My favorite Pakistani movie is "International Gorillay" (1990)
The plot of this movie has all of the crooks of the world coming together to wipe out Islam. They are lead by Salman Rushdie (yes, the real life writer) who wrote the book Satanic Verses, "which is a blueprint to wipe out the Muslim world." Three brothers form a group of Mujahids (Allah's soldiers) and go on a mission to attack and kill Rushdie.
Rushdie plans to drive the final nails into the coffin of Islam by opening a new chain of Casinos and Discos 😂
The film is absolute maniacal as the three Mujahids go undercover to discover the evasive Rushdie. In a scene all three brothers show up in Batman outfits for God knows why. Also, whenever Rushdie kills a 'good guy', he soaks a handkerchief in their blood and snorts it.
Finally, he captures all the heroes, only to be destroyed by a flying and spinning QURAN that shoots out laser beams while making cartoon noises 😭
My 1.5 year old son was behaving like he is talking to someone in the corner of room.
My wife got scared and showed me and I told her to recite Ayatul Kursi.
As soon as she started, My son waved and said bye towards the corner of room..
😳😳
Big day for me.
Got 3 offers today from Google, Swiggy, and Zomato.
Each came with its own terms, conditions, and financial implications. Spent the evening comparing options, doing the math, and even called a few friends for advice.
Finally made my decision.
Offer details:
-Google: ₹5 GPay cashback
-Zomato: ₹150 off on orders above ₹700
-Swiggy: 20% off up to ₹100
Some decisions in life are tougher than they look. 😌
In 1934–1935, a film titled "Afghan Shahzada" (Afghan Prince) was under development, with Iqbal as the screenwriter and the Sufi pamphleteer Khawaja Hasan Nizami writing the dialogue.
I recently published a book review, and got the opportunity to sneak in an interesting fact about Iqbal's unrealized film career, drawing on the authority of none other than Qurratulain Hyder.
https://t.co/0lTGbwygEK
We, as a society, have taken two-factor authentication too far. Logging into my bank account and into my Chipotle account shouldn't be the same process.
Dear Microsoft, when I hit the Windows Start menu key and start typing a word to autocomplete a search, I never, ever, EVER want it to return results of something not on my computer. Ever. Like, ever, ever, never.
When Meryl Streep was 56, Fox offered her $2 million for The Devil Wears Prada. She said no and asked for $4 million. The studio said yes the same day, no haggling. They had no choice. Without her, there was no movie.
The film cost about $40 million to make. It earned $326 million at the box office. The extra $2 million was nothing compared to what the movie made. Fox knew the film didn't work without her, so paying her was a no-brainer.
Anne Hathaway, who played the main character, got paid $1 million for the same movie. It was the first million-dollar paycheck of her career. Streep made four times that for playing her boss.
By that point, Streep had been acting for decades. She'd never asked for more money before. She thought she was about to retire. Her own words on what Fox first offered her: "Slightly, if not insulting, not perhaps reflective of my actual value to the project."
Prada was the start of her biggest run yet. Mamma Mia in 2008 grossed $610 million. The biggest hit of her life. It's Complicated did $219 million the year after. The Iron Lady won her a third Oscar in 2012, at age 62. Doubt, Julie & Julia, Into the Woods, The Post, Little Women all came after Prada. Add up every Streep film and you get more than $4.5 billion at the box office. Twenty-one Oscar nominations now, more than any actor in Oscar history.
What went viral from the Today interview was something she said in passing: "They needed me, I felt." The studio agreeing right away proved she was right.
The Devil Wears Prada 2 hits theaters tomorrow. It's tracking to open at around $175 million globally. Streep is 76 now. Twenty years later, she still hasn't retired.
The most underreported addiction crisis in India is parents and their phones, and I'm being completely serious.
My dad's screen time is higher than mine. He watches reels at full volume during dinner. Not on Instagram. On Facebook. He hasn't discovered YouTube Shorts yet and honestly I'm terrified for the day he does. He plays card games on his phone with a focus and intensity he has never applied to anything I've told him about my life. He forwards updates to what I can only assume is every person he's ever met. He's in WhatsApp groups I didn't know existed having debates with people from his work about things that happened in 1999.
My mom is in 14 WhatsApp groups. She reconnected with her college friends and school alumni through WhatsApp. Women she hadn't spoken to in 30 years. That part is genuinely beautiful. The less beautiful part is that she plays Candy Crush with so much dedication. She scrolls reels on Facebook and shows me every third one with "ye dekh kitna funny hai" and it's a reel I saw 3 weeks ago. I smile every time. She sends it anyway.
They spent my entire childhood saying "phone band karo." "Computer se door baitho." "Aankhein kharab ho jaayengi." And now I'm the one saying "papa phone rakh do, so jao" and he does the exact same dismissive hand wave I used to do at 15. Same wave. Same energy.
The thing is, they never built immunity to it. Our generation grew up with the internet. We learned to doomscroll and feel guilty about it.
We have the "I should put my phone down" instinct even if we don't follow it. They discovered unlimited entertainment at 55 with zero guilt, zero screen time awareness, and zero concept of doomscrolling. They just went all in. My dad and his card games. My mom and her Candy Crush. Both of them and their Facebook reels that they share on WhatsApp.
The screen time conversation completely flipped in one generation, and the kids became the parents. Nobody is ready for this conversation, but every person reading this just thought of their own mom or dad.
People don’t understand how famous Michael Jackson was. Nobody else came close. He was known in every 3rd world country as well as the west. He couldn’t PA at nightclubs or restaurants like other celebs. No sitting court side at NBA games or ring side at boxing events. Why? Because fans would just cause chaos and shut the place down. People don’t understand that level of fame.
The whole world tuned in to watch the thriller premier, before social media and YouTube etc. He could sing, dance, choreograph, hardly did interviews, aura was another level, world leaders would ask to meet him. Roads shut down when he was staying at hotels etc.
Nobody before or since can compare, stop these lame comparisons. People used to faint when they saw him in person. It was insane and unheard of. There will only be one Michael Jackson and never again will we witness such talent and aura. Never.
The research behind this is wild. A baby owl can sit and starve to death right next to a pile of food. Put a stuffed owl next to it, like in the video, and suddenly it'll eat. An Austrian zoologist, Konrad Lorenz, won the 1973 Nobel Prize for figuring out why.
He showed that young birds aren't born knowing who their mom is. In the first few days of life, their brain takes a kind of mental photograph. Whatever they see moving around gets locked in as "parent." After that, only that figure can switch on their feeding instinct. He called it imprinting.
Owls have it worse than most birds. They're born blind, naked, and totally helpless. A baby barn owl needs feeding every two to three hours for weeks. It can't even keep itself warm until its feathers come in. And right around the time its eyes finally open, between days 15 and 20, its brain locks onto whoever's been taking care of it. Miss that window with the wrong face nearby, and the owl is wired wrong for life.
Even the begging is automatic. In the 1950s, a Dutch scientist named Niko Tinbergen ran experiments with baby seagulls. He found the chicks were pecking at a specific shape. A long thin thing with a colored spot was enough to trigger the full begging routine, even when it was just a painted wooden stick. Take the stick away and the whole sequence shuts down. The chick can be staring straight at food, but if there's no parent-shaped trigger, its body doesn't know how to swallow.
There's a tiny patch in the bird brain that runs this whole show. It's the same part that learns and stores faces. Researchers at Cambridge and labs in Japan have mapped it down to the chemistry. They've even found a hormone that, if you inject it in the right spot, can re-open the imprinting window after it closes.
That dummy owl in the video carries 40 years of conservation work behind it. In 1982 there were only 22 California condors left in the entire world. The San Diego Zoo started feeding hatchlings with hand puppets shaped like adult condors, hiding the human handler behind a curtain. The condor population is now 607. The Bronx Zoo did the same thing last spring with a baby king vulture. The Barn Owl Trust in the UK feeds orphaned owls through owl puppets while wearing camouflage hoods, because an owl raised by humans can never be released back into the wild. It'll fly toward people, beg from them, and starve.
The dummy is the only signal the chick's brain still accepts as "mom." Evolution carved a very specific lock into its brain, and only the right shape fits.
Totally garbage analysis. If Pakistanis hate Urdu so much due to its common basic vocabulary with Hindi, why don't they make Persian their national language?Why stop at filling their anthem with Persian words? Also, 'Allah Hafiz' is not Arabic -- no Arab says this as 'goodbye'.
Pakistan's national anthem, Qaumi Taranah, is not in Persian. In fact, there is not a single Persian word in it. This lady reeks of ignorance, and here is why:
Qaumi Tarana is composed of 49 words, all of which are present in Farhang-e-Asifiya, a classical Urdu dictionary, and are thus fully incorporated into the Hindustani (Zaban-e Urdu-e Mualla) tongue.
But this lady is adamant about finding roots, then why did she stop at Persian? Why do Muslims, in general, stop at Persian/Iran when tracing linguistic roots? This terminological warfare slop should end.
25 words (51%) of the Qaumi Tarana have Arabic roots, why didn't she mention this? Why didn't she credit Arabic?
She also said the anthem has only one Urdu word. Well, no, there is a Prakrit-root term. Why did she call that Urdu but not the others? And there are two such words.
Then the remaining 22 words are Persian, but even multiples of them themselves have roots in the languages of ancient civilizations such as Akkadian, Assyrian, Hittite, etc.. Why didn't she credit those civilisations?
If you are digging for roots, then dig them fully, or do not post such pathetic slops. In extreme academic works, Arabic-root words in Persian have a potential of reaching 85% of total words. Will she call those works Arabic?