What is the difference between old and present cricket?

 A lot has changed with the advancement of game over the years. Here are a few of those :

1. Bat Size :

This picture sums it up. Bary Richards is comparing his bat he used in 1970 with the one David Warner uses . This has made batting a lot easier than it used to be. Batsmen get away lot of time even after playing mistimed shots. To the top of it , numerous times top edges go for a six.

2. Introduction of DRS :

Who can forget this. A lot of such matches used to happen before where umpiring blunders changed the outcome of the game. Through DRS , the number of wrong decisions have certainly gone down if not been vanished completely.

For that to happen players like MSD should be more in number.

3. Quality of bowling:

Earlier these were the best bowlers in the world who were not dependent on conditions to take wickets. The conditions did affect their game but there was not a huge gap between their home and away performance.

Now these are the best bowlers. There is a massive gap between between their home and away performance. They are a class act as their numbers show but the World will give more respect to those who are not condition dependent. Though we still have people like Dale Steyn which is good to see.

4. Role of fitness :

Earlier there were a lot of players like Inzamam Ul-haq who never thought a lot about fitness and as it turned out it never affected their performance also.

But now there are a lot of players like these. With the introduction of three formats, growing importance of fielding, more cricket being played all over the world fitness is now important part of cricketer's life.

Smaller grounds , introduction of day-night tests, power-plays ,there are a lot of things that were not present 20–25 years back. Change is the law of nature and there is nothing wrong in that. But I personally think any of the change should not affect the contest between bat and ball because that is the heart of cricket.

What's the difference between arrogance and confidence?

 (An analogy )

• Confidence: Naresh Goyal - aviation tycoon was born in Punjab . As his father died young; he had to suffer hard ships during his childhood and adolescence.
• Hard working: After completing his schooling ; he started working as a cashier in a small travel agency run by his maternal uncle in Delhi.

• He later completed his graduation in commerce and joined an international airlines as a General sales agent. He worked in many airlines in different roles.
• Networking: Well, he soon learnt ropes of trade and also made contacts across who's who of aviation sector.

• Jet Airways: It did not take him long to realize that India needed a low cost air lines carrier that provides better services at right time .With the help of his contacts ; he raised enough funds to launch Jet Airways in 1991.

• Respected: With his friendliness and generosity; Naresh Goyal earned respect of his employees and many others.
• Leadership: His life saga was seen as a hall mark of Indian entrepreneurship and he also earned a number of business awards .

• Arrogance: Nevertheless; many believe that over in his abilities made him take bad decisions. Although aviation sector was going through bad phase; but, he was often seen as a symbol of extravaganza
  [1]

• Megalomania: Naturally, excessive expenditure led to heavy losses.Although, industry experts expected him to either resign or allow it run by others; he did not relent a bit.
  [2]

• Backlash: Undoubtedly, his employees and lenders were not pleased and it led to massive protests .

• Resignation: Finally, he and his wife had to resign as Chairman and member of company board under unsavory circumstances. It was really a sad end of a leadership saga.
  [3]
• Conclusion: Confident builds castle in air; arrogant bites the dust
• Pic credit: Google
• Note: Kindly appreciate it without taking offence !

Footnotes

[1] 

Ousted by lenders, Naresh Goyal tries to re-enter Jet Airways' cockpit

[2] 

Naresh Goyal flew too close to the sun

[3] 

Jet Airways chairman Naresh Goyal, wife resign amid debt crisis

What is the difference between dark energy and dark matter?

 First you need to forget about the dark stuff and think of charge and frequency.

Our Sun is a very large ball of plasma made by hydrogen and helium, it fills the solar system with charged hydrogen and helium particals. No dark matter or energy even thow dark matter is effected by gravity.

Much the same for our galaxy,it is also packed with charged hydrogen and helium, but o ce past the galaxys protective outer shell.

This shell can be seen as our galaxy approaches the Andromeda Galaxy as both shells meet and form this blue glow.

When a charged partical leaves its galaxy, it is stripped of its charge and made neutral, no longer effected by gravity.

FACT-1: Dark matter and charged Hydrogen helium make 84% of everything each, and both under the influence of gravity.

FACT-2: Dark energy and neuteal hydrogen and helium makes up 4% of everything,and do t interact with gravity.

The galaxy will pull it self together as the space outside expand?

So let's remove the dark stuff and add or take away charge. Get it..

There is no dark matter, and if there were, you would be made mostley of it, not hydrogen, helium and Electrolights.

What are the differences between The Thing (2011) and the original movie?

 In many ways The Thing (2011) does what a good follow-up film should do. It expands on the world. It doesn't overdo it on the amount of references to events that happened in the previous film. It upped up the action, the rush, the adrenaline. Did it better, actually.

It's just…meaningless as a whole. All the good stuff's already been done.

The Thing (2011) is a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror.

In the 1982 one, a group of scientists run into...something from out this world.

The Thing came from another research camp, which was in ruins. All its inhabitants done for.

2011 goes back to see the events that transpired in that ruined camp.

Basing on 2011,

Dislikes:

The dialogue was too on the nose at times, especially compared to 1982's dialogue, which felt more natural.

I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a good actress otherwise but I did not like how her character, and the guy-in-charge's character, spoke at times. Very...um.."lecture-y"instead of a casual tone suited for conversations, which was what they were having.

1982 had a certain charm in the way they made supposedly one of the least smartest guys - the pilot in a team of mostly scientists - figure out a brilliant way to test if someone had The Thing. 2011 had...the smart science person do it. Who could have seen that coming?

The effects did nothing for me. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of CGI, but I did not care for the special effects here, especially since 1982 excelled in using practical effects.

The characters. Most of them felt like "copies," parallels of characters in the 1982 one. They look similar. Some acted similar. Whatever for? There was no need for this. They could have created entirely new characters.

Like:

I like how they zeroed in on how The-Thing-Can't-Replicate-Inorganic-Matter angle to save themselves.

The Thing, 2011. Whole movie felt unnecessary. It added very little to an already fully-told story. It used too much CGI, which was a low bar to clear because any CGI is too much when compared to how 1982 did it.

If there's one Thing you can gain from reading through this slop, use it as a reminder to consider rewatching 1982 this weekend.

Can you explain the difference between Krishna of Goloka and Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu in simpler terms?

 Disclaimer: this is an answer from the Vaishnava perspective.

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!

There is a subtle difference.

Lord Krishna in the eternal Goloka is Bhagavan Svayam and Avatari (the source of all avataras).

Whereas Lord Krishna, who was on Earth, is a purna avatara of Lord Vishnu, a guna avatara of the Avatari Lord Krishna.

However, both are the same Supreme Person.

Explanation:

In Vaishnavism, Bhagavan Svayam resides in the eternal abode – the Param Padam.

tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padaṃ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ
divīva cakṣur ātatam

Translation:

“The wise ever contemplate that supreme station of Viṣṇu (the all-pervading one), as the eye ranges over the sky.” - Rig Veda 1.22.20

According to Panchratra philosophy, Bhagavan Svayam is ParaVasudeva (as recognised by Krishnavites) or Sriman Narayana (as recognised by Madhva and Sri Vaishnavas).

ParaVasudeva is recognised as Avatari because He is the source of all avataras, which includes the:

• Catur Vyuhas (Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha)
• Purusha avataras (Karanodakasayi/Maha Vishnu, Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, Kshirodakasayi Vishnu)
• Guna avataras (Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesha)
• Leela avataras (e.g. Rama, Krishna, Narasimha)
• Shaktyavesha avataras (e.g. Narada muni and Sanat-kumaras)
• Manvantara avataras (e.g. Hari and Yajna)
• Yuga avataras (i.e., incarnations of Satya, Treta, Dvarpara, and Kali yuga)

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ
mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

Translation:

“All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.” - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28

ParaVasudeva is eternally residing in the Param Padam, He does not directly involve Himself with any work in the material realm whatsoever.

This is done by His expansions as the Purusha avatars, who are involved in the manifestation, maintenance, and dissolution of multiple universes simultaneously.

ādyo ’vatāraḥ puruṣaḥ parasya
kālaḥ svabhāvaḥ sad-asan-manaś ca
dravyaṁ vikāro guṇa indriyāṇi
virāṭ svarāṭ sthāsnu cariṣṇu bhūmnaḥ

Translation:

“Kāraṇārṇavaśāyī Viṣṇu is the first incarnation of the Supreme Lord, and He is the master of eternal time, space, cause and effects, mind, the elements, the material ego, the modes of nature, the senses, the universal form of the Lord, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and the sum total of all living beings, both moving and nonmoving.” - Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.42

Relative to each universe, this act is carried out by the three guna avataras.

• Brahma (akara) - creates the universe as instructed to Him by the knowledge revealed to him by the Lord.
• Vishnu (ukara) - maintains the universe by residing in each atom of existence but also through incarnating in various leela-avataras.
• Mahesha (makara) - destroys the universe by His cosmic dance as Nataraja

“In order to handle creation, sustenance, and destruction the one and only Janaardhana takes the names of Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswara.” - Vishnu Purana 1.2.6.11

Of these three, Lord Vishnu is seen as a purna avatara (complete incarnation of Bhagavan Svayam), whereas Lords Brahma and Shiva are seen more as shaktyavesha avataras (empowered incarnations) in this sense (though Lord Shiva holds special positions in some Vaishnava traditions – e.g., Gaudiyas and Ramanandis).

Hence, Lord Vishnu is completely nondifferent from Him and recognised as the same Supreme Person.

sṛjāmi tan-niyukto 'haṁ
haro harati tad-vaśaḥ
viśvaṁ puruṣa-rūpeṇa
paripāti tri-śakti-dhṛk

Translation:

“By His will, I [Lord Brahma] create, Lord Śiva destroys, and He Himself, in His eternal form as the Personality of Godhead, maintains everything. He is the powerful controller of these three energies.” - Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.32

Lord Vishnu has many leela avataras, and of those, three are recognised as purna – Narasimha, Rama, and Krishna.

“Matsya, Kūrma, Varāha, Narasiṃha, Vāmana, Rāma, Paraśurāma, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalki are the ten Vibhavas (incarnations) of Brahman, the highest soul. The group of six qualities is said to exist in Nṛsiṃha, Rāma and Kṛṣṇa.” - Padma Purana, Uttara-Khanda 229.41–42

Lord Krishna here is the cowherd boy who descended to Earth and performed leelas to maintain dharma as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

This is the difference.

Lord Krishna of the Param Padam is eternal, existing in His original form, and does not leave this abode in any way.

He can simultaneously appear within the material universes without abandoning His transcendental abode.

Lord Krishna, who descended on Earth, remained on Earth temporarily in a form in this material realm and is also present in other different universes.

There are other Lord Krishnas as purna avataras of the various Lord Vishnus of the other universes.

But they are the same Purushottoma playing the leelas for our own benefit in different forms.

Hare Krishna

What are the differences between village life and city life?

 Okay, so one thing I absolutely love about village weddings is the way they handle THE SWEETS. The halwai (sweet maker) comes to the house and makes them right there. It feels like: Yes! Yaay! Something special is happening, festive vibes, celebration feels. The vibe kicks in the moment they arrive with their enormous vessels, long ladles and mountains of ingredients. They spend 2 to 3 days creating all the sweets from scratch, right there at the house of the celebration. It's truly a pretty sight.

Contrast to the city weddings, where the sweets and all the work are done by rushing to a sweet shop, buying kilos of pre-made sweets, getting them packed in those pretty boxes and then the packed items arrive at your home. That's it. Sure, there's a momentary thrill in seeing the beautifully decorated sweet boxes, but the thrill ends there. No thrill beyond it. In villages, there's a lot more—anticipation, aroma filling the air, kids (like me!) constantly running there to sneak tastes of warm, freshly made sweets! In the village, the sweet-making process is a celebration in itself. It's so much fun! I love that rustic, country vibe. It just feels so much more….celebratory.

These are KalaJamuns in the making. I know they look suspiciously like GulabJamuns. But they're not!

That's Kalakand. Village people love this one. There's literally a fight over them!

That's a village variation of Rajasthani Ladoos. They're made with bigger-sized boondis and are ghee-laden, a melt-in-your-mouth, yummy kind. One is enough to raise the insulin levels for a week.

Freshly cut Kaju Katlis are a different taste altogether. It's truly heaven for sweet lovers.

That's Khaja. A traditional Indian layered pastry!

Also, since I don't like sweet items much, I love how here they provide me with the flexibility of just licking and running away, unlike in the cities where I'm stuck with the entire big piece of sweet and I don't know what to even do about it!

Images Source: My gallery