Tidal Economics
This one is focused on my major (both literal and descriptive) love of economics and its changing field.
There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.
-William Shakespeare
Cover of Business Week from 7 years ago. Less than a decade.
Economics and Alcohol
An extremely helpful list of all the things that can make you lose an argument. But now you can win by pulling the fallacy card!
Mr. Cauz said that he believed Britannica’s competitive advantage with Wikipedia came from its prestigious sources, its carefully edited entries and the trust that was tied to the brand.
“We have very different value propositions,” Mr. Cauz said. “Britannica is going to be smaller. We cannot deal with every single cartoon character, we cannot deal with every love life of every celebrity. But we need to have an alternative where facts really matter. Britannica won’t be able to be as large, but it will always be factually correct.”
But one widely publicized study, published in 2005 by Nature, called into question Britannica’s presumed accuracy advantage over Wikipedia. The study said that out of 42 competing entries, Wikipedia made an average of four errors in each article, and Britannica three. Britannica responded with a lengthy rebuttal saying the study was error-laden and “completely without merit.”
Here you go my children, learn the actual facts before you go around blindly listening to whatever someone says, and acting on it. alright well this is perfection
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about yesterday. This is truly amazing.
just to broaden the scope..
Wow… I kind of suspected that that video was somewhat one-sided, but I should’ve looked into it more… this is good to know.
Explains a lot of the bullshit in the video in a very clear and honest way.
This is, and always has been, my issue with the internet. It’s so impossibly difficult to know every side of every story, but when something goes “viral”… it’s hard to get others to understand that behind every video, picture, or article are a thousand other things that could change the way they feel about it or how the story is portrayed. The internet makes it more difficult than usual, I feel, because of how information is lightning fast. It’s hard to find dissenting opinions in time, before the video is old news.
I don’t know what to think about Kony, or anything in Uganda, but I do hope that people do their research before they flippantly assume anything. I’m ever so grateful that our generation is moving towards greater involvement in issues, I have no problem with that. But behind everything is a bias, a framing issue, and I wonder why more people don’t question what they see. Even the video made by this girl is inherently biased.
Who do you trust?
(via theonlycanvas)
![fishingboatproceeds:
theatlantic:
Senate Gridlock Explained in One Chart
[Image: National Journal]
It used to be that the U.S. Congress experienced a lot of gridlock because congressional districts are jerrymandered to be overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic to protect incumbents. But the gridlock we now see in the senate is much more problematic, because it takes 60 senators to agree to anything, and if 100% of issues fall directly along party lines for 100% of senators, it becomes very difficult to make sensible compromises.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0kmcbS2u11qcokc4o1_500.png)
Senate Gridlock Explained in One Chart
[Image: National Journal]
It used to be that the U.S. Congress experienced a lot of gridlock because congressional districts are jerrymandered to be overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic to protect incumbents. But the gridlock we now see in the senate is much more problematic, because it takes 60 senators to agree to anything, and if 100% of issues fall directly along party lines for 100% of senators, it becomes very difficult to make sensible compromises.
So, I noticed a funny thing while on the Tour de Nerdfighting. Not only was the biggest cheer of the night for the part where I stuck “Benedict Cumberbatch” into Book 8, but pretty much everyone had seen season two of Sherlock.
Don’t get me wrong, I had also seen season two (or should I…
The tragic news of Houston’s death spread fast on Twitter. In fact, about 2.5 million tweets and retweets occurred in the first hour, amounting to more than 1,000 tweets a second, according to Topsy Labs. Although this sent Twitter into a flurry of reactions, it still wasn’t enough to beat last Sunday’s Super Bowl record-breaking tweets.
The Associated Press’s message was retweeted more than 10,000 times, according to data from Topsy Labs. However, the first tweet from @BarBeeBritt was only retweeted three times, according to Media Bistro, and the message from @ChileMasGrande was only retweeted once.
This isn’t the first time news a large-scale death announcement was first reported on Twitter. A computer programmer in Pakistan inadvertently live-tweeted the military raid on the Osama bin Laden compound. “Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1 a.m. (is a rare event),” Athar wrote. His message later received global media attention following the news of bin Laden’s death.
However, death announcements on Twitter are not always accurate, as evidenced most recently by Bon Jovi death rumors and the too-early death claims of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.
I find it interesting that traditional news companies are dying while at the same time individuals on social networking sites are the new news, spreading information and linking to outside sites, talking with others, and joking around. I found out Osama Bin Laden died within 3 minutes of the news breaking and I went immediately to twitter. The landscape of everything of changing and it’s so amazing to watch it happen
