Data Collection Form (Pdf) - The President'S Challenge: Fill & Download for Free

Sorry on this first day of the new year to be a party pooper but the US,on the national level, is not and was not designed to be a democracy. This can be explained in two ways:The Framers, who were half slave owners, feared and despised democracy, tho our Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Paine, et al ) had founded the nation on democratic principles (equality and consent of the governed), But the Framers were a very different group and even included some who had opposed independence.The slave owners (like Madison, who owned 100 slaves) who wrote the Constitution, created an electoral scheme, which was justified on specious grounds) which allowed the Electoral College to overturn the public vote and a Senate voting scheme which has allowed, as of TODAY, rural/conservative states like Montana and Wyoming to have twice the Senators and votes as a state like like California, which has 97% more actual citizens. Fearing the People, the authors crafted a document that allowed the minority of slave owners to control the new nation, with 10 of the first 12 Presidents having owned slaves and coming from the slave states, which had far fewer citizens.A good source for this is the classic Merrill Jensens’s New Nation, which fully documents the way in which the Constitution was a slaveowners counter-revolution against the democratic origins of our nation.Let’s now fast-forward to our new Century, where, of the last 3 Presidents, only one actually won the public vote (ie consent of the governed, which our founding document makes the essential justification for legitimate rule), with two (Bush and Trump) gaining power (as Hitler and Mussolini did) after losing the popular vote.So we today have a President who has never had consent (which Jefferson insisted was based on the “sacred” and” essential” principle of majority rule) and thus, according to our founding document, tho not the Constitution which enabled such a result, is unjust and illegitimate.Let’s turn to the Senate, now controlled by Republicans and prepared to exonerate the President on impeachment charges. The current Senate has a minority party (the Democrats) who actually received 15 million more votes than the Republicans.And so the Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives who gained their appointments through the power of a party that itself came to power in violation of the founding principle of consent, having been chosen by a party that year in and year out loses the popular vote but ascends to control.This is not a Democracy. Democracy is based on equality (at a minimum of votes) and the consent of the governed, which means the actual citizens and voters. And where a majority is not attained (Lincoln, Clinton, et al), the winner, in a democracy, is the candidate with the most votes, not the loser.One more caution: due to gerrymandering, the House at times, supposedly the bulwark of democracy, has been ruled by the party with the fewest votes. This happened in 2012, when Democrats had 1,400,000 more votes but Republicans ruled with 234 seats to 201 for the Democrats. Where the minority gains power, only a deceiver will call it democracy.The oldest democracy may be Switzerland which had direct democracy as far back as the 1200s, but the US has yet to complete the American Revolution and join the ranks of democratic republics.Lack of majority rule also happens frequently at the state level: “November 13, 2018Majorities of voters in at least three battleground states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina — chose a Democrat to represent them in the state’s House of Representatives. Yet in all three states, Republicans maintained majority control over the chamber despite winning only a minority of votes.For that, you can thank gerrymandering — the process by which partisan lawmakers draw legislative districts in a way to disadvantage their opponents. Its effects are well-documented at the federal level: In states like North Carolina, U.S. House delegations feature huge Republican majorities, even when the majority of voters choose a Democratic representative.”In at least three states, including Pa., Republicans won House while losing popular vote | AnalysisAnd so, we are not a democracy but rather, based on an objective study by Northwestern/Princeton an oligarchy, where the will of ordinary people, which theoretically is the foundation of legitimate rule, is ignored and the will of the wealthy and the corporations dominates: thus we are an oligarchy (or plutocracy, or in terms of modern history, a corporatocracy (Mussolini's term for fascism) pretending to be a democracy and often engaging in wars abroad on behalf of a democracy we only pretend exists at home.“The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interest groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."Major Study Finds The US Is An OligarchyCONCLUSION: we must stop trying to “protect” the illusion of American democracy, admit the truth, and create it. It is time to complete the American Revolution, overthrowing a hereditary aristocracy only to see it replaced by an enslavers aristocracy and then after the Civil War, a plutocracy of the corporations. It is time to fulfill our birthrights of equality and consent of the governed and a democratic republic representing not the 1% or special interests but rather “We the People.”We can advance this cause by supporting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which currently has 196 electors and needs only 74 more to make the Electoral College representative. Then we must fight to make gerrymandering illegal and create a Senate which is ruled not by 15% of the population in small/conservative states but by the majority, with the minority having inviolable rights that enable them to become the majority, thus creating a genuine democracy “of, for, and by the people” instead of a sham operation designed to fool the people into supporting the rule of the wealthy. This is our birthright, and it is time to take it back!

Before discussing evidence, it’s important to be clear that the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community is unanimous: Russia interfered with the election. It happened.The FBI, CIA, NSA, and ODNI all said so when they were run by Obama appointees, and they continue to say so now that they’re run by Trump appointees. DHS says so, too.Presidents, too. Obama said it. Bush said it. Trump said it. He tries to downplay it, but he said it. And his CIA Director and Secretary of State say they aren’t going to stop.And Congress, as well. Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees from both parties have said it.That’s two branches of government, two political parties, partisans and civil servants; Republicans, Democrats, and dedicated professionals living and breathing national security every day.Outside the U.S. government, private sector companies specializing in computer forensics have said it, even those that compete with each other and have strong incentive to prove the others wrong. More on that shortly.To be as clear as possible before moving on, the FBI, CIA, and NSA, through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, published the following assessment:President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.So, we’re confident the Russians attempted “an influence campaign” to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election, but what form did this take?The effort was multi-pronged:Establishing contact with the Trump campaign and those receptive to Russian overtures.Hacking into Democratic servers and leaking stolen information.Organized trolling using Russian agents and bots to maximize the propaganda value of the leaked emails, spread disinformation, disrupt political discourse, foment anger and vitriol, support Trump messaging, etc.Breaching U.S. election systems, either for 2016 or to set up actions for future elections.Item #1 relates to the ongoing collusion investigation of contacts between Russia and the Trump team. That would be a whole answer on its own, and it’s not even necessary to show evidence of the Russian interference, so I’ll just offer this quick summary:At least 12 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transitionThere were at least 19 face-to-face interactions with Russians or Kremlin-linked figuresThere were at least 51 communications -- meetings, phone calls, email exchanges and more.This flies in the face of at least nine blanket denials from Trump world of any contacts with RussiaIf you want to read the details behind that, go ahead: By the numbers: The Trump orbit's contacts with Russians is a good start, or for a more in depth timeline: All the known times the Trump campaign met with RussiansThe majority of this answer will focus on #s 2, 3, and 4.Now that we’ve established what we know, we can move on to how we know it. That part gets a bit more complicated.Although all those U.S. government entities say so with high confidence, they can’t exactly “show their work” to the general public without telling the Russians all the ways they used to catch them. If they did, they would not only be telling them how to avoid detection in the future, but endangering the lives of human intelligence sources (our spies and assets) and the continued viability of any electronic or cyber intelligence sources, such as any vulnerabilities we’ve exploited in their systems.Usually, it’s not just the sources and methods that are kept secret but everything. Generally, the public doesn’t get told anything U.S. intelligence knows, except in serious situations, like when they discovered Russia’s previous management, the Soviet Union, was secretly installing nuclear missile sites 90 miles off the coast of Florida, a scary incident known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.In this case, when they decided to go public, they made two reports, but we only got to see the unclassified one, which leaves out the sensitive details about how we know what we know. Here’s how it’s explained in the report:“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.Since they can’t tell us their evidence, any answer to this question on Quora will be missing the majority of the evidence.However, even without them spilling all their secrets, there’s quite a bit that’s publicly known. And the preceding two sentences taken together should underscore just how overwhelming the evidence must be.One last thing before diving in, a quick note of caution: Do not be confused by talk about “the dossier” or “the Nunes memo” as they have little to do with this.Ok, so here’s some of the evidence that’s publicly known:Democratic servers were hacked by Russians. Although the government isn’t willing to expose all their evidence for this, we have plenty.Let’s start with the strong forensic information from multiple private sector firms.The Democratic National Committee suspected something happened but wasn’t sure what, so they “called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats.”While the infiltration was very advanced, within just two hours CrowdStrike discovered reams of evidence that left little doubt that not only did the Russians hack them, but two different Russian agencies had.Knowing that this was a big claim, they published their evidence. Their report is pretty specific. It’s not that long but includes all sorts of technical details, including excerpts from the actual code, among other things. Feel free to read it if you want to get deeper into the weeds.It’s not just the company the Democrats hired saying so: “Two competing cybersecurity companies, Mandiant (part of FireEye) and Fidelis, confirmed CrowdStrike's initial findings that Russian intelligence indeed hacked the DNC.” Now, we’re up to three saying so.Then a fourth cyber security firm “examined the forensic data from the DNC hack themselves, and endorsed Crowdstrike’s conclusions.” This company you might’ve even heard of: Symantec.The U.S. government confirmed the findings as well. A separate report we’ll get into later reiterated many of the points raised by CrowdStrike, including when each of the Russian intelligence agencies they identified infiltrated the DNC (the hacks were done at different times).Part of the evidence is that CrowdStrike had seen these digital fingerprints before. They investigate 15,000 hacks every year, so when their software analyzes systems, it recognizes that certain sequences of actions taken form patterns that become a unique signature. Wired explains, “Every action at a system level on the DNC's computers was recorded and checked against CrowdStrike's bank of prior intelligence (the company processes 28 billion computer events a day).” There are “a handful of small but significant tells: data exfiltrated to an IP address associated with the hackers; a misspelled URL; and time zones related to Moscow.”In other words, the companies are familiar with these hackers and know what to look for. Here’s a little blurb about how familiar they are with their modus operandi:“Security companies can tell you much more about these groups, their code, their infrastructures, and their methods. (The Finnish security firm F-Secure has an excellent 34-page write-up of [one of the Russian intelligence agency hacker groups], and FireEye has a deep dive into [the other Russian hacker group], among many other reports by different companies.) (PDF) From analysis of the dozens of malware packages used exclusively by these hackers, researchers can tell you that…“They’re usually compiled on machines with the language set to Russian.”“Both groups operate during working hours in Russia, and take Russian holidays off.”“Their targets are radically different from those of for-profit criminals hackers in Eastern Europe or anywhere else—no banks, no retailers with credit card numbers to steal—always governments, companies, journalists, NGOs, and other targets that the Russian government would be interested in.”One part of the hack involved tricking DNC employees with phony links that were used in previous hacks tied to Russia.As good as the Russians were at hacking, they made mistakes, during and after the hack. For example, they inadvertently left Russian-language metadata in the leaked files.Oops.There’s even Russian language error messages accidentally embedded due to the way they exported the docs. Crowdsourcing spotted that, not just the cyber firm. A Twitter user who used to work for British intelligence did some great analysis."error! invalid hyperlinks" in Russian... pic.twitter.com/T9jmLnNiKF— davi (((🐧))) 德海 (@daviottenheimer) June 15, 2016They tried to play the hack off like it was an independent hacker, but they could’ve done a better job there.The hacker they claimed to be, who was supposedly Romanian, didn’t speak Romanian.That and a few other giveaways… (see #14)14) Tldr: this "lone hacker" uses many VMs, speaks Russian; username is founder of USSR secret police & likes laundering docs via Wikileaks.— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) June 15, 2016There was yet another hack, this one targeting the Clinton campaign directly.The hack used a similar technique as one of the DNC hacks used.Another private cyber security firm (we’re up to five now), this one called SecureWorks, discovered this was connected to other hacking attempts, some of which targeted NATO and the US military, and thousands more of which were aimed at Gmail accounts in Russia and neighboring countries of the former USSR. How they figured this out is explained in this NYT article: Was It a 400-Pound, 14-Year-Old Hacker, or Russia? Here’s Some of the Evidence, which also breaks down what is known about the identities of all those accounts targeted.“They found that of the targets outside the former Soviet Union, most were government or military personnel, aerospace professionals, political activists, authors and journalists.” In fact, breaking it down even further, “The journalists and authors in that group mostly wrote about Russia, Ukraine and global affairs, or were the spouses of military personnel.”“The government and military personnel in that group mostly served the United States, NATO and European countries.”To summarize: The U.S. government and five different cyber security firms all said it was Russia.If they’re wrong, either the Democrats or the “real” hackers pulled off the most amazing frame job in history. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s got to be the most massive, most successful conspiracy in history to include all the intelligence agencies (which frequently don’t get along) and five different private companies (which compete with each other).So far, we’ve reviewed the evidence from the security firms, but not the government. That’s about to change. Although the unclassified version of their report left out all info on sources and methods, there was a third report issued.That’s right, the FBI and DHS released a different report.One of the things that report said was that the phony login page used in the hacks was, as the New York Times explained, “hosted on a domain controlled by Russian intelligence services.” That’s what we call a smoking gun.The report talks about methods used by Russian hackers and includes some technical details about how they spot Russian cyber fingerprints and how to mitigate risks. Just read the summary at the beginning of the report and you’ll see they once again make clear how confident and clear they are that it is that Russia is behind it:Go ahead and read that report if you want to dive into the technical weeds.Of course, it’s not just the U.S. government and those five companies that purport to have evidence about Russian involvement:Report: Dutch spies caught Russian hackers on tapePutin’s Hackers Now Under Attack—From MicrosoftThere’s more, but this concludes the section about the hacks. Before I move on, I want to say that if you’re still skeptical, if you don’t think you’ve seen evidence, I encourage you to go see my source material and the sources they link to. Much like other technical areas of life, you have to either trust the consensus of experts in the field, or personally dive super deep in yourself, while also taking the time to educate yourself so you fully understand the information.With all that said, I recommend the following sources:Vice’s Excellent piece is a little old but more detailed than other treatments: “All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack”CrowdStrike’s Report: “Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee”FBI/DHS Report detailing how Russia used cyber-espionageNYT explains that FBI/DHS report: “Was It a 400-Pound, 14-Year-Old Hacker, or Russia? Here’s Some of the Evidence”WaPo basically answers this Quora question: “Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election”ODNI’s FBI/CIA/NSA Report: Light on evidence per se, but offers very clear conclusions based on all the available evidence, even the Top Secret evidence we aren’t allowed to see.Daily Beast has good background on how recognizable these Russian hackers are because of their past hacks and modus operandi.Seriously, if you’re somehow still skeptical and really consider yourself open-minded, read the above sources.You got all that? Great, moving on…Timing: Selective leaks of the most damaging of the hacked information usually came at key times in the campaign, usually when Democrats were getting good coverage (their convention) or when Trump was getting bad coverage (e.g. the Access Hollywood tape).Distributors of hacked information: The U.S. intelligence community says it has high confidence that the leakers are acting on Russia’s behalf.Fake news purveyors (actually fake, not the ones Trump simply declares fake) based out of Russia, “troll factories,” are owned by a close Putin ally, posted misinformation about the election, as well as divisive comments, and retweets/posts linking to the fake news, which Americans would then repost themselves, comment on, argue about, and derail more serious/legit discourse.Just peruse some of these links to get a sense of how widespread it was, and obviously read any of interest:Russian troll describes work in the misinformation factoryInside the Russian 'troll factory' where recruits put out fake newsRussian troll factory paid US activists to help fund protests during electionHow Russia's troll army mobilized on election day in a final push to put Donald Trump in the White HouseRussian Twitter trolls exploited key election momentsTwitter says it exposed nearly 700,000 people to Russian propaganda during US electionHow to Tell if You've Liked or Followed a Russian "Fake News" Page on FacebookHere’s What We Know About Russia’s Use of American Social Media to Sway the ElectionRussia-backed Facebook posts 'reached 126m Americans' during US electionRussian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts sayEven Trump Retweeted a fake Russian account: Trump Campaign Staffers Pushed Russian Propaganda Days Before the ElectionAbout Half of the news Michigan voters were exposed to on Twitter was fake, according to a study done by Oxford University. Michigan was one of the closest and most decisive states in the election.The researchers noted that the ratio of "professional to junk news" was "roughly one-to-one," and that "46.5% of all content presented as news" the election fell under "the definition of propaganda" when all the stories traceable to Russia were included.Russia bought U.S. advertising to drive opinion:Facebook says up to 10m people saw ads bought by Russian agencyThese Are the Ads Russia Bought on Facebook in 2016Russia paid Facebook in roubles for US election adsRussia created divisive events Americans showed up to:Russian trolls created Facebook events seen by more than 300,000 usersExclusive: Russia Used Facebook Events to Organize Anti-Immigrant Rallies on U.S. SoilRussia’s state owned media operate in the U.S., put out propaganda during the election, including on TV, radio, and internetThe US Intelligence report explained: “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine—comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls—contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.”Alexa says RT’s web site gets 8% of their traffic from the U.S.. It’s currently ranked 370th in the world, but traffic is way down from where it was last year.They mainly go by RT, not Russia Today, so not everyone is aware of what they are. Even when they list it, they don’t say “We are government propaganda.” I saw their ads on NYC phone booths for a couple years before I knew who they were (not that I was watching). It would not be surprising if many Americans were watching it and not knowing it was Russian TV. It’s not like they’re speaking Russian — they had Larry King doing their election coverage.Larry King interviewing Donald Trump on a Russian government owned propaganda station broadcast in the United States.InfoWars, a favorite “news” source of Trump and Trump voters, published more than a thousand articles straight from Russian propaganda.Infowars peddled stories from a Russian propaganda outlet for yearsRussian propaganda even made it into Trump’s speechTrump Apparently Quotes Russian Propaganda To Slam Clinton On BenghaziRussia hacked state voting systems, too, but we don’t know to what extent, partially because states are unwilling to look. We’re still figuring it out.Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little ScrutinyWe learned this nearly a year after the election: Russia targeted election systems in 21 states, successfully hacking someJust last week, in February 2018, we learned it was even worse: Russians successfully hacked into U.S. voter systems, official saysRussian bots still influencing us. If you still don’t believe Russian bots could influence things much, think again. Just last month, they made #releasethememo a trending topic. They’re helping to obstruct the investigation into their 2016 actions.Russia-linked Twitter accounts are working overtime to help Devin Nunes and WikiLeaksHow Twitter bots and Russian accounts made #ReleaseTheMemo go viralHow Twitter Bots and Trump Fans Made #ReleaseTheMemo Go ViralIf you still don’t think Russian propaganda sites matter, consider that when searching for the story above, the first link I found and was momentarily fooled by, was actually an RT headline saying the Department of Homeland Security refuted that story about Russia hacking voter systems, that it was a mistake. That’s what they do, they spread doubt.I looked around some more and there are right wing sites saying similar things. Which said it first? Are the Russians giving the right wing ideas or are they repeating their ideas? I don’t know. They’re certainly amplifying the same message.Now, without getting too deep into the Trump campaign’s alleged involvement in the Russian interference, it’s worth pointing out one or two factors relevant to the above:A Trump adviser repeatedly claimed to know of upcoming WikiLeaks dumps and what they were about, and then turned out to be right. His story has changed and he denies it, offers alternate explanations, but that’s a piece of evidence to consider.Prior to the hacks being leaked, Donald Trump, Jr. was contacted about meeting with Russian government representatives to receive “sensitive information” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” They promised them “official documents and information” that would damage Hillary and help their campaign.I wonder where all those “official documents and information” came from?Trump Jr. responded enthusiastically, “…I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?”“Later in the summer” is when the leaks of the hacked emails started happeningThe meeting with the Russians took place in Trump TowerThe meeting was attended by Donald Trump’s three top people: his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager (who is now under federal indictment).We know all this because reporters discovered it, then Trump Jr. published the emails confirming it. His story changed about 7 times regarding the content of the meeting and all the people in attendance.There’s a lot more information out there on every one of these topics, but now you should have a decent sense of the evidence that Russians interfered in the U.S. election.I know this was long so I’ll just leave you with three last points relating to Russia interfering with elections — we also know:They’ve attempted to do so in other countriesFrance is latest in long list of countries that have allegedly had elections hacked by RussiaThey intend to do so again in the 2018 U.S. midterm electionsUS intel chiefs unanimous that Russia is targeting midtermsThey may have hinted at their 2016 plans before the hacksIn February 2016:A top Russian cyber official told a security conference in Moscow that Russia was working on new strategies for the “information arena” that would be equivalent to testing a nuclear bomb and would “allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.”“You think we are living in 2016. No, we are living in 1948. And do you know why? Because in 1949, the Soviet Union had its first atomic bomb test. And if until that moment, the Soviet Union was trying to reach agreement with [President Harry] Truman to ban nuclear weapons, and the Americans were not taking us seriously, in 1949 everything changed and they started talking to us on an equal footing.”Krutskikh continued, “I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having ‘something’ in the information arena, which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.”Source: Russia’s radical new strategy for information warfareTwo months later, the DNC was hacked.

Date: 1st March 2020Time: 1:30 p.m.Place: Hotel Monarch Luxor, BangaloreBackground:-General Engineering Male FresherCAT: 99.96 percentile (VARC: 99.62/DILR: 99.92/Quant: 99.59)Graduation: 9.62 CGPA, EEE at NITK Surathkal12th: 96.83% (as per CAT form considering all subjects)- CBSE 201610th: 10 CGPA- CBSE 2014This was my third interview.IIM Ahmedabad had asked for 3 national or international level co-curricular and extra-curricular achievements each after 10th grade. I had one modest co-curricular from class 11th and only wrote about my position as an analyst on Sportskeeda for extra-curricular.AWT: IIM Ahmedabad's written test is different. It consists of a case study, which is supposed to be critically analysed. This is similar to AWA in GMAT. Our topic was something like a person tells his brother that online shopping ruins the culture of saving money, is against Indian culture, and more such negatives. Time was 20 minutes without any time to think or jot down points. We were notified at the 10, the 15 and the 19-minute mark, as far as I remember. I wrote in strict opposition, pointing out logical inconsistencies in the statements and concluded that the reasoning was weak and needed more substantiation. We had one side of a ruled sheet. I thought that would be too little, so I wrote smaller, with much lesser spacing between words than I usually do. Surprisingly, I was able to complete till the last or second last line and didn't have to scribble till the end of the page.Interview: I was first in a panel of four people. There were two panelists:-P1: A professor who looked almost 40 years old.P2: Another Professor who looked 35-40 years old.I entered the room and greeted them. They asked me to sit.P1: So, Archit, please introduce yourself.Me: Gave a prepared answer highlighting the following in the same order:-Having experienced different cultures by staying at various places such as New Delhi, London, Ranchi, and Surathkal.My academics.My interest in Science, Maths, and Electrical and Electronics.My three internships during engineering, first two of which I didn’t mention the details and third at Wells Fargo, where I'd also received a PPO.My hobbies including tracking box office collections of movies, Cricket, and the professional wrestling industry as a whole mentioning I had 25 published slide shows about it on Latest Sports News & Live Updates, All Sports Schedule at Sportskeeda.com.P2: So, where were your first and second internships?Me: First was at BEL Ghaziabad in New Delhi, where I trained in December 2017 and second at IRCON New Delhi where I interned at a substation.P2: What is BEL?Me: Sir, Bharat Electronics Limited is a PSU that manufactures several electronic components. It is best known to manufacture EVM's at it's primary Bangalore branch. At it's New Delhi branch, it manufacturers RADARs and other Defence equipment.P2: How many branches does it have all over the country?Me: I'm sorry sir I don't know. I think about ten. I know the two main branches are Bangalore and Ghaziabad.P1: What about the other internship you mentioned?Me: I worked at a 66kV substation for Indian Railways Construction Limited and got to observe and learn how to operate several switchgear equipments. This substation supplied power for traction to a section of the Delhi metro.P2: So you like your branch?Me: Yes sir, very much.P2: So why did you intern at Wells then and subsequently go for MBA?Me: (Told a version of my prepared Why MBA answer) I told about me deciding to study further, and studying what interested me the most. I told that I was interested in business and data, and had been following the economics of movies for a long time. This internship made my decision all the more firm and I opted for courses such as Machine Learning and Brand Management in college, which interested me a lot.P1: So you're an electronics engineer so tell me the difference between AM and FM?Me: Told how amplitude was modulated in one and frequency in the other and how one was more susceptible to noise. (I didn't answer properly)P2: How does GPS work?Me: Told about how satellites are used to identify one's position based on three intersecting spheres.P1: How do traffic lights work?Me: Told, they may be timed or smart based on an inductor below the road identifying the level of traffic.P1: Okay Archit, so you're an engineer, so you must be good at Maths. Do you know any probability distributions?Me: Yes sir, Normal Distribution.P1: Handed me a pencil and a few ruled sheets of paper and asked me to explain.Me: Drew the graph, wrote the equation, told that it's also called Gaussian distribution. Most natural processes follow it. Due to the Central Limit Theorem average of several random processes when plotted as a pdf tend to become normal. Also told that we were graded in college so that the distribution would be a normal or a bell curve and even examinations such as GRE scores students on similar lines.P1: What is Central Limit Theorem?Me: Informally defined it and gave an example of how the pdf becomes increasingly normal as we roll more and more number of dice by explaining that on the same sheet.P2: Write down some cases, tell which will follow normal and which won't. He went on to tell 4-5 of them like marks of students and heights of people.Me: Wasn't very sure, tried to explain each and when they would if at all possible follow a normal distribution. I also said one of them would follow Poisson's distribution.P1: What is Poisson's distribution?Me: Explained mostly mathematically, wrote the formula, and said that the mean and variance both are the same. (I might have made a small error in the formula).P1: What are mean and variance and why are only they considered?Me: Explained mean as expectation value and defined variance. Told that they would define most distributions and how a normal would practically end within 6 times of its standard deviation, three on either side. I also told that mean was often not appropriate as batter can score 4 ducks and a century and still average 20, so in many cases, median would be more suitable. I also wrote down their formulas for both continuous and discrete distributions.P1: Do you know what is Kurtosis and Skewness?Me: (Had heard about them in Machine Learning but forgotten) I don't know Kurtosis sir, skewness can be left or right-skewed and drew tilted inverted parabola like distributions.P2: So, you said you like professional wrestling, what interests you about it?Me: I find the art of wrestling beautiful. It's correctly branded by the WWE as sports entertainment, as in it is entertainment in the form of sports. It's not legitimate competition and matches are meant to entertain but require a lot of coordination, training and athleticism so as to execute the moves without getting hurt. It's like dance in some ways as wrestlers are like dance partners trusting each other to put their best performance. As it happens in front of a live crowd (which unfortunately these days it doesn't), it is like a live soap opera stunt-based action show where action is performed without smokes and mirrors or VFX. The audience plays a major role in influencing the journey and status of a wrestler as we relate to these men and women who despite not legitimately fighting are competing to get a top spot on the show.P1: WWE almost has a monopoly over professional wrestling in America and most of the world, why do you think that is?Me: Sir, they have always adapted themselves to the environment. The chairman introduced WrestleMania in the eighties as an event to make wrestling more mainstream with celebrities and then they made women's wrestling important and...(I could have gone on for an hour but, thankfully got interrupted)P1: Yes, that's right. Who is the chairman now?Me: Sir, Vince McMahon.P1: What is the biggest competition to WWE?Me: Sir, A new promotion called AEW or All Elite Wrestling is currently the second-biggest wrestling promotion in the world and is WWE's biggest competition right now.P1: Who's company is it?Me: Sir, it is owned by Shahid Khan, who also owns the Jacksonville Jaguars team in the NFL. However, his son Tony is the president and runs the company.P1: Do you also know about its competition outside of professional wrestling, as in other combat sports?Me: Yes sir, Mixed Martial Arts has become extremely popular over the past decade and a half with promotions such as UFC and Bellator. Unlike the WWE which is 'Sports Entertainment', they are 'Entertainment Sports' like the IPL, as in legitimate competition, but, purely for entertainment.P2: Archit, what are your other hobbies?Me: I am a big fan of Cricket as well.P1: Other than that?Me: I like to track and analyse box office collections of films as well.P1: Where do you get the data from?Me: I visit Home - Box Office India almost every day and have gone through the website's database. Over the past few years, I've also been regularly visiting boxofficemojo and boxofficechina as well.P2: Why don't you see IMDB?Me: Boxofficemojo is owned by IMDB itself sir. For Indian films, it doesn't have details such as daily, territorial figures, footfalls and much more analysis.P1: What factors are responsible for the success of a film?Me: Sir, success is subjective, but in terms of commercial success, it depends on firstly the brand value or appeal of the film. This may be the franchise value, the appeal of the lead actors, the genre, songs to a certain extent for Indian films. This helps the film get an opening. Then, how well the film holds depends on only the word of mouth about it. Other factors such as time of release and political climate may help or harm as well.P1: So, what has changed in terms of the films that are successful now compared to earlier?Me: Now, we hear about a lot of content-driven films, which do well commercially as word of mouth spreads much faster, although they don't often have the biggest numbers which are still achieved by fairly commercial cinema. Also, now as there are several other ways to watch a movie, to attract people to theatres features such as special effects help as well. Also, in India, there has been a rise in the popularity of Non-Hindi films. For the past three years, the highest grosser of the year in the country has been a non-Hindi film which was unprecedented. Last year it was an English film. Even films of other regional languages are becoming more and more popular in the Hindi markets as well.P1: Which film made that happen the most?Me: I would say the Bahubali franchise Sir, the second movie of which is still the highest-grossing movie in India. There was also a Kannada movie which did well in Hindi recently...P1: What was that and why is all this happening?Me: It was KGF sir. This is hopefully because people are rising above biases and appreciating good content irrespective of its origin, which is a good thing to happen as it unites our country.P1: Yes, that will be it then...P2: Yes, I also don't have anything else to ask.P1: Thank you Archit, it was nice having a conversation with you. You may take a toffee.I chose a melody out of the available offers for obvious reasons, thanked them both, and left.Result: Converted