23 September 2026

QR code has no royalty, UPI built on it has royalty

 

With the debate on 0.4% MDR reaching feverish pace, I reflected upon the royalty of the underlying architecture of QR code (upon which UPI payments are built). 

The QR code was invented in 1994 by Masahiro Hara at Denso Wave (a Toyota subsidiary). Denso Wave does hold patents on it, but made a deliberate decision early on not to exercise those rights against standard use of the technology — which is why QR codes could be freely embedded into UPI, Chinese mobile payments (Alipay/WeChat Pay), and thousands of other applications worldwide without licensing fees.

Imagine if Mr Hara (or, Denso Wave) would have charged a royalty of just 0.04% for QR code usage, how much would he have pocketed?

It is said that value of the UPI transactions per day is Ninety two thousand crore rupees. Given that here is a back of the envelope calculation:

Period Calculation         Amount

Per day Rs 92,000 cr × 0.0004 Rs 36.8 crore/day

Per year      Rs 36.8 cr × 365     ≈ Rs 13,432 crore/year

So on a single year's UPI flow alone, a 0.04% QR-usage royalty would generate roughly Rs 13,400+ crore (~$1.5 billion) — and that's just one year at one moment in UPI's growth curve. Applied cumulatively since UPI's 2016 launch (transaction value has grown from near-zero to ₹314 lakh crore annually), the number would run into tens of billions of dollars over the decade, since volumes were much lower in early years but compounding steadily.

Mr Hara left all that money on the table for the greater good of the community.

Compare this with what our government is planning to do. It has built the UPI system on top of QR encoding and now plans to encash on a system built on a free system. In my view, this is not ethically tenable. It is another matter that UPI payments were always touted as being made for the public good.

The above has an analogy with Creative Commons  (CC) licence: CC BY-NC-SA version rules say that you can copy and modify, but no commercial use.

I say a similar rule must apply to UPI payments which is built on 'Creative Commons QR Code'.



22 September 2026

What is your price of freedom?




What is your price of freedom?

Is it loneliness, or is it fear?

Or, is it vertigo? 

Or, is it that you have

Nowhere to go?


 


15 September 2026

Has the English letters 'z' and 'x' found new favour for usage? Is the letter 'q' quietly dying?


Has the English letter 'z' found new favour in terms of usage due to use (or overuse) of the words "zoom" and "Gen Z"? Zoom usage includes the name of the app "Zoom" itself, of course. I got the data from Mark Davies, english-corpora.org.

With real NOW corpus numbers, this catches the pandemic spike. Here's the combined z-contribution from "zoom" + "Gen Z", year by year:

"zoom" — left axis "Gen Z" — right axis

Source: NOW Corpus (Mark Davies, english-corpora.org), searched Sept 2026. Two y-axes are used because "zoom" and "Gen Z" occur at very different scales; each line's own axis lets both trends stay readable without switching to a log scale.

Results

PeriodCombined z's added per million wordsAs % of baseline z-frequency
Pre-2020 average (2010–2019)5.6~0.13–0.17%
2020 (peak)42.2~1.0–1.3%
202136.2~0.86–1.10%
2024–2026 average14.7~0.35–0.45%
Whole 2010–2026 period pooled16.7~0.40–0.51%

What this tells us:

1. This is a real, measurable jump — at the 2020 peak, "zoom" alone went from 7.1 per million words (2019) to 41.6 per million (2020), a ~5.9x spike in a single year, and the combined effect of both words was ~7.5x higher than the pre-2020 average.

2. But even at its absolute peak, the effect on letter-z's overall share of the language is still only about 1% — a real bump, not a transformation. z is such a naturally rare letter that even a word going 6x more common barely nudges the aggregate.

3. "Gen Z" is the slower-burning, still-rising story — it wasn't the 2020 spike driver (that was all "zoom"), but it's climbed steadily since, especially 2023–2026, and is still trending up in the most recent data (2.5 per million in 2025) while "zoom" has been declining post-peak.

What would be the letters 'q' and 'x' be in comparison? Maybe 'x' will get skewed because of using 'x' as a multiplicative suffix, such as 5x times, etc?

To actually test this hypothesis, we would want to search NOW for the specific number+x tokens themselves — 2x, 5x, 10x, 100x — not the bare letter "x". This "Nx multiplier" usage is genuinely a 2010s–2020s tech/startup/VC vernacular thing (10x engineer, 10x growth, 100x return), so it plausibly did rise sharply, similar to "zoom."

We do the same NOW corpus process as before — search each of 2x, 5x, 10x by year, and separately search bare x and q for the letter-level baseline comparison.

"x" — left axis "q" — right axis

Source: NOW Corpus (Mark Davies, english-corpora.org), searched Sept 2026. The dashed line marks July 2023, when Twitter rebranded to "X" — the standalone word "x" roughly tripled in the years after, while "q" (no comparable event) trended gently downward across the same period. Two y-axes are used since "x" and "q" occur at different scales.

This turned up something genuinely interesting — and it's not the multiplier suffix, it's Twitter's rebrand to "X" in July 2023.

What the data actually shows:

1. "5x/10x multiplier" hypothesis, checked directly: the tokens 2x, 5x, 10x are all tiny — each sits around 0.3–2.3 per million words the entire period, with only mild growth. Combined, they never add more than ~5 per million words to x's count in any year. This hypothesis basically doesn't pan out — the multiplier-suffix usage is real but numerically negligible next to everything else "x" is doing.

2. The actual disproportionate mover is bare "x" itself — and the timing gives away why. Standalone "x" bounced around 40–60 per million words for thirteen years (2010–2022), then jumped to 92 in 2023, then 162 in 2024 — a 2.8x increase in the 2023–2026 average versus 2010–2022. That inflection point lands exactly on Twitter's rebrand to "X" in July 2023. "X" the platform, "on X", "X post," "X account," etc. is almost certainly the driver — not variable-x, not grading, not the multiplier suffix.

3. q, by contrast, is quietly declining — from 41 per million in 2010 down to ~14 by recent years, a drop to about a third of its earlier rate. No "Gen Q" or "Zoom"-style event has happened to q, so it's drifting down, likely just corpus-composition and register drift over time (more informal/social text pulls down whatever niche uses "q" had, e.g. older texting shorthand).

Putting it against baseline share:

LetterBaseline (letters)Combined bump from tracked terms, peak yearAs % of baseline
z0.07–0.09%+42/million (2020)~1.0–1.3%
x0.15–0.23%+167/million (2024, incl. bare "x" spike)~1.5–2.4%
q0.10–0.12%— (declining, no spike)n/a

So the ranking of "disproportionate bump, relative to baseline" is actually x > z > q — the opposite of what the multiplier hypothesis predicted, but for a much better reason: a brand rename literally repurposed a whole letter as a product name, which is a more powerful mechanism than a slang suffix ever was for "zoom" or "Gen Z."

11 September 2026

Springboard to the Light

 



It is the Brahma Muhuratam,

My open portmanteau has no baggage,

As it rests on a bench

of the special platform,

A platform that merges

with the tracks:

And the tracks lead to the Light,

Lead to my Pitru Purush.

No springboard needed

to jump off to the Light.

A tilted lantern tries to hold

a candle to the Light,

But remains unlit, or is blinded,

And a crow waits for its feed

For Pitru Paksh is near,

As is the autumnal equinox.



09 September 2026

What love would do

 

Do you remember the September

Of a thousand years ago?

When the stars very more

Than the wishes on the earth,

When the moon was very light,

And the breeze was light too,

When love was embroynic,

Before the autumnal equinox,

We were so enchanted

What love would do.

04 September 2026

Do we walk towards life, or afterlife

 


Do we walk towards life?
Or, towards afterlife?
What is on the other side?
Is it life, or afterlife?
Is there someone who is walking
On the opposite lane?
Someone invisible
Walking towards the camera? 



02 September 2026

Max Planck: Consciousness is fundamental

This post is regarding Planck's idea of Consciousness. However, it all started when I tried to understand Planck's constant.

During my research about Max Planck's Nobel Prize I found the following:

In 1900, Planck was trying to solve the "black-body radiation" problem: explain the observed spectrum of radiation from a heated object, which classical physics badly predicted (the "ultraviolet catastrophe" — classical theory predicted infinite energy at short wavelengths, which is absurd and didn't match experiment). Planck found a formula that fit the experimental data very well essentially by mathematical trial — he found a formula, then worked backward to justify it.

To make that formula work, he had to assume that energy is emitted and absorbed only in discrete packets ("quanta"), each of size E = hf (energy equals a constant, times frequency), rather than continuously as classical physics assumed. That constant, h, is what we now call Planck's constant. So it wasn't "proven" in a deductive sense — it was introduced as a mathematical necessity to match observed data, and Planck himself was reportedly uneasy about it, treating it initially as something close to a calculational trick rather than a statement about physical reality. He spent years trying to derive it from classical assumptions and failed.

It was actually Einstein, in 1905, who took Planck's quantum idea more seriously as physically real — proposing that light itself is quantized (photons), which explained the photoelectric effect and effectively validated Planck's constant as a fundamental feature of nature, not just a mathematical fix. Planck initially resisted this extension of his own idea; he took a while to accept that quantization applied to light itself, not just to the emission/absorption process.

Planck introduced/discovered the constant and the quantization hypothesis (this launched quantum theory, and won him the 1918 Nobel Prize), but it was more a bold ad hoc empirical fit than a "proof," and it took Einstein and later Bohr, Heisenberg, and others to establish that the quantization was a real physical fact about the world, not just a useful formula.

The above is pure 'Physics' from Planck. But some of us may not know about Planck's view on Consciousness. He said Consciousness is fundamental, and Matter is a layer on top of it. Imagine a Nobel Prize for Physics winner talking about Consciousness! Not only about Consciousness, he says in the following interview with the newspaper Observer in 1931 that Space and Time are temporary concepts and they will be transcended.

I extracted part of the interview from a scanned copy of Observer from January 1931(see the image of the date below). Words which I couldn't decipher from the scanned copy, I have left as ellipsis, that is, (...). But I think we can easily grasp his whole idea even without the undeciphered words.


Part of the Interview:

Interviewer: Do you think that consciousness can be explained in terms of matter and its Laws?

Max Planck: No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

Interviewer's summary on Planck's idea of Space and Time.

Free Will and Phenomena

In reply to another question concerning the ....difficulties that beset modern physics, particularly in the ....of light, where we apparently have to use two set of ideas that are in contradiction to one another, I ...that Professor Planck considers that these difficulties arise simply because we regard certain concepts as being objective realities. Thus we assume that everything that exists in nature exists in space and time. The material universe, we assume, is something that exists in space and time. When we regard certain modern ...riddles, e.g., the light quantum, from this point of view, they seem to possess contradictory properties. Thus certain experiments show that the light quantum is very large and other experiments show that it is very small.

Planck suggests that the light quantum is something in which the ... of spatial and temporal do not apply. Men ... learn to regard space and time, ... as objective realities in which everything must conform, but experiments which in this ... phenomena ... must be transcended. They are not objective realities, independent of consciousness, and perhaps none such exists.

I found however that he does not share the belief held by some of the younger physicists, that nature does not form a rigidly determined system. He admits that in the present state of research, the so-called Principle of Indeterminacy, which puts something like free-will at the basis of phenomena, is a useful scientific tool, but he regards it merely as a temporary device, and not as a discovery concerning the ultimate character of of the material Universe.

Ineresting? ShareThis

search engine marketing