I dont quite know how to separate my public, business and private life. I treat all of the people I know as friends. I got that from my mom. She is the most privately public person I know.

On Tuesday, she had a pounding headache at 812 pm and was taken to the ER at a hospital near home. My mom does have a history (recent) of both high blood pressure and diabetes. This, though seemed serious.

Since I got many calls (apologies, I ignored them all) and text messages asking for more information, I thought I’d outline what happened, whats the status and what’s possibly next.

My mom had and aneurysm on one of the vessels carrying blood to the brain. Medical experts mention that many people do have the same, and it does not cause immense damage to most people. The aneurysm was 2.7 mm in size and it spewed blood all over the brain. Since it was the main vessel that was carrying blood to the brain, the spread of the blood was extensive. Combined with the fact that she had very high blood pressure at that time (nearly two times the normal) and that she was taking blood thinners, the spread of the blood was fast and vast.

She went into a coma almost immediately and did not respond. A CT scan done at a little before midnight revealed the extent of the damage and the doctor’s at that time gave her a 10% chance of surviving. What they did say was that the next 48 hours were crucial.

She was transferred to an neuro-ICU later in that night. The blood pressure was an exceedingly high 180/120 and things were not looking very good.

Early Thursday, things did not get much better. The doctors mentioned that surgery to block the aneurysm was out of the question since she was not responding to sensory moves. In the scale of responses she was an M1 or M2 (very low on the scale of response to external stimuli except involuntary). In clinical terms she was a 5 (most critical). She remained in coma, responding to nothing at all.

After a routine check in the afternoon it became clear that unless her condition improved – which would be calibrated by normal vitals (blood pressure in safe range, pulse normal and breathing normal) the neurosurgeon would not risk any attempt to either a) do surgery to block the aneurysm or b) do any surgery to remove the blood from the brain. The former was extremely risky and had very little chance of doing any good, and the latter was going to cause more pressure in the brain since the blood in the brain was extensive.

The doctor equated the brain to a pressure cooker, which if was let to relieve pressure from one side, would have the opposite side compensate by putting more pressure to create a “balance”.

That was possibly the lowest point – 2 pm on Thursday. The vitals were not stable, the prognosis was bleak and the outlook desolate. She remained in a state of coma.

A slight positive turn of events occurred when my ever optimistic sister spoke to her at the ICU and saw a few responses – attempt to pick her hand up, move her body. These were largely calibrated as “involuntary by the doctor”. The vitals stabilized during this point as well.

If you know my mother, you would know that the number of lives she positively touched with her generosity and selflessness was amazing. Prayers from all over were pouring in. Turns out, it worked ever so slightly. She was still coma, the situation was still extremely critical, but she stabilized.

Late Thursday night, things got even more “normal” – enough to have the critical nature of the situation to remain at 5, but the sensory perception moved up ever so slightly to nearly M3.

Early Friday things improve a little more (she was and is still in coma) but she was responding to our voice and attempting to hear / understand and respond.

The doctors now deemed the situation sufficient enough to warrant a surgery to prevent the aneurysm from rupturing again. This does not necessarily improve the condition but prevents another rupture from happening.

There were 3 possible options – Surgical clipping, Coiling or using a stent. These options are largely determined by a combination of the patient’s state, the size and location of the aneurysm and cost of the operation.

Surgical clipping, puts a metal (high end metal) to clip the aneurysm at the base preventing further rupture. This is an option only if the patient was normal – which my mom was not and hence, ruled out.

Using a coil was deemed the best option to prevent any further bleeding, which if it occurred would cause a further and irreparable damage to the brain.

The surgery, however, would not necessarily make the chances of her recovery better. It was to prevent a further deterioration of the aneurysm which could rupture again. Since my mom was deemed relatively young at <70 years of age, there was a good chance of her responding well to the coil. Given that all other functions were “normal” we remain positive, but we realize the chances are rather slim.

The key part of this equation still remains her own ability to fight through this trauma and get herself back on a track for the rest of the medicine to work. She draws positive energy I am sure from all the prayers and positive thoughts from you all.

Update on Friday at 5 pm – the surgery (2 coils were inserted) was completed successfully and she remains stable.

I have been mostly an under performer. There’s a big difference between an under performer and an under achiever – the later does not give 100%, but the former gives “his best” and is still middling.

I have had several teachers and relatives (especially those overachieving uncles) who would always tell me “You can do more”. They did not tell me I could do better. They would say I could do more. It was as if they almost knew I was peaking and still in the middle of the pack.

Whether it was grades, swimming or violin, I was always the “middle of the pack or lower”. I remember many parent-teacher (PTA) meetings, where my mom would be asked “What does Mukund’s dad do?” and after my mom mentioned, that he was a superstar, the teacher would be largely incredulous, shake her head and say “Then why is he just not doing well in <fill in the blanks>”? Back in the ’80s it was okay to be politically incorrect I guess.

It did not help that I came from a family that had very high achievers. I wont call myself the black sheep, its just that I was a pig in a family of sheep.

Graduating from high school, I was at the “top” of the middle of the pack. Not for the lack of trying.

I realized I was not as smart as most other people in my class. Neither was I really willing to work way too hard to make up for the lack of smarts. Well, actually I thought I was working harder than most, but I was not able to get much better. I was just wanted to flow with the tide and go along for the ride.

Things at college did not change much. Sam Lomonaco, who taught us algorithms, once asked me if I really was from India, since most of the folks he knew from there were “super smart” and he wanted to know why I was not so.

My confidence, was not at a super high when I started working at Cisco. My hiring manager, Mark really liked me because I knew the one thing that most of the other folks in his team did not. They were largely “business analysts” and I was the only “developer”.

That’s when I started to hit my stride.

They usually say “In a pack of ducks a swan looks ugly“.

In business though it always helps to be the “one with a different perspective”. I was the only one in Mark’s team asking technical implementation questions when they wanted to build anything.

My questions were deemed “smart” or really “different” since none of the others had thought of those. I, on the other hand could not think of any other questions but those.

The first rule of punching above your weight class is to surround yourself with people who you complement.

Later you can surround yourself with people who complement you. Early on though, you have to complement them. That way you achieve two things – you avoid “group think” and you really give them a perspective that’s different.

In late 2001, I had a meeting where David Reichman, (who managed me for a few years) during which it was clear to him that I was “making sh*t up” to answer his questions. After 30 minutes of grilling he said “If you don’t know, then say you don’t know or just ask more questions, don’t give dumb answers”.

Boom! That was it. All I did after that was start asking questions, since I was neither smart enough to have answers or disciplined enough to work hard to get those answers. Better to have smart people give me the answers.

I learnt the second rule of punching above my weight class – Put yourself in a position where your biggest weakness becomes your largest strength.

A few years later, I started to be a little more disciplined. I actually learned to “think” much later in life. I guess I was a “late bloomer” in the field of “thinking”. My initial years were relegated to doing with the sense of “I have to do this because <fill in the blanks> – pass exams, get admission, whatever.

In 2006, I had a chance to make new friends at an event called Community 2.0. Francois was the chairperson of the event. I had dinner with him and others including Chris Carfi, Aaron Strout, Nate Ritter, Chris Heuer and Lee Lefever. I am not sure who said it but when asked them what the best part of their life was, even though they were not the super success they’d like to be, they said “That’s because I do things for myself”.

I then understood the rule three of punching above your weight class – do things for yourself instead of living to other’s expectations. 

Steve Jobs has also said this in his famous commencement speech at Stanford.

I now blog so I can go back and read my posts, I play tennis so I can enjoy the outdoors, I meet entrepreneurs so I can learn. That’s possibly selfish, but I figured out that if I am happy that’s all that matters to my mind.

Those who know me well are surprised that it took me so long to “figure this out”. I guess they thought that coming from a smart family with a super achieving dad, social butterfly for a mom, an insanely talented sister and an naturally smart wife, I have it all and I had been blessed, so I should have figured these things out much earlier.

I seek consolation from the fact that every person takes their own time. Every person is really different and hits their stride at their own pace. They measure up to others expectations and perceptions much later in their life, if at all.

Now when I meet entrepreneurs who are from an excellent pedigree and background, I am more cognizant of the pressures and internal daemons they face. When I meet entrepreneurs who have on the flip side, not had the breaks and chance, I try to give them time.

Mostly though, I apply this learning to the expectations I have of my kids. They will find their groove at some point. During the journey though, I realize the sense of disappointment I have with them not punching even at their weight class. Those expectations are the ones that I have to work on the most.

They too, will find their formula at a time that’s right for them. Until then they are doing just fine – for themselves. Which is what matters the most.

Every one of my journalist friends asks me for “exclusive” stories, which I can understand. What I am very upset about is that their next request is for “exclusive funding stories”.

I had a reporter come by to talk today to me about our companies. He mentioned that his opinion was companies that were funded performed better than those that were not.

His primary reasoning was that those companies were  “filtered” by investors and the “due diligence” was done, so they were “better” companies.

There are many times I would disagree but keep quite and move on. This time I did not.

<Rant>

This was one of those times when I felt the person was just plain misinformed, misguided and did not really look at any of the facts, but preferred to have anecdotal information color his opinion.

The mountains of evidence that proves his opinion incorrect was insufficient for this reporter  to change his fundamental position.

1) Funded companies have higher % of failures than unfunded companies.

2) Funding does not guarantee success but success guarantees funding.

3) The value that an investor provides towards “due diligence” is limited. If you take a look at venture returns over 90% of funds do not have any success in picking “winners”.

I am the first to admit that its extremely hard to get any kind of funding. Its harder in India, but does that mean companies funded in India are somehow “better” than those that are not funded? At best my argument is they have just about as much chance of success as any of the others.

What does a funding event really tell you about a company?

Its tells me that the company needs money and was able to get it.

Does it tell me that the company will succeed? No? Exhibit A is the eCommerce companies that many investors funded in 2010-11 in India.

Does it tell me that the company is targeting a large market? Possibly, but that’s true of the many other companies that did not get funded, but are chasing the same market.

Does it tell me that this company has potential – it has as much or as little as the others that are not funded.

In fact over 73% of publicly listed companies were not venture backed.

I would consider any reporter downright lazy if they left the “due diligence” only to investors alone, because investors overall (including me as an individual) are more wrong than right.

Why do I make a big issue of this with reporters as opposed to any other person?

1. They are supposed to be objective and fact based as opposed to have their opinions color their judgment.

2. They are supposed to question their assumptions and seek the truth not report fallacies.

3.  They wield an inordinate amount of power given the number of people that read their pieces.

I’d love a counter argument and understand why reporter love “funding stories”.

P.S. I also dont understand why people wont debate their positions. It tells me that they are not confident about any of their hypothesis or positions and would rather be ignorant and prefer to have misinformed opinions.

</Rant>

There are many things that I am unable to prioritize high or make time for anymore. One of those things is taking time to make serendipity happen. Just random, chance meetings. Those happen, only face-to-face.

I tried dialing back in 2012, only to fail miserably.

The problem is like most other folks, I am unable to say no.

That leaves me with very little time for things that are absolutely important and I end up shortchanging those the most.

The last year in particular I have worked – attended meetings, spoken at events and hosted events on 23 of my 52 Saturdays. 

I dont like that at all since it takes time away from me spending time with my kids and family.

I have a new project with my daughter for the last 2 weeks that we are working on which should take us 30+ weekends. My son’s cricket sessions need me to be there at least 1 day a week to catch up with the coach. Finally my youngest daughters need more time to just hang out with me. I have also committed to mentor 3 folks who I work with closely.

So I unfortunately have no time for new projects or mentoring new entrepreneurs at all. I apologize.

I love helping new entrepreneurs a lot. I enjoy my interactions. I cant make time.

So I am going to try and not be at any new startup events unless we have them at our office for this quarter. Let me see how that goes. I have one commitment to meet folks in Delhi on Feb 22nd.

I have a question:

Is it okay for me to ask folks to reduce the time they can meet me and talk about their product / company to just the time of the event? I wont be able to give a lot of time, even at the event, but that’s a choice I am making.

Is that being too selfish?

Phones, Televisions, Tablets and Watches were on display at the CES in Las Vegas, but one device which I have been tracking for a few months is TrackDot.

It is a little big, but totally awesome device that helps you track your checked-in baggage.

I rarely check in bags when I am travelling on business, but with 4 kids its hard for us to not check-in bags on vacations.

So far we have not yet lost our bags, but a couple of times my bags have arrived ” a day late” which is a major inconvenience during vacations.

TrackDot will track your baggage an let your smartphone know where your baggage is.

You put it in your bag and it sends a signal to your app on the phone so you can know exactly where it is.

It is in its version 1, so there are many limitations:

1. Its big. If fitbit can be made as small as it is, I guess TrackDot can be too. I am waiting for the next version to be smaller than my fitbit so I can conceal it in my bags.

2. It can only detect your luggage when its closer than 30 meters of your smartphone – that’s lame.

3. At $50 onetime fee, $9 one time setup and $12 annual fee, its a tad on the expensive side, for the value it provides.

4. It needs 2 AA batteries to operate. Also lame.

Ideally I’d like it to be small enough so it can be stitched into the bag / luggage. If it were offered at $25 one time purchase for the device and $10 per year for tracking upto 1 Km, that would be all we need.

Another feature I’d really like is to understand where it was last located. That will really help understand where it was possibly lost. And if it does have tracking send ability why not have it send  its location to a server where it could be located on my app on the phone.

Bag in Fargo, you in New York, but you’d still know it was in Fargo last!