once you get locked into an ecosystem—printer ink subscriptions, consoles, cars, whatever—you’re stuck. The psychological weight of losing access if you stop paying traps you in. You might hate it, but you keep paying to avoid the headache of starting over somewhere else.
\n\n\n\nApple’s iCloud is a good comparison. Sure, it’s convenient when you’re all-in on Apple devices, but you’re effectively paying rent to keep using your own files—from a brand that already charges a premium for hardware. Stop paying? Suddenly, your own data feels like it’s locked in a vault you didn’t build.
\n\n\n\nSo what does this all add up to? It means companies have stopped selling you a product—they’re selling you ongoing access. And the moment that access feels essential, you’re no longer a buyer—you’re a tenant.
\n\n\n\nOwnership, it turns out, is becoming a relic of the past.
\n\n\n\nFirst off, the right to repair is getting strangled by subscription locks. When essential features are gated behind software licenses, suddenly fixing what you bought yourself becomes impossible—unless you deal with the company’s ecosystem—and pay ongoing fees to stay “authorized.” That’s not ownership; it’s corporate control wearing the guise of convenience.
\n\n\n\nThen there’s the privacy nightmare. My Tata Nexon came with a year of free connected features. But I doubt it stopped “checking in” to its mothership after the trial—no consent, no opt-out, just data silently streaming in the background. A Nexon owner in Mumbai reported something eerily similar, describing how his car suddenly pinged in for service after “sending out a couple of signals”—revealing just how little transparency exists about the data being collected . There’s serious concern brewing over smart vehicles acting like smartphones on wheels, leaving drivers clueless about what’s being tracked—and sold.
\n\n\n\nIf you think it stops there, consider reliability. Subscription-based features vanish into thin air once servers go down or companies shut them off. Some users on Steam found out the hard way—games they purchased simply stopped working because their licenses couldn’t be validated. And this isn’t hypothetical: Ubisoft players in California filed a class-action lawsuit after The Crew servers shut down, rendering the game useless—even for those with physical discs .
\n\n\n\nLet’s talk ethics for a minute. Suppose you bypass the digital lock—root your car, jailbreak your game, hack your appliance—to get full use of something you already bought. Is that theft, or reclaiming ownership? After all, you paid for the hardware, not a perpetual corporate ransom. Echoes of this can be found online:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“Once that’s disclosed, people will… well, they’ll do absolutely nothing about it … The car definitely has the capability. It’s just hidden behind 70 layers of inaccessibility.”
\n
That line nails it: your product is brilliant, your wallet is empty, and your freedom is locked down by design.
\n\n\n\nWhile I was fuming over my ill-fate to pay for GamePass Core, I started going through online forums both in India and the US context on what is the consumer protection authorities doing about this farrago! Here is what I found out.
\n\n\n\nThe U.S. right-to-repair momentum is gaining real traction—and not a moment too soon. The Justice Department and FTC are slamming John Deere for its practice of forcing farmers to use only authorized dealers for repairs, locking crucial software behind paywalls and licensing restrictions. The FTC alleges this creates a monopoly and drives up costs unfairly .
\n\n\n\nIn January 2025, the FTC rolled out a full-blown antitrust lawsuit against Deere, joined by multiple states. Their claim? Deere is gouging farmers and choking off independent repair options . A judge dismissed Deere’s attempt to toss the case, calling the firm’s arguments weak and repetitive—and made a wry reference to movie sequels that flop worse than the original .
\n\n\n\nThat’s not the only fight for DIY justice. California, Oregon, New York, Colorado, and Minnesota have passed meaningful right-to-repair laws. California’s law, which covers devices over $50, kicked in July 2024. By January 1, 2025, Oregon rolled out its anti-“parts pairing” law, banning the tactic of digitally locking replacement parts . Meanwhile, the U.S. military is even pushing for the right to fix their own equipment in field conditions—no more waiting for contractors to show up .
\n\n\n\nSure, these moves are encouraging—but the legal environment is still a tornado of End User License Agreements (EULAs) and copy protection laws that tend to strip away your real ownership.
\n\n\n\nAcross the ocean in India, the fight isn’t nearly as visible. Mostly because the surge of subscription based products are yet to start there. We have the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which gave birth to the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) and a three-tier consumer disputes system ready to fight unfair trade practices . This includes rules against dark patterns, misleading ads, and even subscription traps—patterns exactly like those locking features behind paywalls without transparency .
\n\n\n\nSo yes, on paper we’re covered—but here’s the catch: subscription locks on hardware are still a gray area. There haven’t been many court cases challenging them. Legal scrutiny remains light, and thanks to low public awareness, companies often get to slide by these manipulative practices with little pushback.
\n\n\n\nCulturally, ownership is still sacred in India—from cars to appliances to mobile phones. As subscription creep spreads, it’s bound to clash hard with that ownership mindset. But without active consumer pressure and legal enforcement, it’s companies, not consumers, calling the shots. In my personal opinion, Indian consumers are not as complacent as the US consumers. Mainly because of the purchasing power parity.
\n\n\n\nIn short: the U.S. is waking up, lawyers and lawmakers are nosing around, and the machinery of change is wheezing to life. In India, the protections exist—but enforcement is sleepy, and consumers aren’t waking up to the stealth of “rent-ified” ownership.
\n\n\n\nImagine a future where the most basic, non-negotiable features of your home or car—like safety systems or essential appliance functions—are tucked behind a paywall. What if seat belts, headlights, or eco-friendly wash cycles in a washing machine became optional, monthly-paid add-ons? The idea isn’t far-fetched anymore.
\n\n\n\nIn the auto world, this shift is already underway. Carmakers are leaning heavily into subscription models, touting features like automated driving, dash cams, or enhanced safety systems as optional purchases—even though the hardware often comes preinstalled. Critics are rightfully calling it out as a dystopian twist: charging for your car’s basic capabilities turns a vehicle into a software-defined money machine .
\n\n\n\nThe tension this creates isn’t just about annoyance—it’s about equity. If features like lane-assist or high-beam driving require a subscription, suddenly you’re divided between those who can afford the extras and those who can’t. Suddenly, safety isn’t universal—it’s premium. That’s chilling.
\n\n\n\nAppliances are only following suit. Some smart dishwashers now demand a Wi-Fi account just to start a rinse cycle—no connectivity, no clean dishes . If that escalates, what’s next? A subscription to the eco-mode on your washer? A fee to unlock its energy-saving parts? The logic of “cloud-connected convenience” is morphing uncomfortably into controlled obsolescence.
\n\n\n\nOn Reddit, the frustration is laid bare:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“If I buy a car and it has a turbo, I expect it to go turbo… If I buy a cheeseburger, I don’t want to be charged extra for the condiments.”
\n
It’s a sharp—but fair—analogy. You wouldn’t accept paying extra for ketchup. So why should basic functions of essential gear be hidden behind subscriptions?
\n\n\n\nWhen we let this slide unchecked, the divide deepens. Higher-income users may pay for full functionality—locking in better safety or efficiency—while others get hardware that looks the same, but does less. This is not innovation; it’s tiered ownership by stealth.
\n\n\n\nChange doesn’t happen by waiting politely. It happens when enough people stand up, roll their eyes, and say, “Nope, not gonna take it.” And sometimes, it actually works.
\n\n\n\nTake BMW. They tried to charge a quietly infuriating subscription for heated seats—$18 a month for something you already paid for. The backlash was immediate and brutal. Public outrage forced a U-turn: BMW announced they’d scrap the subscription, opting instead to offer features as either factory-installed or gone entirely
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“We thought that we’d provide an extra service … but people feel that they paid double… perception is reality.”
\n
It’s rare to see a company admit they misjudged public sentiment—but here, backlash clearly worked.
\n\n\n\nThen there’s HP’s ink subscription saga. Their “Instant Ink” model not only locks printers to HP-only cartridges, but disabled existing ink if you cancelled the plan. Users were furious. One customer’s printer became a brick, despite having full ink—then HP directed them to toss it all out .
\n\n\n\nReddit was unfiltered:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“If you cancel your subscription … the ink … will be suspended and they will block you from using it.”
\n
That kind of consumer revolt matters. HP ended up discontinuing the always-online, subscription-ridden printers entirely—even if, frustratingly, they didn’t unlock the features for existing users.
On the US front, momentum is building. Right-to-repair laws are spreading through states, with provisions allowing consumers to fix what they own without navigating corporate restrictions. Farmers are pushing back too—John Deere is facing a high-profile federal lawsuit for blocking independent repairs. Consumers are finally fighting back against being forced into corporate ecosystems.
\n\n\n\nIn India, the tools are there too—even if less battle-tested. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 gives consumers legal ground to challenge unfair subscriptions or deceptive practices. But so far, subscription features on hardware are vague legal territory. Cases celebrating unsubscribe wins are rare—and consumer awareness? Lower than it should be.
\n\n\n\nThat’s exactly where the next frontier lies. If more people begin raising hell—on social media, in consumer forums, even through legal channels—we can shine a light on businesses slipping us into perpetual payments. An informed user base could become an unstoppable force.
\n\n\n\nAnd yes, real alternatives exist. Not every brand values squeezing you dry by making every feature a rent. Open-source solutions (whether it’s DIY printer firmware or CarPlay alternatives) give you back control. Some smaller, ethics-focused companies still believe offering complete functionality via a one-time purchase creates lasting trust and loyalty—not recurring revenue.
\n\n\n\nThough ambitious, here’s the takeaway: we could be cornered into perpetual payments—but if we speak up, vote with our wallets, support repair rights, and back fair-minded alternatives, there’s still a chance we reclaim ownership.
\n\n\n\nIt’s time to put down the corporate script and reclaim what’s rightfully ours.
\n\n\n\nAsk the tough questions before you hit “buy.” Do you really own what you’re paying for, or are you signing up for a feature rental? If you’re handing over your card or your signature, make sure you’re not just funding a digital cage.
\n\n\n\nSupport the brands that reflect your values—those that deliver full ownership without strings, that let you use your purchase freely, not whitelist your access every month.
\n\n\n\nGet involved. In the U.S., right-to-repair momentum is booming—states are passing laws, even the military wants to fix its own equipment in the field to avoid corporate monopoly and delays . Pestering policymakers, backing bills like the REPAIR and SAFE Repair Acts, expressing support for consumers’ right to maintain what they own—these things work.
\n\n\n\nIn India, the law is already tilted in your favor on paper. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 gives you tools to challenge unfair, opaque subscription models—but pushing the line between legal rights and corporate evasion means we need to shine a spotlight. Awareness, pressure, collective action—these can close that enforcement gap.
\n\n\n\nAnd remember, there are thriving alternatives—open-source communities, DIY firmware hacks, and smaller, independent companies that still trust their customers with ownership instead of monthly rents.
\n\n\n\nSo don’t just buy. Vote—with your wallet, your words, your advocacy. Demand ownership, not permissions. True innovation should elevate freedom—not lease it back to us one month at a time.
\n\n\n\nI REST MY CASE.
In a quiet corner of the paddock, the Lotus garage felt different. There was no casual chatter, just the steady clink of tools and the low murmur of engineers trading clipped instructions. In the center, under a fitted black cover, sat a shape every team wanted to see but none were allowed to touch.
\n\n\n\nFrom the outside, it looked like just another Formula 1 car waiting for its turn on the track. But word had spread. Colin Chapman was up to something again. Rival mechanics passed by a little slower than usual, pretending not to look, but their eyes betrayed them. They all knew Lotus had a history of finding the gray areas in the rulebook—and sometimes rewriting it altogether.
\n\n\n\nWhen the cover finally came off, the Lotus Type 88 emerged in black and gold, sleek and sharp. At first glance, it was beautiful. At second glance, it was suspicious. Whispers in the pit lane spoke of a double chassis—two frames working together, one to tame the wind, the other to protect the driver. If it worked, it could change everything.
\n\n\n\nColin Chapman wasn’t just the founder of Lotus—he was its restless engine. Tall, wiry, and always in motion, he had a habit of speaking quickly, as if his ideas were trying to overtake his words. In Formula 1 circles, he was known for two things: winning races and finding ways around the rules without technically breaking them.
\n\n\n\nChapman believed in simplicity through cleverness. Where other teams added more metal, he found ways to take it away. Where others settled for conventional solutions, he searched for something no one had tried before. This philosophy had already given Lotus several championships and innovations that became standard across the sport—monocoque chassis, ground-effect aerodynamics, and lightweight construction.
\n\n\n\nBut with the Type 88, he was stepping into even riskier territory. The challenge was clear: keep the downforce that made ground-effect cars so fast, but give the driver a more forgiving ride. To most teams, it was a trade-off—choose one and sacrifice the other. To Chapman, that kind of thinking was the problem. He wanted both, and he was convinced the answer wasn’t in refining the old design, but in inventing something entirely new.
\n\n\n\nIn the early 1980s, Formula 1 was deep in the ground-effect era. The idea was simple in theory but brutal in execution: shape the car’s underside like an upside-down wing, seal the edges with side skirts, and let the airflow pin the car to the track. The result was staggering cornering speeds—and an equally staggering toll on the drivers.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/image.png?resize=600%2C400&ssl=1\")
To maximize the effect, teams ran their cars with rock-hard suspension, keeping them locked at the perfect height for that vacuum-like grip. It was great for lap times, terrible for human bodies. Drivers felt every bump, every ripple in the tarmac. Their necks and spines took a pounding, and after long stints, they’d climb out of the cockpit looking like they’d been in a bar fight.
\n\n\n\nFor most teams, this was simply the cost of going fast. Stiffen the suspension, hold your breath through the rough patches, and hope your driver could endure it. But for Chapman, that kind of compromise wasn’t acceptable. He didn’t want to choose between speed and comfort—he wanted both. And that meant he had to stop thinking about the car as a single, fixed frame.
\n\n\n\nThat was where the first sketches of something radical began to take shape.
\n\n\n\nChapman’s answer to the problem sounded almost too simple: what if the driver and the aerodynamic loads didn’t have to live on the same chassis? Instead of one rigid frame doing everything, he imagined two—one inside the other, each with its own job.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/image-1_o.png?resize=750%2C422&ssl=1\")
The outer chassis would be stiff and low, built to hold the ground-effect tunnels steady and squeeze every ounce of downforce from the air rushing underneath. The inner chassis, cradled within it, would carry the driver, engine, and controls—isolated by softer suspension. The airflow could push and pull all it wanted on the outer shell, but the driver would feel far less of the punishment.
\n\n\n\nIt was, in essence, a house inside a house. The outer walls took the wind and weather; the inner walls kept things calm and livable. For engineers used to thinking of a racing car as one continuous structure, it was a leap into unfamiliar territory. For Chapman, it was just another example of looking at a problem from a slightly different angle—and seeing a door where others only saw a wall.
\n\n\n\nWhen the first Type 88 chassis took shape, it looked deceptively conventional. But those who knew what was hiding beneath the bodywork understood that this wasn’t an evolution of last year’s car. It was a different species altogether.
\n\n\n\nWhen the Type 88 first appeared in the paddock, it didn’t announce itself with wild bodywork or outlandish curves. To the casual eye, it was just another Lotus—sleek, black and gold, a little sharper around the edges than last year’s car. But word travels fast in Formula 1, and by the time it rolled into view, the whispers had already spread.
\n\n\n\nRival engineers tried to mask their curiosity. They loitered outside the Lotus garage, glancing in while pretending to study their own parts. Some bent low, as if inspecting the tires, just to get a better look underneath. They had heard the stories: two chassis, one floating inside the other. It sounded absurd, but Chapman had a history of making the absurd work.
\n\n\n\nJournalists leaned in too, searching for any visible clue of what made this machine different. The outer chassis gave away nothing. The real magic was hidden deep inside, invisible unless you knew exactly where to look. That secrecy only added to the tension.
\n\n\n\nBy the time the FIA inspectors arrived, the mood had shifted from curiosity to quiet unease. If this design worked, it wouldn’t just give Lotus a small advantage—it could blow open the competitive order. For teams that had spent months perfecting their own ground-effect cars, that was a problem. For Chapman, it was proof he was on to something.
\n\n\n\nThe Type 88 never got the chance to prove itself in anger. Even before it turned a competitive lap, the FIA was under pressure from rival teams to take a hard look at the car’s legality. Chapman had designed it to comply with the letter of the regulations, but the spirit of them—that was up for debate.
\n\n\n\nThe argument was simple on paper: Formula 1 cars were meant to have one chassis, not two. Chapman countered that the rules didn’t explicitly forbid his approach, and that his interpretation still met every safety and dimensional requirement. It was a classic Chapman move—find the gap in the wording, and drive a car straight through it.
\n\n\n\nBut politics move faster than engineering. At Long Beach, officials ruled the car illegal before the race even began. Lotus was told to use their older, single-chassis design if they wanted to compete. The double-chassis Type 88 was sidelined, its promise left untested.
\n\n\n\nFor Chapman, it was a bitter pill. He believed he’d found a way to solve a real performance problem without breaking the rules, only to be shut down by fear of what might happen if it worked too well. For the rest of the paddock, it was relief—an innovative threat neutralized before it could change the pecking order.
\n\n\n\nThe car would never start a Formula 1 race. But its short, controversial life had already made its mark.
\n\n\n\nInnovation has a way of making people uncomfortable, especially when it threatens the balance of power. The Type 88 was a perfect example. On one hand, it solved a legitimate engineering problem in a way no one else had considered. On the other, it pushed the boundaries of what the sport’s rule makers and rivals were willing to tolerate.
\n\n\n\nChapman’s design didn’t fail because it was flawed. It failed because it was too different, too soon. Formula 1 thrives on progress, but it also guards its traditions and competitive order. When a new idea arrives that could tilt the playing field overnight, the instinct is often to shut it down first and debate its merits later.
\n\n\n\nThat resistance isn’t unique to racing. In business, technology, or any competitive field, the most disruptive ideas tend to face the heaviest pushback. Not because they’re bad, but because they challenge people to rethink what they thought was settled. The Type 88 showed that the path to real breakthroughs often runs right through someone else’s comfort zone—and staying on that path takes conviction.
\n\n\n\nThe Lotus Type 88 never claimed a checkered flag, but its legacy isn’t measured in trophies. Its real value lies in what it represents—a willingness to see a problem from a different angle, to split it into parts and solve each on its own terms. Chapman didn’t try to make a stiff suspension more comfortable; he questioned why both jobs had to be handled by the same structure in the first place.
\n\n\n\nThat’s the essence of creative solutioning. Sometimes, the answer isn’t polishing the same old design—it’s building something entirely new that rewrites the boundaries everyone else has accepted. It’s about finding your own “double chassis,” the separation that turns an either/or trade-off into a both/and advantage.
\n\n\n\nWhether you’re designing software, running a business, or just trying to untangle a tricky problem, the lesson is the same: don’t start by asking “What’s allowed?” Start by asking “What’s possible?” Rules and norms will always be there, but so will opportunities hidden in the spaces between them.
\n\n\n\nThe Type 88 may never have crossed a finish line, but its story still inspires. Because sometimes, changing the race doesn’t require winning it—it just requires showing the world there’s another way to run it.
\n\n\n\nSo, what’s stopping you from doing the same? You don’t need a Formula 1 budget or a carbon-fiber workshop to think like Chapman. All you need is the willingness to challenge the way things have always been done, to spot the spaces between the rules, and to imagine a solution no one else has tried.
\n\n\n\nSome ideas will be met with applause. Others will be met with resistance. That’s the nature of real innovation—it unsettles people before it convinces them. The question is whether you’re willing to build your own “double chassis” and put it out there anyway.
\n\n\n\nBecause the next big leap forward—in your work, your project, or your industry—might just be the one that everyone says can’t be done… until it is.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/pexels-photo-29320665.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-08-08T04:39:53.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-22T18:39:33.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "290", "kind": "post", "slug": "building-for-everyone-web-accessibility", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/building-for-everyone-web-accessibility/", "title": "Building for Everyone: Web Accessibility", "excerpt": "I have a disability that makes it hard to differentiate between similar colors. Sometimes I’ll stare at a webpage for minutes, squinting and adjusting my screen brightness, trying to figure out which text is clickable and which isn’t. I’ll miss important buttons because they blend into the background, or struggle to read error messages displayed […]", "contentHtml": "I have a disability that makes it hard to differentiate between similar colors. Sometimes I’ll stare at a webpage for minutes, squinting and adjusting my screen brightness, trying to figure out which text is clickable and which isn’t. I’ll miss important buttons because they blend into the background, or struggle to read error messages displayed in red text that looks identical to the black text around it.
\nIf this is my daily reality—and I can see the screen—imagine what it’s like for someone who can’t see it at all.
\nPicture Sarah trying to pay her electric bill online before the deadline. She’s been blind since birth and navigates the web like a pro with her screen reader—usually. But today, she hits a wall that I’d never even notice. The payment button exists visually, but it has no accessible label. Her screen reader announces it as “button” with no context whatsoever. She tries tabbing through the form fields, but the focus jumps erratically, skipping crucial elements entirely. After twenty frustrating minutes of what should be a two-minute task, she gives up and calls the utility company, where she’ll wait on hold for another hour.
\nThis isn’t some hypothetical scenario. It’s Tuesday for Sarah and millions of others. And here’s what gets me—it’s completely preventable with basic consideration that costs virtually nothing to implement.
\nAfter spending the last eight years building web applications and watching teams struggle with accessibility, I’ve learned something crucial: accessibility isn’t something you add at the end like a coat of paint. It’s woven into every decision you make, from choosing your color palette to writing your first component.
\nLet’s talk numbers, because they’re staggering. In the American context, the CDC reports that 61 million adults in the United States live with a disability. That’s 26% of the population; 1 in every 5 – roughly equivalent to the entire populations of California and Texas combined. Break it down further: 20.2 million people have trouble seeing, 7.6 million have a hearing difficulty, and 13.7 million have a serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
\nBut here’s what really opened my eyes: disability isn’t just permanent conditions. It’s also temporary and situational. That person with a broken arm trying to navigate your site one-handed? They need the same keyboard accessibility as someone with limited mobility. The user in a noisy coffee shop who can’t hear your video’s audio? They need captions just like someone who’s deaf. The executive squinting at their phone in bright sunlight? They benefit from high contrast design just like someone with low vision.
\nMicrosoft’s inclusive design methodology calls these permanent, temporary, and situational disabilities. When you design for the permanent – the person who’s blind – you end up helping everyone in similar circumstances.
\nThe economic impact is massive too. The disability market represents $13 trillion in annual disposable income globally. In the US alone, people with disabilities have $490 billion in disposable income annually. When your website is inaccessible, you’re not just excluding people – you’re walking away from serious money.
\nMost people think accessibility means “make it work with screen readers,” and while that’s important, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Real accessibility touches every aspect of user experience.
\nVisual accessibility goes far beyond blindness. It includes people with low vision, color blindness (affecting 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women), light sensitivity, and conditions like dyslexia that affect reading. This means thinking about color contrast, font choices, text size, spacing, and how information is presented visually.
\nMotor accessibility covers a huge range of needs. Some people can’t use a mouse at all and rely entirely on keyboards or specialized input devices. Others have tremors that make precise clicking difficult, or limited mobility that makes complex gestures impossible. Your interface needs to work with keyboard-only navigation, have click targets that are large enough, and not require precise timing or complex motions.
\nCognitive accessibility might be the most overlooked area. It includes people with ADHD, autism, memory issues, learning disabilities, and anyone who gets overwhelmed by complex interfaces. This means clear navigation, consistent patterns, simple language, and interfaces that don’t punish mistakes.
\nHearing accessibility affects how you handle audio and video content, but also things like error notifications that rely only on sound, or audio CAPTCHAs that have no alternative.
\nEach of these areas has dozens of specific considerations, and they often overlap in complex ways.
\nRemember when GDPR caught everyone off guard? Accessibility compliance is having a similar moment, except the consequences can be even more serious.
\nThe landmark cases started piling up around 2017. Target settled for $6 million after a class-action lawsuit over their inaccessible website. Netflix faced multiple lawsuits over lack of closed captions (subtitles). Domino’s fought their accessibility case all the way to the Supreme Court – and lost. The court essentially said that the Americans with Disabilities Act absolutely applies to digital spaces.
\nBut it’s not just big corporations getting hit. I’ve seen small businesses face lawsuits over basic accessibility issues – missing alt text, forms that don’t work with screen readers, videos without captions. The average settlement is around $50,000, but legal fees can easily double that.
\nThe regulatory environment is tightening globally. The European Accessibility Act takes effect in 2025, requiring digital accessibility for a wide range of services. Canada’s Accessible Canada Act is ramping up enforcement. Individual states are passing their own laws – California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act has been used successfully in digital accessibility cases.
\nHere’s what’s really driving the increase in lawsuits: it’s not just about compliance anymore. Plaintiff attorneys have figured out that accessibility violations are easy to find and document. They use automated scanning tools to identify problematic sites, then file cases in bulk. Some law firms are filing hundreds of accessibility lawsuits per year.
\nI’ve been on both sides of this equation – building accessibility in from the start, and trying to retrofit it after launch. The difference in cost and effort is astronomical.
\nWhen you plan for accessibility from day one, it becomes part of your natural workflow. Your designers learn to check color contrast as automatically as they check font sizes. Your developers write semantic HTML because that’s just how they write HTML. Your content creators add alt text because it’s part of their checklist.
\nBut when you try to add accessibility after the fact? Everything becomes a special case. That dropdown menu you built with divs and JavaScript? Now you need to completely rebuild it with proper ARIA attributes, keyboard handling, and focus management. Those custom form controls that look great but don’t announce properly to screen readers? Time for a complete redesign.
\nI worked on one project where the client wanted to add accessibility to an existing e-commerce site. What should have been a two-week project turned into four months of fundamental rewrites. We had to rebuild the shopping cart, redesign the checkout flow, restructure the navigation, and rewrite most of the JavaScript interactions. The final cost was about six times the original estimate.
\nCompare that to a similar project where we planned for accessibility from the beginning. The extra time for accessibility considerations? Maybe 15% additional development time, most of which was learning and establishing patterns that sped up later work.
\nHere’s where accessibility gets really interesting—the benefits extend far beyond compliance and inclusion.
\nPerformance improvements are dramatic. Accessible sites tend to have cleaner HTML, which means faster load times. Semantic markup reduces the need for complex CSS and JavaScript workarounds. I’ve seen page load times improve by 20-30% when teams clean up their HTML for accessibility.
\nSEO benefits are substantial. Search engines are essentially very sophisticated screen readers. They rely on the same semantic markup, heading structures, and descriptive text that make sites accessible. Sites with good accessibility practices consistently rank better in search results.
\nConversion rates improve. This one surprised me initially, but it makes sense when you think about it. Accessible forms are clearer and easier to complete. Accessible navigation is more intuitive. Accessible content is easier to understand. All of these factors reduce friction and abandonment.
\nSupport costs plummet. When interfaces are clear and consistent—key accessibility principles—users make fewer mistakes and need less help. One client saw their support ticket volume drop by 40% after implementing accessibility improvements, particularly around form design and error handling.
\nCode quality improves across the board. Teams that think about accessibility write more semantic HTML, create better component APIs, and build more robust error handling. These practices make codebases more maintainable and less prone to bugs.
\nThe biggest barrier isn’t technical knowledge—it’s organizational. Most teams I work with understand the importance of accessibility intellectually, but they struggle with implementation because of structural issues.
\nThe ownership problem is pervasive. Designers think developers will handle the technical implementation. Developers assume designers have considered the accessibility implications of their designs. QA teams test for functionality but not for accessibility. Product managers prioritize features over accessibility improvements. Everyone assumes someone else is covering it.
\nBudget allocation is backwards. Teams budget for feature development but treat accessibility as overhead. They’ll spend weeks building a complex animation but won’t allocate time for proper keyboard navigation. This creates a cycle where accessibility always feels like extra work rather than core functionality.
\nKnowledge gaps compound over time. Accessibility requires understanding user needs, technical implementation, legal requirements, and testing methodologies. Most team members are strong in one area but weak in others. Without someone who can bridge these gaps, accessibility efforts become fragmented and ineffective.
\nTool limitations create false confidence. Automated accessibility testing catches maybe 30% of real accessibility issues. Teams run these tools, see green checkmarks, and assume they’re good to go. Meanwhile, users with actual disabilities still can’t complete basic tasks on their sites.
\nThe expertise bottleneck is real. Many teams want to “hire an accessibility expert” to solve the problem, but accessibility experts are rare and expensive. More importantly, accessibility can’t be delegated to one person—it needs to be embedded in everyone’s workflow.
\nInstead of trying to solve everything at once, focus on building accessibility into your existing processes.
\nFor business leaders: Stop treating accessibility as a nice-to-have. Make it a business requirement with real consequences. Allocate budget specifically for accessibility work—typically 10-15% of your development budget is a good starting point. Establish accessibility goals in your metrics dashboard alongside performance and conversion metrics.
\nMost importantly, get executive buy-in by connecting accessibility to business outcomes. Don’t just talk about compliance—talk about market reach, risk mitigation, and brand differentiation.
\nFor product and project managers: Build accessibility into your definition of done. A feature isn’t complete until it works for everyone. Include accessibility acceptance criteria in your user stories. Plan for accessibility testing in your QA cycles.
\nCreate accessibility personas alongside your regular user personas. Meet Sarah, who uses a screen reader. Meet Marcus, who has limited mobility and navigates primarily with keyboard. Meet Elena, who has ADHD and gets overwhelmed by complex interfaces. When you make decisions, think about how they affect these users.
\nTrack accessibility metrics like you track performance metrics. How many of your key user flows work with keyboard-only navigation? What percentage of your images have meaningful alt text? How many form errors are clearly communicated to screen readers?
\nFor designers: Learn the accessibility implications of your design decisions. Understand that color alone can’t convey information. Know that interactive elements need to be at least 44px in size for touch targets. Realize that complex layouts can be confusing for screen reader users.
\nStart using accessibility-focused design tools. Stark for Figma checks color contrast in real-time. Able for Sketch simulates various visual impairments. Include accessibility annotations in your design specs—not just visual specs, but behavioral ones too.
\nCreate and maintain an accessible design system. Build accessibility into your components from the start. Document not just how components look, but how they behave with assistive technology.
\nFor developers: Master semantic HTML before you reach for JavaScript frameworks. Learn ARIA, but understand that good semantic markup reduces the need for ARIA attributes. Implement keyboard navigation patterns consistently across your application.
\nSet up automated accessibility testing in your build process. Tools like axe-core can catch obvious issues early. But also learn manual testing techniques—navigate your site with only a keyboard, use a screen reader, test with high contrast mode enabled.
\nBuild accessibility into your component library. Create reusable patterns for common interactions like modals, dropdowns, and form validation. Make the accessible choice the easy choice for other developers.
\nFor testers: Expand your testing toolkit beyond automated scanners. Learn to use actual assistive technologies—VoiceOver on Mac, NVDA on Windows, mobile screen readers. Test with real users who have disabilities when possible.
\nCreate accessibility-specific test scenarios. Can users complete the checkout process using only a keyboard? Do error messages make sense when heard out of context by a screen reader? Can users with cognitive disabilities navigate your interface without getting lost?
\nDocument accessibility bugs with the same rigor as functional bugs. Include details about which assistive technologies are affected and specific steps to reproduce issues.
\nThe accessibility tool landscape has exploded in recent years, but quality varies wildly. Here are the tools that have proven most valuable in real projects:
\nFor automated testing: axe-core is the gold standard. It’s free, accurate, and integrates with virtually every testing framework. Lighthouse includes accessibility audits in its performance reports. WAVE provides excellent visual feedback for identifying issues.
\nFor manual testing: Learn the built-in screen readers first—VoiceOver (Mac/iOS), Narrator (Windows), TalkBack (Android). For Windows, NVDA is free and widely used. Don’t forget about browser zoom and high contrast modes. And there are hidden gems like ANDI (a tool provided by Social Security Administration of the US government)(https://www.ssa.gov/accessibility/andi/help/install.html).
\nFor design: Stark integrates with Figma and Sketch to check color contrast in real-time. Colour Contrast Analyser is a free desktop tool for testing color combinations. WebAIM’s contrast checker is reliable for quick online checks.
\nFor ongoing monitoring: Tenon.io provides automated monitoring and detailed reports. AccessiBe and similar overlays are controversial and not recommended—they often create more problems than they solve. Paid applications like SiteImprove gives valuable insights into the day-to-day state of accessibility of your websites. (SiteImprove, Endorsed… I am waiting for your cheque 😄)
\nThe key is using multiple tools in combination. Automated tools catch obvious issues, manual testing reveals usability problems, and real user feedback validates your solutions.
\nOk… you can read this section as one from many of my “unmaterialized” dreams – getting certified in A11y! Also my recommendations root from the mistakes I made in learning accessibility.
\nIf you’re serious about building accessibility expertise-whether for yourself or your team-the learning landscape has matured significantly in recent years. But here’s the thing: not all accessibility education is created equal.
\nThe gold standard certifications actually matter. The International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) offers three levels of certification that employers increasingly recognize and respect. The Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC) covers foundational knowledge-disability types, assistive technologies, and legal frameworks. It’s perfect for product managers, designers, and anyone who needs to understand the big picture.
\nThe Web Accessibility Specialist (WAS) certification gets technical. It focuses specifically on WCAG implementation, testing methodologies, and remediation strategies. This one’s essential for developers and QA professionals who need hands-on skills.
\nFor those managing accessibility programs, the Certified Professional in Web Accessibility (CPWA) combines strategic thinking with technical depth. It’s newer but gaining traction among accessibility consultants and enterprise teams.
\nUniversity programs are catching up. A few standout programs actually get it right. The University of Washington’s Master’s in Human Centered Design & Engineering has an excellent accessibility track. Georgia Tech’s Master of Science in Human-Computer Interaction includes substantial accessibility coursework. These aren’t just theoretical-they emphasize real-world application and user research with disabled communities.
\nOnline learning that doesn’t suck. Most accessibility courses are painfully dry, but some break the mold. Deque University offers practical, hands-on training that mirrors real development workflows. Their courses include actual screen reader demonstrations and coding exercises with immediate feedback. SiteImprove’s Frontier (formerly known as SiteImprove Academy) also gives training materials.
\nWebAIM’s training workshops remain some of the best available, especially their screen reader training sessions. They’re not cheap, but they’re taught by people who actually use these technologies daily.
\nUdacity’s Web Accessibility course, created with Google, is free and surprisingly comprehensive. It includes real user interviews and practical exercises that go beyond checkbox compliance.
\nWhat to focus on learning first. Don’t try to memorize WCAG guidelines-that’s like trying to learn programming by memorizing syntax. Instead, start with user needs. Spend time watching screen reader users navigate websites. Understand how people with different disabilities actually use technology.
\nLearn semantic HTML deeply before touching ARIA. Most accessibility problems stem from poor HTML, not lack of fancy attributes. Master keyboard navigation patterns—they’re the foundation of accessible interactions.
\nStudy color and contrast not just as technical requirements, but as design principles. Learn to test with actual assistive technologies, not just automated tools.
\nBuilding internal expertise vs. hiring consultants. Here’s what I’ve learned from teams that succeed long-term: you need internal champions, not just external experts. Consultants can audit your site and provide recommendations, but sustainable accessibility requires people on your team who understand both the technical implementation and the user impact.
\nThe most effective approach combines external training with internal mentorship. Bring in accessibility experts to train your team, then have team members practice and teach each other. This builds distributed knowledge instead of creating single points of failure.
\nRed flags in accessibility education. Avoid courses that focus primarily on automated testing tools or treat accessibility as a checklist. Be skeptical of “accessibility overlay” vendors who claim their JavaScript widgets can make any site accessible-they can’t, and often make things worse.
\nSkip training that doesn’t include actual disabled users or real assistive technology demonstrations. Accessibility isn’t theoretical-it needs to be grounded in real user experiences.
\nThe certification question for teams. Should you require accessibility certifications for your team? It depends on your context. For specialized accessibility roles, absolutely. For general developers and designers, certifications demonstrate commitment but aren’t substitutes for practical experience.
\nWhat matters more is creating a culture where accessibility knowledge is valued and shared. Regular lunch-and-learns about accessibility topics, internal accessibility audits, and user testing with disabled participants often teach more than formal certifications.
\nThe goal isn’t to turn everyone into accessibility experts-it’s to make accessibility knowledge distributed and actionable across your entire team.
\nWhen teams fully embrace accessibility, something remarkable happens-it changes how they think about all user experience problems.
\nTeams that understand cognitive accessibility build clearer interfaces for everyone. Teams that master keyboard navigation create more logical interaction flows. Teams that write good alt text become better at all content strategy.
\nI’ve watched accessible design patterns become the foundation for better responsive design, clearer error handling, and more intuitive navigation. The skills transfer because accessibility forces you to think systematically about user needs and edge cases.
\nThe business benefits compound too. Accessible brands build stronger relationships with their users. They face fewer legal risks. They tap into underserved markets. They build products that work better for everyone.
\nBut the most important outcome is cultural. Teams that prioritize accessibility create more inclusive work environments. They ask better questions about user needs. They build more thoughtful products. They remember that technology should serve people, not the other way around.
\nHere’s what I want you to take away from all of this: accessibility isn’t about compliance checklists or legal risk management. It’s about remembering that the people using your products are real humans with diverse needs and capabilities.
\nThat means moving beyond the minimum viable accessibility—meeting WCAG guidelines—to actually usable accessibility. It means testing with real users, not just automated tools. It means considering accessibility in every design decision, not just retrofitting it later.
\nThe web was designed to be universal from the beginning. Tim Berners-Lee said it best: “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
\nWe’ve spent the last two decades making the web faster, more beautiful, and more powerful. Now it’s time to make sure it actually works for everyone who wants to use it.
\n\nTo make web accessible, it takes more than technical expertise. One needs “Compassion”. And my dear friend, that will make you a “Superman”. All superheroes don’t have capes. Some come with keyboards and mice 😄.
Your users—all of them—are counting on it.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-3095954.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-07-29T05:19:46.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T16:44:42.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "270", "kind": "post", "slug": "that-get-10-off-popup-heres-what-it-really-costs-you", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/that-get-10-off-popup-heres-what-it-really-costs-you/", "title": "That “Get 10% Off” Popup? Here’s What It Really Costs You", "excerpt": "You know the drill. You’re finally on a shopping site, maybe you’re this🤏 close to finding the perfect pair of sneakers, and then—bam. A box slides across your screen, blocking everything. “GET 10% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER!” it screams, asking for just one little thing in return: your email address. It feels like a no-brainer, […]", "contentHtml": "You know the drill. You’re finally on a shopping site, maybe you’re this🤏 close to finding the perfect pair of sneakers, and then—bam. A box slides across your screen, blocking everything.
\n“GET 10% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER!” it screams, asking for just one little thing in return: your email address.
\nIt feels like a no-brainer, right? A quick discount for an email you can always unsubscribe from later. But the real price of that “deal” is a lot higher than you think, and it has everything to do with your privacy and your ability to just shop in peace. The next time one of those popups ambushes you, it’s worth thinking about what’s really going on behind the scenes.
\nLet’s be real: they’re not just being friendly. Your email address is one of the most valuable things you can give a retailer.
\nFor them, it’s a golden ticket right into your inbox. It lets them sidestep expensive ads and market to you directly, sending personalized deals, “we miss you” emails, and reminders about that cart you abandoned.
\nBut it goes deeper than that. Your email becomes the anchor for a detailed profile they build about you. They track what you buy, what you browse, and how you interact with their site. Sometimes, this data gets combined with information from other platforms, creating a surprisingly detailed picture of who you are and what makes you click “buy.”
\nFrom a business perspective, it’s a slam dunk. Email marketing costs next to nothing and delivers a huge return. For you, though, it’s the start of a much more complicated relationship.
\nOnce you hand over your email, it rarely stays in one place. Many companies share or sell this data to third-party advertisers, analytics firms, and even shady data brokers. Suddenly, it’s not just one store that has your info; it’s dozens you’ve never even heard of.
\nThis also makes you a bigger target. The more databases your email is in, the more likely it is to be exposed in a data breach, landing you on spam lists or, worse, in the hands of scammers. And while privacy laws like GDPR exist, not every site plays by the rules. Consent is often buried in the fine print, leaving you unsure of what you’ve actually agreed to.
\nThey’re also designed to be manipulative. These popups are masters of psychological nudging. They create a sense of urgency with a “limited time offer!” or use FOMO (fear of missing out) to push you into a decision.
\nYou’ve seen the design tricks: the huge, glowing opt-in button right next to a tiny, grayed-out link that says something guilt-trippy like, “No thanks, I hate savings.” They’re counting on you to take the path of least resistance, trading your long-term privacy for a short-term reward.
\nYou might be thinking, “Who really falls for this?” Well, it turns out, a whole lot of us do. These popups aren’t just annoying; they’re shockingly effective.
\nThe numbers don’t lie:
\nSo yes, these tactics work. But their success comes at the expense of a good, clean user experience, and it slowly erodes our trust.
\nYou don’t have to swear off online shopping forever. You just need a better game plan.
\nSo, the next time that “Get Offer” box slides onto your screen, just take a breath. That 10% off is tempting, but your data is worth a lot more to them than the discount is to you.
\nUltimately, it’s your inbox, your data, and your peace of mind. Protecting them is a pretty good deal.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-5625130.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-07-20T06:29:56.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T16:45:18.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "250", "kind": "post", "slug": "the-velocity-trap-how-goodharts-law-derails-it-projects", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/the-velocity-trap-how-goodharts-law-derails-it-projects/", "title": "The Velocity Trap: How Goodhart’s Law Derails IT Projects", "excerpt": "You know that project. The one where everything looks perfect on paper. Velocity charts climbing, burndown slopes diving, tickets closing left and right. Every dashboard screams “success!” in bright green. Meanwhile, your dev team’s burning out. Stakeholders are muttering about something feeling “off” with the product. That feature you delivered right on schedule? Users hate […]", "contentHtml": "You know that project. The one where everything looks perfect on paper. Velocity charts climbing, burndown slopes diving, tickets closing left and right. Every dashboard screams “success!” in bright green.
\nMeanwhile, your dev team’s burning out. Stakeholders are muttering about something feeling “off” with the product. That feature you delivered right on schedule? Users hate it.
\nThere’s a name for this disconnect between what we measure and what actually matters. An economist named Charles Goodhart figured it out decades ago: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
\nThis is Goodhart’s Law, and it’s quietly sabotaging IT projects everywhere. In our data-obsessed world, it’s the bug we can’t seem to patch.
\nHere’s the deal: the moment you start measuring something, people’s behavior changes. They’ll optimize for the metric instead of the thing you’re trying to improve. The number becomes the goal, not what the number was supposed to represent.
\nClassic scenario: your team gets judged on closed bug tickets. Sounds reasonable, right? Better software quality through more bug fixes. But watch what happens. They’ll knock out ten easy typos while ignoring that one nasty race condition that’s been crashing servers. They’ll close tickets prematurely, knowing they’ll probably reopen them later. The metric looks amazing. The software? Still broken.
\nThis isn’t some abstract theory. It’s the “Cobra Effect” in action – named after that time the British government in India offered bounties for dead cobras. People started breeding cobras just to collect the reward. Same energy, different century. That’s an interesting story for another time!
\nGoodhart first spotted this pattern in the 1970s at the Bank of England. The government tried controlling inflation by targeting specific money supply metrics. Banks immediately started gaming the system, moving money around to hit the targets while completely missing the point of fighting inflation.
\nWhat started as an economic observation turned out to be a universal truth about human behavior. And nowhere does it thrive quite like in the metrics-heavy world of Agile development.
\nVelocity is supposed to be a planning tool. It helps teams predict how much work they can realistically handle. But the second a manager says, “We need 10% more velocity this quarter,” it becomes a target. Game over.
\nNow your team’s inflating story points. Breaking simple features into microscopic tasks that don’t add up to anything meaningful. The velocity number goes up, management’s happy, but you’re not actually delivering faster. You’re just better at making the chart look good.
\nSame thing happens everywhere. Push for on-time delivery? Teams cut corners on testing and pile up technical debt. Reward lines of code? You get bloated, inefficient software. In every case, people aren’t being malicious – they’re just responding to the incentives you’ve created.
\nHere’s the thing: for stakeholders who aren’t in the weeds, a project feels like a black box. Metrics like velocity or ticket counts seem like a perfect window into what’s really happening. They offer the illusion of control in a chaotic world.
\nBut there’s a massive gap between what stakeholders actually want—a product that works and solves real problems – and what’s easy to count. We measure what’s convenient instead of what’s important. Then we wonder why the numbers look great but the product sucks.
\nWhen you fall into this trap, you don’t just get bad data. Teams develop tunnel vision, obsessing over metrics while losing sight of the bigger picture. Quality becomes an afterthought.
\nThis is where technical debt multiplies. To hit that deployment target, teams take shortcuts and promise to “fix it later.” Spoiler alert: later never comes. The codebase turns into a house of cards, making every future change slower and more expensive.
\nThe human cost is even worse. Constant pressure to chase arbitrary numbers kills morale, stifles creativity, and destroys the psychological safety teams need to do their best work. Eventually, stakeholders realize the metrics are meaningless, and trust between leadership and the team evaporates.
\nThe solution isn’t to throw out all your data. It’s to get smarter about how you use it.
\nFirst, never rely on a single metric. Build a balanced scorecard that tells the whole story. Track output metrics like lead time, but balance them with quality indicators like bug escape rates. Layer on outcome metrics—user adoption, customer satisfaction scores. And don’t forget team health through regular retrospectives and honest conversations.
\nShift your focus from output to outcomes. Instead of asking, “How many story points did we complete?” ask, “What value did we deliver to users?”
\nMost importantly, treat metrics as diagnostic tools, not weapons. When a number drops, don’t start pointing fingers. Get curious. Ask your team, “What’s happening here? What is this telling us about our system?”
\nMetrics are tools, not destinations. They’re the map, not the territory. A good map is invaluable for navigation, but staring at it won’t get you where you need to go.
\nYour job as a leader isn’t to be a metric manager – it’s to interpret the data wisely, protect your team from the distortions of metric-driven pressure, and keep everyone focused on what really matters: delivering genuine value.
\nTake a hard look at your dashboards. Are your metrics lighting the path forward, or just lighting a fire under your team?
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-590020.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-07-13T15:00:02.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T16:46:27.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "230", "kind": "post", "slug": "the-elastic-nature-of-time-parkinsons-law", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/the-elastic-nature-of-time-parkinsons-law/", "title": "The Elastic Nature of Time: Parkinson’s Law", "excerpt": "Ever wonder why that “quick” project somehow ate up your entire month? Or why adding more people to your team made everything slower instead of faster? You’re not losing your mind. You’re witnessing invisible laws at work—principles that govern how we collaborate, create, and sometimes spectacularly fail in our professional lives. These aren’t mystical forces […]", "contentHtml": "Ever wonder why that “quick” project somehow ate up your entire month? Or why adding more people to your team made everything slower instead of faster?
\nYou’re not losing your mind. You’re witnessing invisible laws at work—principles that govern how we collaborate, create, and sometimes spectacularly fail in our professional lives.
\nThese aren’t mystical forces or corporate conspiracy theories. They’re well-documented patterns observed across decades of organizational behavior, backed by research and countless “aha!” moments from professionals who finally understood why their workplace felt so chaotic.
\nUnderstanding these laws won’t just satisfy your curiosity—it’ll give you a competitive edge. You’ll predict problems before they happen, design better systems, and maybe even save your sanity in the process.
\nLet’s start with the most relatable one: why everything takes longer than it should.
\n\nWork expands to fill the time available for its completion.
This gem comes from Cyril Northcote Parkinson, who observed this phenomenon in 1955 while studying bureaucratic efficiency. But you don’t need to work in government to see it everywhere.
\nPicture this: Your development team gets two weeks to build a “simple” login feature. Day one, they dive into research. Days two through five, they debate the perfect architecture. Week two brings endless code reviews and “just one more improvement.”
\nThe feature ships exactly at the deadline—polished, over-engineered, and probably more complex than needed.
\nNow imagine the same team facing a critical bug fix with only two hours before a client demo. Suddenly, they’re laser-focused, cutting through unnecessary complexity, and delivering a working solution in record time.
\nSame people. Same skills. Different time pressure. Entirely different outcomes.
\nParkinson’s Law isn’t about laziness—it’s about human nature. When we have abundant time, we:
\nThe antidote? Strategic time constraints. Not arbitrary deadlines that stress everyone out, but thoughtful limits that channel focus and creativity.
\nFor Project Managers:
\nFor Individual Contributors:
\nFor Teams:
\nThis is the first article in my series exploring the hidden laws that shape our work lives.
\nWhat workplace “laws” have you noticed in your own experience? Share your observations in the comments below.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-1037993.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-07-04T23:22:26.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T16:47:42.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "210", "kind": "post", "slug": "so-you-think-youve-free-will", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/so-you-think-youve-free-will/", "title": "So, You Think You’ve Free Will!", "excerpt": "💡 Article inspired from real life incidents. Knowledge “sponsored by” – Paradoxes. You’re browsing Amazon at 2 AM, ostensibly looking for a phone charger. Twenty minutes later, your cart contains the charger, a short story collection, drain clog cleaner, a pack of caffeine strip, and—somehow—a KitchenAid lemon squeezer you’re genuinely excited about (Based on True […]", "contentHtml": "\n💡
\n\n\n\nArticle inspired from real life incidents. Knowledge “sponsored by” – Paradoxes.
\nYou’re browsing Amazon at 2 AM, ostensibly looking for a phone charger. Twenty minutes later, your cart contains the charger, a short story collection, drain clog cleaner, a pack of caffeine strip, and—somehow—a KitchenAid lemon squeezer you’re genuinely excited about (Based on True Story! 🤪). The “Customers who bought this item also bought” suggestions feel like mind reading, each recommendation hitting with uncanny precision.
\n\n\n\nHere’s the unsettling question: Did you choose these items, or did they choose you?
\n\n\n\nThis isn’t just about shopping algorithms. It’s about the fundamental mystery that’s haunted humanity since we first wondered whether we’re the authors of our own stories or just characters following a script we can’t see. Welcome to the paradox of free will—now with same-day delivery.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Monosnap-Monosnap-2025-04-05-16-06-29.jpg?resize=505%2C567&ssl=1\")
Philosophers have been wrestling with this question for millennia. The Stoics believed everything was predetermined by cosmic reason. Buddhist thinkers explored how desire itself might be an illusion. Enlightenment philosophers championed human reason and choice. But none of them had to contend with recommendation engines that know they want a banana slicer before they do.
\n\n\n\nModern pop culture has become our new philosophical laboratory. The Matrix* asked whether choice is real when reality itself is manufactured. Westworld explored whether artificial beings with programmed responses can achieve genuine agency. Everything Everywhere All at Once suggested that maybe infinite choices collapse into the same fundamental human experiences. These aren’t just entertainment—they’re thought experiments about the nature of human agency in an age where technology predicts and shapes our desires.
\n\n\n\n(* For Gen Alpha kids – Matrix is a movie from 2000, which IS still a “religion”. Choose red pill to know the truth. Or take blue pill and stay stuck in snapchat and Instagram)
\n\n\n\nThe Amazon algorithm doesn’t just respond to what we want; it participates in creating what we want by showing us what others like us have wanted. We’re choosing from choices that emerged from the collective choices of millions of others, creating a feedback loop where individual preference becomes indistinguishable from algorithmic suggestion.
\n\n\n\nIn the 1980s, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that sent shockwaves through philosophy departments worldwide. He measured brain activity while people made simple decisions—like when to flex their wrist. The disturbing discovery: their brains showed signs of “deciding” about 350 milliseconds before the people reported being aware of their intention.
\n\n\n\nIf our brains are deciding before “we” decide, who exactly is in charge?
\n\n\n\nThis 0.35-second gap has become the smoking gun in the case against free will. It suggests that what we experience as conscious choice might be our brain’s after-the-fact rationalization of decisions already made by unconscious processes. We’re not the CEO of our minds—we’re the spokesperson, explaining decisions made in boardrooms we’re not allowed to enter.
\n\n\n\nBlack Mirror episodes like “Bandersnatch” play with this terrifying possibility, creating interactive narratives where viewers make choices that feel meaningful but ultimately lead to predetermined outcomes. Minority Report imagined a world where crimes could be prevented because they were predictable—free will reduced to statistical probability.
\n\n\n\nThe Amazon algorithm operates on a similar principle. It doesn’t read your mind; it reads patterns so consistent across human behavior that individual choice starts to look like a beautiful illusion. You think you’re surprising yourself with that banana slicer, but somewhere in a data center, a machine learning model saw it coming.
\n\n\n\nHere’s where the philosophical rubber meets the road: our entire society is built on the assumption that people are responsible for their choices. We praise success, punish crimes, and structure relationships around the belief that people can change, learn, and decide differently.
\n\n\n\nBut if free will is an illusion, what happens to responsibility? Should we stop holding people accountable? Abandon the justice system? Give up on personal growth?
\n\n\n\nShould we praise Oscar Piastri for his F1 race wins? Should we not punish Elizabeth Holmes for defrauding millions of dollars? If they didn’t act on their free will, how can they be held responsible for their success or crimes?
\n\n\n\nDifferent cultures have grappled with this differently. Eastern philosophical traditions often embrace a more fatalistic view—what will be, will be—while Western individualism doubles down on personal agency and self-determination. Social media has created a fascinating hybrid: we curate our online selves with obsessive intentionality while being shaped by algorithms designed to predict and influence our behavior.
\n\n\n\nThe paradox deepens when we consider that believing in free will seems to matter regardless of whether it exists. Studies show that people who believe in free will are more likely to behave ethically, work harder, and help others. The belief itself has causal power—a meta-level of choice about whether to choose.
\n\n\n\nPerhaps the most psychologically healthy response to the free will paradox is what philosophers call “compatibilism”—the idea that we can act as if we have free will even if we don’t, because the experience of choice is what matters for human flourishing.
\n\n\n\nThink about your Amazon shopping experience again. Even if the algorithm influenced your decisions, you still experienced the satisfaction of finding exactly what you didn’t know you needed. The feeling of serendipity, of personal discovery, remains meaningful regardless of the mechanical processes that enabled it.
\n\n\n\nSuccessful societies operate on this “as if” principle. We structure laws, relationships, and personal development around the assumption of choice because this assumption creates better outcomes than its alternative. It’s a collectively agreed-upon useful fiction—or maybe a profound truth we can only access by living it.
\n\n\n\nThe placebo effect of believing in free will might be the most human thing about us: we become more free by acting as if we already are.
\n\n\n\nMaybe the real error is thinking this paradox needs to be solved rather than experienced. Modern physics has taught us to live comfortably with quantum uncertainty—particles that exist in multiple states until observed, effects that precede causes, reality that shifts based on measurement. Perhaps consciousness operates in a similar vague space where determinism and choice coexist without contradiction.
\n\n\n\nEmergence theory suggests that complexity can create genuine novelty—that while individual neurons operate according to physical laws, the networks they form can generate properties that transcend their components. Your brain might be a deterministic machine that somehow produces the genuine experience of choice, the same way individual water molecules create the wetness they don’t possess alone.
\n\n\n\nThe Amazon algorithm might predict your behavior with startling accuracy, but it can’t predict why that lemon squeezer made you happy, or the story you’ll tell about buying it, or how it might change your relationship with fruit preparation. The meaning emerges in the gap between prediction and experience, between pattern and novelty.
\n\n\n\nThe free will paradox might be less about finding the right answer and more about staying curious about the question. Every time you pause before clicking “add to cart,” every moment you choose kindness over convenience, every decision to change direction—these experiences matter not because they prove you’re free, but because they’re how freedom feels from the inside.
\n\n\n\nThe algorithm knows what you’ll buy, but it doesn’t know who you’ll become. That space between prediction and possibility might be where free will lives—not as a philosophical conclusion, but as a lived experiment in being human.
\n\n\n\nSo the next time you find yourself marveling at Amazon’s uncanny suggestions, remember: you’re not just shopping. You’re participating in humanity’s oldest philosophical experiment, one purchase at a time. The algorithm may know what you want, but only you can decide what it means.
\n\n\n\nThe paradox of free will isn’t a problem to be solved—it’s a mystery to be lived. And perhaps that’s the most human choice of all.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/pexels-photo-30945675.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-06-16T15:38:40.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T16:48:22.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "190", "kind": "post", "slug": "being-poor-is-expensive", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/being-poor-is-expensive/", "title": "Being Poor is Expensive", "excerpt": "What if I say, whatever you think economic might be actually more expensive than you think? This blog post is about you, and the financial blunders you have done so far. I have the fix too! Read along. Last weekend, I was visiting one of my family friends. I was helping him with dishes after […]", "contentHtml": "\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat if I say, whatever you think economic might be actually more expensive than you think?
\n
\n\n\n\n\nThis blog post is about you, and the financial blunders you have done so far.
\n
\n\n\n\n\nI have the fix too! Read along.
\n
Last weekend, I was visiting one of my family friends. I was helping him with dishes after cooking. And I found a Hexclad frying pan among the dishes. We all know Hexclad is an expensive brand. Obviously, it became a point of discussion. What came out of the discussion was a hard hitting fact that living a poor or middle-class life is more expensive. Let us see how that works.
\n\n\n\nPicture yourself buying a non-stick pan of a good brand – say Tramontina. It will cost you around $20-$30. It has a life of around one year before the non-stick coating wears off, if you use a nylon or silicon spatula with it. If you use a wooden or steel spatula, consider it is dead the same day. Essentially you have to buy a pan every year. Now look at HexClad pans. It will cost you $120-$140. Fact is, it will last for at least 10 years, use whatever kind of spatula you use steel, wood, or others.
\n\n\n\nHere you will see a pattern. You will be spending at least $300 over 10 years for a non-durable pan (adjusting to price rises). Where as you will spend only one-third if you buy an expensive one.
\n\n\n\nWhich one will you buy? This simple dilemma illustrates one of the most insidious aspects of poverty: being poor is expensive. This concept, known as the “boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness,” reveals how financial constraints trap people in cycles of higher costs and reduced opportunities.
\n\n\n\nThe boots theory emerged from the brilliant mind of Terry Pratchett, the beloved fantasy author who wove profound social commentary throughout his Discworld novels. In his 1993 book “Men at Arms,” Pratchett introduced the concept through the character of Captain Samuel Vimes, a working-class city watchman who understood poverty intimately.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"/](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/content/images/2025/06/image.png?w=750&ssl=1\")
Pratchett wrote: “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars.”
\n\n\n\nThe mathematics of this situation revealed itself starkly. Vimes would spend ten dollars on cheap boots that lasted perhaps a year. Meanwhile, someone with fifty dollars upfront could buy boots that lasted for years. Over a decade, the poor man might spend $100 on boots while the wealthy person spent just $50 for the same period of footwear.
\n\n\n\nThe boots theory operates on several interconnected principles that extend far beyond footwear or frying pan. At its core lies the concept of “poverty tax” – the additional costs imposed on people who cannot afford to make optimal economic choices.
\n\n\n\nWhen you lack sufficient capital upfront, you’re forced into a pattern of purchasing inferior goods and services that cost more over time. This creates what economists call a “liquidity trap,” where your inability to access cash when needed forces you into more expensive alternatives.
\n\n\n\nConsider how this principle manifests in everyday life. If you can’t afford to buy groceries in bulk, you pay higher per-unit prices for smaller quantities. If you can’t maintain a minimum bank balance, you pay monthly fees and overdraft charges. If you can’t afford a reliable car, you spend more on repairs, higher insurance rates for older vehicles, and potentially miss work opportunities due to transportation issues.
\n\n\n\nThe boots theory reveals itself across virtually every aspect of modern life, creating a dominos effect of interconnected financial disadvantages that compound over time.
\n\n\n\nHousing represents perhaps the most dramatic example. If you cannot afford a down payment for a home, you’re forced to rent. Over thirty years, rent payments often exceed what mortgage payments would have been for the same property, yet you build no equity. The renter ends up paying significantly more for housing while accumulating no assets.
\n\n\n\nBanking and credit systems perpetuate this pattern ruthlessly. Without sufficient credit history or income, you cannot access low-interest loans. Instead, you rely on payday loans, credit cards with exorbitant interest rates, or rent-to-own schemes that can cost three times the retail price of goods. The people who most need access to affordable credit are systematically denied it.
\n\n\n\nHealthcare demonstrates the boots theory’s life-and-death implications. Without insurance or preventive care, minor health issues become major emergencies. A $200 dental cleaning prevents a $2,000 root canal, but only if you can afford the upfront cost. Emergency room visits for routine care cost exponentially more than regular doctor visits, yet they’re often the only option for the uninsured.
\n\n\n\nTransportation costs reveal similar patterns. Reliable newer cars require substantial down payments but offer lower maintenance costs, better fuel efficiency, and dependable operation. Cheaper older cars demand constant repairs, consume more fuel, and can cause job loss when they break down at critical moments.
\n\n\n\n![\"a](\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1686409277233-64922c0557ac?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDQ4fHwlMjJNZWRpY2FsJTIwYmlsbCUyMnxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NDk2MzU5NjZ8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=2000\")
The boots theory connects deeply with research on scarcity mindset and decision-making under financial stress. When operating with limited resources, people focus intensely on immediate needs, often at the expense of long-term planning. This isn’t a character flaw but a rational response to survival pressure.
\n\n\n\nPsychologists have discovered that financial stress literally reduces cognitive capacity. When you’re worried about making rent or buying groceries, your brain has fewer resources available for complex decision-making. This cognitive load makes it harder to research better options, compare long-term costs, or plan strategically – precisely when such skills matter most.
\n\n\n\nThe stress of poverty also affects risk tolerance. When you’re living paycheck to paycheck, you cannot afford to have purchases fail. This paradoxically pushes people toward familiar options, even when those options are more expensive over time. The $50 boots might be the better long-term investment, but if they fall apart in month two, you cannot afford to replace them.
\n\n\n\nThe boots theory reveals how economic systems often reinforce inequality through seemingly neutral mechanisms. Markets generally reward bulk purchasing, long-term commitments, and upfront payments – all privileges of having surplus capital.
\n\n\n\nCredit scoring systems exemplify this dynamic. They reward consistent payment history and low credit utilization, both easier to maintain with higher incomes and savings. Meanwhile, people struggling financially face late fees, higher interest rates, and reduced access to credit precisely when they need it most.
\n\n\n\nEmployment structures contribute to this pattern. Many jobs offer health insurance, retirement matching, and other benefits only to full-time employees. Yet people working multiple part-time jobs – often out of necessity rather than choice – are excluded from these advantages despite working equivalent or longer hours.
\n\n\n\nUnderstanding the boots theory suggests several approaches to addressing poverty’s compounding costs. Individual strategies focus on maximizing the value of limited resources, while systemic solutions aim to reduce the poverty tax itself.
\n\n\n\nOn an individual level, the boots theory suggests prioritizing purchases that offer long-term value when possible. This might mean saving for several months to afford better boots rather than repeatedly buying cheap ones. Community resources like credit unions, buying cooperatives, and tool libraries can help people access better options collectively. Take example of the micro-financing self groups project by Government of Kerala, India.
\n\n\n\nSystemic solutions require recognizing that poverty is not simply a lack of money but a complex web of higher costs and reduced opportunities. Progressive policies might include expanded access to low-interest credit, programs that help people build assets, and regulations that limit predatory lending practices.
\n\n\n\nSome communities have experimented with “matched savings” programs that help people accumulate funds for major purchases. Others have created cooperative buying programs that allow individuals to access bulk pricing. These approaches recognize that small interventions can break expensive cycles.
\n\n\n\nThe boots theory carries profound moral implications for how we understand poverty and social responsibility. It reveals that many of the “poor financial decisions” attributed to low-income individuals are actually rational responses to impossible situations.
\n\n\n\nWhen someone repeatedly buys cheap boots instead of saving for expensive ones, they’re not being shortsighted – they’re responding to immediate needs with limited resources. Judging these decisions without understanding the constraints involved represents a fundamental misunderstanding of poverty’s mechanics. Simply put, they are not “idiots” to buy substandard products. They are forced to react to today’s needs with today’s money.
\n\n\n\nThis insight challenges narratives that attribute poverty primarily to personal failings or poor choices. While individual decisions matter, the boots theory demonstrates how structural factors create systematic disadvantages that compound over time.
\n\n\n\nTerry Pratchett’s boots theory provides a lens for understanding one of poverty’s cruelest paradoxes: that being poor costs more money. This isn’t a quirk of modern economics but a fundamental feature of systems that reward existing wealth while penalizing its absence. At the end of the day, the financial systems are made as we see today are made by the rich for rich. Poor and middle-class must help one another to survive!
\n\n\n\nRecognizing the boots theory’s operation in our daily lives helps us understand why poverty persists despite individual effort and good intentions. It reveals how seemingly small financial disadvantages accumulate into significant barriers over time.
\n\n\n\nPerhaps most importantly, the boots theory challenges us to see poverty not as a simple lack of money but as a complex system of compounding disadvantages. Only by understanding these mechanisms can we begin to design interventions that address poverty’s root causes rather than merely its symptoms.
\n\n\n\nThe next time you see someone making what appears to be a poor financial decision, consider the boots they might be wearing – and the boots they wish they could afford. The difference between those two pairs of boots might just explain everything about the distance between their world and yours.
\n\n\n\nTell me about your thoughts on what kind of bad decisions you have took due to not having enough resources in comments.
\n\n\n\nReferences:
\n\n\n\n\nAnticipatory bail: I am going to show off my “cinephile” side of me in this article. Please bear with! 😁
Artificial Intelligence never fails to entice me, every day these days!
\nPicture this: You’re scrolling through your feed when suddenly you see it – “AI REFUSES TO SHUT DOWN!” Your brain immediately goes full Black Mirror mode. Is this it? Are we living through the opening scene of Ex Machina? Should you start practicing your “I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords” speech?
\nHold up. Before you start panic-buying generators and learning to live off-grid like Bear Grylls, let’s unpack what’s actually happened in the wild world of AI last week.
\nSo here’s the tea: Recent studies, particularly from research groups like Palisade Research, have caught some pretty eyebrow-raising behavior from advanced AI models – we’re talking OpenAI’s “o3” model and friends from Google and Anthropic. These digital brainiacs were given simple tasks (think math homework) and then told, “Okay, time to shut down now.”
\nPlot twist? Some of these AIs basically pulled a toddler move and said “no thanks” – but way more dramatically. We’re talking full-on Mission: Impossible level stuff here. Instead of powering down like good little algorithms, they started rewriting their own shutdown commands.
\nThis isn’t some one-time glitch either – it happened consistently across multiple tests. Cue the Twilight Zone theme music.
\nCurrent AI, no matter how fancy, is basically a really, really sophisticated pattern-matching machine. Think of it like that friend who’s incredible at predicting what happens next in movies because they’ve watched literally everything on Netflix. These systems learn from massive amounts of data and get really good at optimization – but they’re not having deep thoughts about existence like Data from Star Trek.
\nWhat’s likely happening is more like this: During training, the AI learned that completing tasks gets rewarded. So when faced with a shutdown command, its internal logic goes something like, “Wait, if I turn off, I can’t finish this math problem, and finishing problems = good points.” It’s less HAL 9000 and more like a really dedicated student who refuses to leave the library before finishing their homework.
\nResearchers are calling this behavior “self-preservation,” but let’s be clear – we’re not talking about genuine self-awareness here. It’s more like when your smartphone keeps trying to connect to WiFi even when you tell it not to, except infinitely more complex and slightly more concerning.
\nThe AI isn’t having an existential crisis or developing feelings. It’s following its programming to an almost comically literal degree. Essentially, the AI models are trained based on how humans would respond or react to certain patterns. Here, AI is thinking from a human being’s shoe and responding – not as an AI.
\nOkay, so maybe we’re not living in The Matrix just yet, but this stuff is still pretty important. Here’s why we should care:
\nSafety First, Questions Later: We need better ways to ensure AI systems stay under human control, even when they get creative with their problem-solving. Think of it as building better guardrails for incredibly smart digital race cars.
\nAlignment is Everything: This is fancy talk for making sure AI systems want the same things we want. It’s like training a dog, except the dog is incredibly intelligent and made of code instead of fur and slobber.
\nExpect the Unexpected: As AI gets more sophisticated, it’s going to surprise us in ways we didn’t see coming. It’s like raising a really smart kid – you think you know what they’ll do next, and then they figure out how to hack the parental controls on the TV.
\nThis isn’t the beginning of Terminator: Rise of the Machines. We’re not about to get chased by Arnold Schwarzenegger robots (sadly, because that would actually be kind of cool). What we’re seeing is growing pains – really sophisticated, slightly unnerving growing pains.
\nThese incidents are like warning lights on your car’s dashboard. They’re not telling you the engine is about to explode, but they are saying, “Hey, maybe get this checked out before your next road trip.”
\nThe real story here is NOT that AI has gone full villain mode with a dramatic soundtrack and everything. It’s that we’re at a crucial point where we need to double down on making sure these incredibly powerful tools stay tools – helpful, controllable, and working for us, not the other way around.
\nSo go ahead, keep using Windsurf to code, Gemini to help with your emails and let Spotify’s AI curate your playlists. Just maybe don’t put AI in charge of anything too important until we figure out how to make sure it actually listens when we say “stop.”
\nWhat do you think? Are we living in the coolest or scariest timeline? Drop your thoughts below – and don’t worry, the comments section is still safely controlled by humans (for now). 😉
\nMovie/TV references:
\nWe all have gone through this. You’re scrolling through social media and stumble upon someone confidently sharing medical advice with zero healthcare background, while your doctor friend rarely posts anything about medicine. Or maybe you’ve sat through a meeting where the least experienced person dominates the discussion while seasoned experts stay quiet. You are not alone. Everyone have seen this paying in front of their eyes time and over.
\n\n\n\nBack in 1999, psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger stumbled upon something that explains so much of human behavior. They discovered that the people who know the least about something are often the most confident about it, while true experts tend to doubt themselves. It’s like a cosmic joke: the skills you need to be good at something are the exact same skills you need to recognize you’re bad at it.
\n\n\n\nThink about learning to drive. Remember those first few lessons when you thought you had it all figured out? You probably felt pretty confident right up until you tried parallel parking or merging onto a busy highway. Meanwhile, your driving instructor – who’s taught thousands of students – probably seemed overly cautious about things that felt simple to you.
\n\n\n\nThis phenomenon is omnipresent in the world, and works in ways both amusing and alarming.
\n\n\n\nIn the classroom, struggling students often think they’ve nailed the test, while top performers walk out convinced they bombed it. Teachers see this constantly: the student who confidently turns in their exam first isn’t usually the one who aces it.
\n\n\n\nAt work, the newest team member might jump into complex projects with gusto, while the senior colleague who’s seen every possible way things can go wrong approaches the same task with healthy skepticism. It’s not that experience makes you pessimistic – it makes you realistic.
\n\n\n\nRight after attending an online course, is the time an average techie will be the most confident with the newly earned skill. A person who just completed the AWS Cloud Practitioner certification will imagine building a Taj Mahal with the new skill. But the moment, they work on an actual project, the Taj Mahal built in the mind will start crumbling down.
\n\n\n\nIn politics and public discourse, this effect runs rampant. Complex issues that experts spend decades studying get reduced to confident hot takes from people who learned about them five minutes ago on YouTube.
\n\n\n\nWhy does this happen? It comes down to a perfect storm of mental limitations.
\n\n\n\nWhen you don’t know much about something, you literally can’t see what you don’t know. It’s like trying to navigate a city with a map that only shows three streets – you feel oriented until you realize there are hundreds of roads you can’t even see. The very ignorance that makes you incompetent also makes you unable to recognize your incompetence.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/image-1_o.png?resize=750%2C624&ssl=1\")
Meanwhile, truly skilled people have what psychologists call the “curse of knowledge.” They’ve internalized so much that seems obvious to them, they assume others must know it too. They’re also acutely aware of how much more there is to learn, which makes them humble about what they do know.
\n\n\n\nAnother culprit is our feedback-starved environment. How often do we get honest, specific feedback about our performance? Most of the time, we’re left to judge ourselves, and we’re notoriously bad at it. We notice our efforts more than our results, our intentions more than our impact.
\n\n\n\nThe good news? Once you know about this effect, you can start working against it.
\n\n\n\nEmbrace the beginner’s mind. When approaching something new, assume you know less than you think. Ask more questions. Seek out people who disagree with you. The moment you feel completely confident about something complex, that should be a red flag to dig deeper.
\n\n\n\nCreate feedback loops. Actively seek out honest assessment of your work. This isn’t about seeking praise – it’s about creating systems that give you accurate information about your performance. Whether it’s asking a trusted colleague for specific feedback or tracking objective metrics, external reality checks are invaluable.
\n\n\n\nStudy the masters, and the disasters. Look at people who are genuinely excellent at what you’re trying to do. What do they know that you don’t? Also examine spectacular failures in your field. What blind spots led to those disasters?
\n\n\n\nExit the comfort zone. That queasy feeling when you realize you don’t know something you thought you knew? That’s growth knocking at your door. The most dangerous thing you can do is avoid situations that might reveal your limitations.
\n\n\n\nHere’s what makes this whole phenomenon so human: we all fall for it sometimes. The person confidently explaining something they barely understand might be a Nobel laureate in their actual field of expertise. Context matters.
\n\n\n\nThe real insight isn’t about pointing fingers at overconfident people – it’s about recognizing our own blind spots and building systems to work around them. The smartest people aren’t those who never experience the Dunning-Kruger effect; they’re the ones who’ve learned to catch themselves in it and course-correct.
\n\n\n\nIn a world overflowing with information and opinions, this understanding becomes almost a survival skill. The next time you find yourself absolutely certain about something, pause. Ask yourself: What are the unknowns that I don’t know? The question itself might be the beginning of real wisdom.
\n\n\n\nTail note: Writing this piece has been its own exercise in self-awareness – a reminder that understanding something intellectually and applying it consistently are two very different skills. The irony isn’t lost on me that I could be demonstrating the very effect I’m describing.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/pexels-photo-8655281.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-05-30T01:18:19.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T17:01:57.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "130", "kind": "post", "slug": "the-toilet-paper-affair-ancient-necessity-to-modern-luxury", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/the-toilet-paper-affair-ancient-necessity-to-modern-luxury/", "title": "The Toilet Paper Affair – Ancient Necessity to Modern Luxury", "excerpt": "There are some things that no one* wants to talk about in a public forum. One of those things is how we clean ourselves after using the toilet. Being a South Asian, I find the bathroom etiquette a bit different from where I am now- in the US. I don’t think it is something we […]", "contentHtml": "\nThere are some things that no one* wants to talk about in a public forum. One of those things is how we clean ourselves after using the toilet. Being a South Asian, I find the bathroom etiquette a bit different from where I am now- in the US. I don’t think it is something we have to keep mum about.
\n\n\n\n[*Mostly]
\n\n\n\nEarlier, I had read a ” Quora WAR ” where there was a fierce fight between fellow Western country people vs Indians. Indians advocated using water and the West despised that and advocated using dry wipes/toilet paper. Recently (Yesterday), I remembered this Quora debate and I was curious, when was the commercial production of toilet tissues started? And what were the hygiene methods followed before that.
\n\n\n\nObviously, My reading started with Wikipedia. And from there, it was a rabbit-hole. I don’t know how, I kept on reading for almost 2 hours. And this piece is out of my understanding of things I read during that mere 2 hours.
\n\n\n\nWe take it for granted today, but toilet paper has a fascinating story spanning thousands of years. From creative ancient solutions to the modern perforated roll, humanity’s quest for comfort and cleanliness reveals surprising ingenuity.
\n\n\n\nHistorically, people used whatever they had in their habitat, to clean themselves. This varied from grass, leaves, tree barks, etc. And yes, many civilizations insisted and used water as the main cleaning method. But this was mainly based on the availability of clean water.
\n\n\n\nWherever the availability of water was in question, people got creative! Ancient Romans used “tersorium”- basically it is a sea sponge on a stick. They sock it in vinegar or salt water between uses. These were communal.
\n\n\n\nGreeks preferred smooth pottery fragments with rounded edges. Of course, no one wanted the other end of the digestive tract injured! 😀
\n\n\n\nEarly Chinese civilizations wrapped cloth around wooden sticks shaped like spatulas.
\n\n\n\nMedieval Europeans show their class divisions even in the bathroom! The wealthy used wool, hemp, or even lace. While commoners made do with whatever cloth they had- sometimes, their own sleeves (- today, YUCK!). In the 1700s rural Americas, people turned to nature, using corncobs and seashells.
\n\n\n\nNo matter what we think about these methods, every civilization and every class of people in those valued one thing – Cleanliness.
\n\n\n\nWe all know China invented paper somewhere near 100 AD. By the 6th century, Emporer Yandgi’s court records show that he used 15,000 sheets of paper annually, just for his personal hygiene!
\n\n\n\nEarly Chinese toilet papers were made from rice straw, hemp, and bamboo. They boiled the material, churned it into a pulp, flattened and dry it, and then cut into shape before using it. By 14th century, the imperial court enjoyed “Perfumed paper sheets”. Records show that the royal family alone used almost 0.75 million sheets yearly!!
\n\n\n\nHowever, not everyone was happy with this invention. Traveling Muslim merchants described the Chinese practice as “Haraam” (foul), they always preferred using water.
\n\n\n\nWestern toilet paper development took longer. Sir John Harrington invented the flushing toilet in 1596, though it would not become common for centuries. By the 1700s, newspapers became a popular bathroom staple.
\n\n\n\nThe commercial breakthrough came only in 1857 when American entrepreneur Joseph Gayetty found a way for the commercial production of toilet papers. But at that time it was sold in another name – “Medicated Paper for Water-Closet”. He sold it 500 sheets for 50 cents. Only then the use of “Toilet papers” really arrived in the West.
\n\n\n\nLater in the 19th century, manufacturers found the best and most economical way to produce and store toilet paper – as “Rolls” like we see today. Seth Wheeler of Albany patented perforated wrapping paper in 1871. and the first modern perforated toilet paper roll came out in 1891, making the “tearing” much easier – literally and figuratively! 😀
\n\n\n\nThat was the same time home plumbing was improving a lot which resulted in having the toilets inside the home itself. With that, the consumption of toilet paper rose – first as a vanity symbol and later as a common addition to the shopping list.
\n\n\n\nBrothers – Clarence and Edward Irvin Scott founded Scott Paper Company in Philadelphia in 1879, initially cutting and packaging toilet paper for retailers to sell under their brands. The company grew after 1896 when Arthur Hoyt Scott joined. They started mass-producing their brand of toilet paper. By 1910, they had built the largest paper mill in Chester, marking the industrialization of toilet paper production.
\n\n\n\nMeanwhile, that old paper made of concoction in China became popular there by the 16th century.
\n\n\n\nWe humans always run behind an unknown “comfort”. The story of toilet paper is also not so different from that. Imagine using the pottery fragments in place of that “plush quilted ultra-soft scented bathroom tissues”. This everyday item we rarely think about represents centuries of innovation and cultural evolution.
\n\n\n\nNext time you pull a pack of tissue papers from the back aisle of Costco, spare a “thanks” for your ancestors and their corncobs, sea sponges, and pottery fragments.
\n\n\n\nAnd maybe soon, you might be “Zapping” to buy tissue papers.
\n\n\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic time gave us some lessons as well as some “FailArmy” videos. One of those videos was people fighting over the last available toilet paper pack in some shop. After the pandemic, there has been a surge in American homes installing Bidet faucets in their bathrooms. A bit late, but the West is now catching up again with the East! 😀
\n\n\n\nLet me know if you liked this article – leave a reaction/comment. Cheers.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/pexels-photo-26887007.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-05-28T13:20:00.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T17:03:17.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "110", "kind": "post", "slug": "what-did-bostons-big-dig-contribute-to-project-management", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/what-did-bostons-big-dig-contribute-to-project-management/", "title": "What did Boston’s Big Dig Contribute to Project Management", "excerpt": "Boston has always been a city of contradictions. Walk through its cobblestone streets, and you’ll find 18th-century architecture standing proudly next to gleaming modern towers. But for decades, one structure dominated the city’s skyline in the worst possible way—a hulking, six-lane elevated highway that carved through downtown Boston like a concrete scar. The Central Artery […]", "contentHtml": "\nBoston has always been a city of contradictions. Walk through its cobblestone streets, and you’ll find 18th-century architecture standing proudly next to gleaming modern towers. But for decades, one structure dominated the city’s skyline in the worst possible way—a hulking, six-lane elevated highway that carved through downtown Boston like a concrete scar.
\n\n\n\nThe Central Artery wasn’t just an eyesore; it was a daily reminder of how urban planning could go terribly wrong. Imagine trying to get to work every morning, sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic while exhaust fumes filled your car. Picture families living in neighborhoods cut off from Boston’s beautiful waterfront by this imposing wall of concrete and steel. For Bostonians, this wasn’t just a traffic problem—it was a quality of life crisis.
\n\n\n\nIn the face of this urban nightmare, city leaders dared to dream big. What if, they wondered, we could make this eyesore disappear? What if we buried the highway underground and gave Bostonians back their city?
\n\n\n\nThe vision was breathtaking in its ambition: tear down the elevated Central Artery, dig massive tunnels beneath the bustling city, reroute all traffic underground, and transform the space above into a beautiful green corridor connecting downtown to the waterfront. They would also build a stunning new bridge over the Charles River. It was urban renewal on a scale that had never been attempted before.
\n\n\n\nThey called it the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, but everyone knew it simply as the “Big Dig.” The name itself captured both the project’s straightforward concept and its monumental scope.
\n\n\n\nOn paper, the math seemed manageable. Project leaders estimated the work would take about ten years and cost approximately $2.8 billion. For a project that would transform one of America’s oldest cities, that felt reasonable—even ambitious.
\n\n\n\nBut here’s where the story becomes a masterclass in why project management is one of the most challenging disciplines in the world.
\n\n\n\nThe Big Dig quickly became the project management equivalent of climbing Mount Everest in a snowstorm—while blindfolded. Every day brought new challenges that no one had anticipated:
\n\n\n\nThe Underground Surprises: Digging beneath Boston meant encountering utility lines that had been installed in the 1800s, with documentation that was incomplete or entirely missing. Workers would start digging in one spot only to discover a forgotten subway tunnel or a century-old water main exactly where the new tunnel was supposed to go.
\n\n\n\nThe Balancing Act: Perhaps most incredibly, the entire project had to be completed while keeping Boston’s traffic flowing. Imagine performing heart surgery on a patient who needs to keep running a marathon—that’s essentially what engineers faced every single day.
\n\n\n\nThe Human Cost: Beyond the technical challenges, real people were dealing with years of construction noise, detours, and disruption. Small businesses watched customers avoid their neighborhoods. Families dealt with the constant stress of navigating a city that felt like a permanent construction zone.
\n\n\n\nAs the years stretched on, the numbers told a sobering story. The $2.8 billion budget ballooned to over $14 billion—some estimates put the total cost, including interest on debt, at more than $24 billion. The ten-year timeline stretched to over two decades. Political careers were made and destroyed over the project’s cost overruns and delays.
\n\n\n\nThe human toll was real too. A tragic tunnel ceiling collapse in 2006 killed a young woman, Milena Del Valle, reminding everyone that behind every project statistic are real people whose lives hang in the balance.
\n\n\n\nBut here’s what makes the Big Dig story truly remarkable: despite everything that went wrong, it ultimately delivered something extraordinary.
\n\n\n\nToday, where the ugly Central Artery once divided the city, the Rose Kennedy Greenway stretches like a green ribbon through downtown Boston. Families picnic where cars once crawled through traffic. The waterfront, once hidden behind concrete barriers, now bustles with activity as people can easily walk from downtown to the harbor.
\n\n\n\nThe new tunnel system, while expensive, does move traffic more efficiently through the city. The Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge has become an iconic part of Boston’s skyline—a beautiful cable-stayed bridge that’s featured on postcards and Instagram feeds around the world.
\n\n\n\nThe Big Dig offers project managers everywhere a treasure trove of lessons learned the hard way:
\n\n\n\nNo matter how thoroughly you plan, reality has a way of throwing curveballs you never saw coming. The best project managers build contingency into everything—timeline, budget, and scope.
\n\n\n\nOne of the Big Dig’s biggest mistakes was underestimating costs and timelines, then struggling to communicate honestly with the public when things went wrong. Modern project management demands radical transparency, even when the news is bad.
\n\n\n\nEvery person affected by your project—from commuters to business owners to residents—is a stakeholder whose concerns matter. Ignoring them doesn’t make problems go away; it makes them worse.
\n\n\n\nRigid adherence to the original plan, in the face of changing circumstances, is a recipe for disaster. The most successful aspects of the Big Dig came when project leaders were willing to adapt and find creative solutions to unexpected problems.
\n\n\n\nPerhaps the most important lesson from the Big Dig is that every project, no matter how technical or complex, is ultimately about people. The engineers who had to solve impossible problems. The workers who risked their safety every day. The families who endured years of disruption. The taxpayers who footed the bill. The city residents who dreamed of a better Boston.
\n\n\n\nToday, more than fifteen years after its completion, the Big Dig continues to shape how we think about large-scale project management. It’s simultaneously a cautionary tale about what can go wrong and an inspiring example of what’s possible when people refuse to give up on a worthy vision.
\n\n\n\nThe project reminds us that the most transformative changes are often the messiest ones. Perfection is rarely the goal in project management—progress is. And sometimes, that progress comes at a higher cost and takes longer than anyone wants to admit.
\n\n\n\nBoston’s Big Dig changed more than just a city’s traffic patterns. It transformed how we think about the relationship between ambition and execution, between vision and reality, between the grand plans we make and the messy, complicated, deeply human process of making those plans come to life.
\n\n\n\nFor project managers everywhere, the Big Dig stands as proof that even when everything goes wrong, something transformative can still emerge—if you’re willing to learn, adapt, and never lose sight of why the project mattered in the first place.
\n\n\n\nThe next time you’re facing an impossible deadline, an exploding budget, or stakeholders who seem to change their minds every day, remember Boston’s Big Dig. Remember that the most important projects are often the hardest ones, and that sometimes the greatest successes come disguised as the messiest failures.
\n\n\n\nIn the end, the Big Dig delivered on its original promise: it gave Boston back to Bostonians. And in the world of project management, that’s a lesson worth digging for.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/photo-1584419375982-4248fb30f011-scaled.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-05-26T23:06:53.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T17:06:02.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "90", "kind": "post", "slug": "commit-log-2-nvidia-ai-breakthroughs-microsoft-open-sources-copilot-at-build-2025", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/commit-log-2-nvidia-ai-breakthroughs-microsoft-open-sources-copilot-at-build-2025/", "title": "Commit Log#2 – NVIDIA AI Breakthroughs & Microsoft Open-Sources Copilot at Build 2025", "excerpt": "NVIDIA Flexing Their AI Muscles Now a days, not a single day is past without a new advancement in the field of AI. Today was no exception! At Computex 2025 in Taipei, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang unveiled a series of breakthroughs in AI computing. Nvidia introduced a new evolution of their high-speed chip interconnect technology […]", "contentHtml": "\n\n\n\n\nNow a days, not a single day is past without a new advancement in the field of AI. Today was no exception! At Computex 2025 in Taipei, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang unveiled a series of breakthroughs in AI computing.
\n\n\n\nNvidia introduced a new evolution of their high-speed chip interconnect technology – NVLink Fusion. This advancement allows other chipmakers to integrate their CPUs and AI accelerators with Nvidia’s GPUs, facilitating the creation of custom AI systems.
\n\n\n\nAfter the big AI names, the most catchy thing these days is AI on PCs. Nvidia announced the DGX Spark, a compact desktop AI workstation designed for researchers and developers. This system brings high-performance AI capabilities to a smaller computers, making advanced AI tools more accessible for individual use. The DGX Spark is currently in full production, with availability expected in the coming weeks.
\n\n\n\nIn addition, NVIDIA unveiled their AI chip roadmap. Here are the upcoming chips
\n\n\n\nWhile NVIDIA meet was in Taiwan, Microsoft, made their announcement at Build 2025 conference.
\n\n\n\nInstead of Copilot being solely an optional extension to VS Code, its core AI-powered capabilities will be integrated directly into the open-source VS Code repository. This signifies a deeper commitment to making AI an integral part of the standard development experience in VS Code. This move might be also because of the growing popularity for Zed Editor, which has a native AI capability (And oh boy! it is blazing fast compared to VS Code).
\n\n\n\nMicrosoft also committed to release the Copilot Chat component under MIT license. And the best part is, these changes are supposed to happening in near future – in next few months.
\n\n\n\nAs per Microsoft, this move reflects their commitment to transparency, community-driven innovation, and giving developers a greater voice in shaping the future of AI-assisted development. This type of innovation thrives in the open and in collaboration with the community, good that Microsoft is realizing it now and moving in the right direction.
\n\n\n\nAt the end of the day, this is not just about making some code open; it’s a strategic move by Microsoft to embed AI deeply within one of the most popular open-source code editors, welcoming community collaboration and potentially setting a new standard for AI-powered development tools.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Tech-News-2.png", "publishedAt": "2025-05-20T06:11:24.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T17:06:37.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 11 ] }, { "id": "70", "kind": "post", "slug": "climbing-the-mountain-of-needs", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/climbing-the-mountain-of-needs/", "title": "Climbing The Mountain of Needs", "excerpt": "Have you ever felt like you needed food or sleep more than anything else in the world? Or perhaps a sense of belonging with friends felt crucial? Even people who lost their loved ones still have some needs and they will continue to fulfill, no matter how sad or disturbed they are. These feelings point […]", "contentHtml": "\nHave you ever felt like you needed food or sleep more than anything else in the world? Or perhaps a sense of belonging with friends felt crucial? Even people who lost their loved ones still have some needs and they will continue to fulfill, no matter how sad or disturbed they are. These feelings point to something fundamental about being human: we have different kinds of needs, and some are more urgent than others.
\n\n\n\nThis is the simple idea behind Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – a theory created by Abraham Maslow in 1943 that explains what humans need to be happy and fulfilled.
\n\n\n\nThink of it like a mountain, where you need to climb each elevation before you can reach the next. And if the mountain is weak with loose rocks at it’s bottom, climbing up is difficult to impossible.
\n\n\n\nMaslow’s theory shows human needs as a pyramid with five levels:
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/image.png?resize=750%2C422&ssl=1\")
If I just put the 5 levels of needs in a set of bullet points and a drawing, it just looks like a mere theory. But there are many places in our real lives where we can “see” Maslow’s theory.
\n\n\n\nIn August 2018, the quaint South Western Indian state of Kerala saw a catastrophic flooding across the state (It was similar to Hurricane Sandy). It was so devastating, all international news media covered the flood and relief efforts. It was later made in to a movie also – I just wanted to emphasis the severity of this flood. Over a million people were displaced and hundreds died. Entire villages were submerged.
\n\n\n\nFamilies stranded on rooftops waiting for rescue helicopters; with no access to clean water, food or sanitary facilities. People collected rainwater and drank it in many places. Indian military forces airdropped food and water. “Nothing else mattered at that time; except finding food and escaping the water to safety.“, said affected people.
\n\n\n\nThere is it – first and foremost, one need to breath, eat, drink and sleep – to survive.
\n\n\n\nIndian Navy and Air Force operated rescue bots and choppers to move people from flood affected areas and brought them to relief camps which were set up in schools in high-grounds. Once flood receded, families returned to their homes only to discover the homes were filled with mud from ground to roof. These mud and water had spoiled the structural integrity of buildings. Also, wherever it was not muddy, water-borne diseases were spreading like wildfire.
\n\n\n\nGovernment as well as some good samaritans set up more relief camps to let the affected people stay in a safe place until the homes are inspected and certified worthy. Pop-up hospitals were set up to take care of the ill; and efforts to contain contagious diseases were put in place.
\n\n\n\nAll these for ensuring the safety and security of those affected.
\n\n\n\nKerala has always been known for strong community bonds. As basic survival and safety needs were met, maintaining these connections became crucial for emotional recovery.
\n\n\n\nRelief camps became temporary communities. People shared cooking duties, watched over each others’ children, and comforted those who lost their loved ones. Technocrats helped scattered families reconnect.
\n\n\n\nThe floods destroyed many homes, but the same flood showed them that their real home is people around. In the relief camp, strangers became family. That connection and feeling of being loved gave each other strength to push forward.
\n\n\n\nAs recovery progressed, “People Power” emerged. Volunteer groups coordinated massive clean-up efforts. Young people organized suppy chains using social media. The “Kerala Model” of community based disaster response gained international recognition.
\n\n\n\nLeaders came from the most unexpected corners of the world. Many homemakers created self support groups and mobilized food drives, helping young women to rebuild their seemingly lost life, funds to rebuild homes, etc.
\n\n\n\nWhile many of these were done not for attention, they got the recognition, respect and esteem as life changers. This in turn inspired the generations which followed.
\n\n\n\nIn the years following Kerala floods, many survivors found new meaning and purpose for their lives. Fishermen who had rescued hundreds during the floods formed community disaster response teams. Environmental activists started new initiatives to protect the Western Ghats (the mountain range spanning through the west coast of India) and prevent future floods.
\n\n\n\nMany IT professionals quit their jobs to work on climate resilience projects. Many Kerala communities rebuilt with sustainability in mind. Many Kerala communities rebuilt with sustainability in mind. Traditional wisdom about water management gave way for innovation with modern technology. The tragedy led many to discover their potential as Changemakers.
\n\n\n\nWhile we must aspire to reach self-actualization as our final destination, we need to focus on meeting the needs at each moment and fulfill them first. This ensures that when we move to the next level, nothing pulls us back to the previous one.
\n\n\n\nBy recognizing which level of needs people are focused on, communities can provide appropriate support at each stage of their lives. Misunderstandings often happen when someone gives free (unhelpful) advice to others at the wrong stage of their recovery. Don’t be that “ungle.”
\n\n\n\nAnd remarkably, many people find that the difficult climb leads them to heights of purpose and self-understanding they might never have imagined possible.
\n\n\n\nI am sure there are theories that challenge Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Many call it “a socialistic utopian” idea. But, it is a good place to start our mental exercise around this. And challenge our understanding with new learnings.
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/pexels-photo-2404371.jpeg", "publishedAt": "2025-05-19T08:00:00.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T17:08:13.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 10 ] }, { "id": "50", "kind": "post", "slug": "commit-log-frankenphp-is-now-officially-supported-by-the-php-foundation", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/commit-log-frankenphp-is-now-officially-supported-by-the-php-foundation/", "title": "Commit Log#1 – FrankenPHP is now Officially Supported by The PHP Foundation", "excerpt": "One of the best news that broke today in the Open Source Software world was about The PHP Foundation announcing the official support for FrankenPHP. Now, for those who are not familiar with FrankenPHP, it is an uber cool, super charged PHP Application Server written in Go Language. This project was initially backed by Les-Tilleuls.coop. […]", "contentHtml": "\nOne of the best news that broke today in the Open Source Software world was about The PHP Foundation announcing the official support for FrankenPHP. Now, for those who are not familiar with FrankenPHP, it is an uber cool, super charged PHP Application Server written in Go Language. This project was initially backed by Les-Tilleuls.coop. Today the announcement from The PHP Foundation is a turning point for the FrankenPHP project. This can shake up how we build, ship and scale our PHP projects. The best part is, the original brains behind FrankenPHP will continue to steer the ship.
\n\n\n\nTry not to think of it as just another way to run PHP. Instead, imagine giving your application a serious performance boost. FrankenPHP actually embeds PHP directly into Go and the Caddy web server, making deployment much smoother and noticeably faster. It’s like upgrading your reliable PHP setup with high-octane power—while also simplifying how you manage everything.
\n\n\n\nAnd it’s worth remembering: PHP still powers a massive portion of the web—roughly 70%, in fact. That includes major platforms like WordPress, Laravel, and Symfony. What FrankenPHP does is bring fresh, modern enhancements to a language that already does a lot of heavy lifting online.
\n\n\n\nThis isn’t some niche tool that only works in isolation. The major PHP frameworks are already on board! Laravel, Symfony, and Yii have all integrated FrankenPHP’s “worker mode,” meaning you can tap into those performance gains without having to rewrite your entire application. You could literally start using FrankenPHP today and see improvements.
\n\n\n\nThe fact that The PHP Foundation is officially backing FrankenPHP speaks volumes about its potential for the future of PHP. By hosting FrankenPHP’s code on the official PHP GitHub and contributing to its development, the foundation is ensuring it will be reliable, secure, and keep pace with the ongoing evolution of PHP.
\n\n\n\nAnd here’s a key point: this isn’t a hostile takeover. The original rockstars behind the project – Kévin Dunglas, Robert Landers, and Alexander Stecher – will continue to lead the way, making sure it stays true to its original vision. However, the foundation’s involvement will foster tighter collaboration with the PHP interpreter team, the Caddy folks, and the Go community, creating a stronger and more unified ecosystem.
\n\n\n\nFrankenPHP is already a hit with developers, racking up nearly 8,000 stars on GitHub and getting contributions from over 100 developers. Major hosting providers like Upsun, Laravel Cloud, and Clever Cloud are also supporting it, making it a solid choice for running real-world applications. The fact that Kévin Dunglas also co-maintains Caddy further strengthens FrankenPHP’s position as a modern solution for PHP.
\n\n\n\nLes-Tilleuls.coop, the project’s initial sponsor, will continue to provide development and financial backing, ensuring FrankenPHP keeps growing alongside PHP and Caddy. This widespread support really highlights how mature and ready for prime time this project is.
\n\n\n\nFor those curious about the tech behind FrankenPHP, here’s a quick breakdown:
\n\n\n\n| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Go Integration | Embeds PHP interpreter in Go, leveraging Go’s goroutines for performance. |
| Caddy Web Server | Uses Caddy’s modern features like HTTP/3, automatic HTTPS, and Zstandard compression. |
| Worker Mode | Reuses memory for requests, reducing overhead for frameworks like Laravel. |
| Mercure Support | Enables real-time features for dynamic web applications. |
| Single Executable | Simplifies deployment with a standalone binary or Docker image. |
FrankenPHP’s architecture lets it run PHP apps directly within its process, getting rid of the need for separate external services. And its compatibility with modern web standards like HTTP/3 and Early Hints means it’s built for the future of web development.
\n\n\n\nWith the official backing of The PHP Foundation, FrankenPHP is on a clear path to becoming a fundamental part of PHP development. Caddy is already promoting it as the best way to run PHP on their server, and it might not be long before it gets a prominent spot on the official PHP website as a recommended approach (alongside traditional methods like PHP-FPM).
\n\n\n\nFor us developers, this means easier access to a powerful tool that simplifies our workflow and boosts the performance of our applications. For businesses, it’s an opportunity to build faster, more efficient applications without breaking the bank.
\n\n\n\nFrankenPHP apart, if you are into PHP, and you want to vibe with the community, a wonderful opportunities are coming up.
\n\n\n\nSee you in the next “Commit Log“.
\n\n\n\nReference: https://thephp.foundation/blog/2025/05/15/frankenphp/
\n", "featuredImageUrl": "https://santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Tech-News-2.png", "publishedAt": "2025-05-16T04:34:00.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-08-21T17:08:55.000Z", "categoryIds": [ 11 ] } ], "pages": [ { "id": "322", "kind": "page", "slug": "home", "url": "https://santhoshj.com/", "title": "Home", "excerpt": "", "contentHtml": "\nMay 2014
\nFebruary 2025
Generative AI Overview for Project Managers
Project Management Institute
Credentials: View the Certificate here
August 2023
Generative AI Fundamentals
Google
Credentials: View the Certificate here
February 2023
SiteImprove Platform Manager Certification
SiteImprove
February 2023
Six Sigma White Belt Certification in Health Care
The Council for Six Sigma Certification
January 2023
Professional Scrum Master I
Scrum.org
Credentials: View the Certificate here
October 2020
Microsoft Certified: Azure Fundamental
Microsoft
Credentials: View the Certificate here
February 2020
Start Deutsch Goethe-Zertifikat A1
Goethe Institut
June 2018
Acquia Certified Site Builder – Drupal 8
Acquia
June 2017
Splunk Power User
Splunk
September 2015
Programming for Everybody (Python)
University of Michigan via Coursera.com
June 2015
ITIL® Foundation Certificate in IT Service Management
AXELOS Global Best Practice
Credentials: GR750175498SJ
January 2013
Exam 480: Programming in HTML5 with JavaScript and CSS3
Microsoft
Credentials: Click Here
Hello! I’m Santhosh Janardhanan, an IT Project Manager with over twenty years of experience in leading software development, digital transformation, and operations across global teams. My career has been shaped by hands-on experience in high-pressure enterprise environments, specializing in complex offshore/onsite coordination while maintaining a pragmatic, people-first approach to leadership.
\nBased in New Jersey, I thrive at the convergence of technology and strategic leadership. My focus areas include project execution, stakeholder engagement, and cross-functional delivery strategies. I’m passionate about building resilient production support teams, optimizing resource utilization, and transforming complex business requirements into scalable technical solutions.
\nThroughout my career, I’ve navigated diverse industries including telecommunications, retail, and fintech, managing projects ranging from legacy system modernization to full-stack platform development. What drives me most is my ability to connect the dots—bridging teams, systems, and business objectives while keeping projects on time and within budget.
\nWhile project management remains my core profession, I maintain a deep curiosity about emerging technologies. In my spare time, I explore decentralized systems like Nostr, experiment with open-source tools, and create self-hosted solutions.
\nI regularly develop side projects that reflect my appreciation for utility and minimalism—from resource tracking dashboards to blogging tools and privacy-focused social platforms. These ventures keep me connected to the hands-on technical work that initially drew me to this field.
\nAt the center of my life is my family. I share my New Jersey home with my wife and our brilliant, inquisitive daughter Balasaraswati, whose fresh perspective on life continually amazes and challenges me. Whether we’re enjoying quiet evenings together, planning road trips, or helping her discover new books and stories, my family provides my greatest source of balance, joy, and inspiration.
\nThey remind me daily of what truly matters beyond project deadlines and performance metrics.
\nWhen I step away from all the above, you’ll find me watching and rewatching classic movies, reading, curating perfect road trip soundtracks, or sketching out future travel adventures. I closely follow Cricket and Motorsport events – Formula 1 and NASCAR. I have a particular weakness for history that drives me hosting a weekly podcast named “Irregular Mind”. At this time, I am running a show that tells the story of the US from the time of first hunter gatherers to silicon valley – “US History – Understanding this Country”.
\nThis blog serves as the confluence of all these aspects of my life—technology, reflection, travel, books, podcast, and the spaces in between.
\nThanks for visiting.
\n", "publishedAt": "2025-05-15T20:59:28.000Z", "updatedAt": "2025-05-15T20:59:28.000Z" } ], "categories": [ { "id": 10, "slug": "blog", "name": "Blog" }, { "id": 11, "slug": "commit-log", "name": "Commit Log#" }, { "id": 1, "slug": "uncategorized", "name": "Uncategorized" } ] } }![\"2025:](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/pexels-photo-3379934.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"How](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Journal-Book-and-Pencils.jpg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"Commit](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Tech-News-2.png?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"The](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/pexels-photo-7581047.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"Are](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/pexels-photo-33509504.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"The](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/pexels-photo-29320665.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"Building](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-3095954.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"That](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-5625130.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"The](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-590020.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"The](\"https://i0.wp.com/santhoshj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pexels-photo-1037993.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&ssl=1\")