Lots of assorted links today

Comments

First comment! I used to spend time reading the links, summarizing, then posting, but what's the point? I will simply be first. I will say I did forward #5 to Dr. Cowen so I did do some work towards this blog. The Wink books photos of books looks good. http://winkbooks.tumblr.com/tagged/Graphic-Novels (Archie's comic creator) is good, reminds me a little bit of another adult comic genius, Milo Manara.

#5 requires a reinterpretation of common wisdom. At age 27 this wasn't too long ago for me, or my social group. Common wisdom is that before-25 is too soon to get married: cohabitation is indeed seen as a lower commitment, a sort of trial before "true" readiness. Apparently this might not the case. Does this have WIDER applicability? For instance, ANY relationship formed WITHOUT the intention of a stepping stone to marriage is DOOMED to failure? This might up-end the entire concept of relationships pre-25....for others.

Well, every relationship you get into ends with either marriage (and then divorce or death) or breaking up, no matter how old you are.

True. In this case, couples cohabitaing BEFORE age 25 are at higher risk of divorce, regardless of marriage age. Under-25s often cohabit, considering it a lower risk lease-to-own option that can be "upgraded" to marriage post-25 costlessly. This is apparently NOT the case. Can this be extended? Ex: If two 18 year olds choose to enter into a monogamous relationship, delaying both cohabitation and marriage post 25, are they ALSO statistically more likely to divorce?

3. Back in the dark ages when my mother was training to be a doctor, she was taught that a good way to tell if blurred vision was from poor eyesight or brain damage was to have the patient look through a pinhole.

I have always thought optics are by far the most amazing branch of traditional physics, I learned that first and it really made a huge difference in my science education, even though my work has almost nothing to do with optics at all.

#7
That line "just" opened more than a year ago...

Rail in the US is so slow it took a year from the news to travel from NY to Virginia.

And that is by freight rail that is not slowed down by passenger rail because there is so little passenger rail provided in the US. That freight trains can travel slower and slower as the rails are neglected as jobs are killed to create wealth.

Not to mention the virtuous no government borrowing to fix the roads and eliminate the ground crossing that limit train service hours so cars and trucks are not delayed by trains.

anther leftist rant against silicon valley http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-youth-problem.html?_r=0

agree http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2014/03/10/morgan-stanley-gorman-very-bullish-on-us-economy/

no surprise http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2014/03/president-obama-s-approval-rating-hits-new-low-another-poll

doesn't concern me http://www.mndaily.com/opinion/columns/2014/03/11/how-concerning-wealth-inequality

get your own blog

In the category of the obvious, the answer is yes to number two.

It turns out people don't magically find jobs after UI runs out. http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp2014-06.pdf

7. It might even make economic sense given China's givens, but probably not. In related news China's solar experiment became a finance experiment: their first corporate bankruptcy.

http://www.wallstreetsectorselector.com/2014/03/chaori-solar-energy-defaults-bond-payments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wallstreetsectorselector%2FUNCz+(Wall+Street+Sector+Selector)

Given the stature of Donald Trump in the conservative Republican sphere:

"Here at FORBES, we’ve been tracking Donald Trump‘s wealth since the inaugural Forbes 400 rich list in 1982. Today, we value him at $2.7 billion, although he claims he’s worth far more. One question we’re often asked when talk turns to Trump’s fortune: how can a man who has been bankrupt so many times remain a multi-billionaire? How is he worth more now, post-bankruptcies?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

Isn't bankruptcy a good conservative value? A path to wealth?

Your cult's one big idea lead to 100 million deaths.

Isn't murder a good liberal value? A path to power?

Given the choices between you murderous lunatics and a scammer with a bad whig, I'll go with the latter.

[item #6]
Ed Snowden revelations on the outrageous existence and activities of the secret FISA Court (FISC) are a heroic service to Americans. Even Diane Feinstein is starting to get a slight clue to the big picture.

FISC routinely enabled non-Constitutional spy programs on everyone. And went so far as to secretly make basic reinterpretations of the Constitution itself, and expansive definitions of its own FISC powers.

SCOTUS completely ignores this alarming situation, and just this month... flatly refused to hear the first mild court challenge to FISC/FISA. Full membership of the American Bar Association should be marching on Capitol Hill en masse to protest this legal corruption, bit the ABA also blindly notices nothing amiss.

Secret courts of any type can not exist under the US Constitution or in a free & just society. That they do indeed exist today's United States enables one to make painfully accurate conclusions about the fundamental nature of our current government and its legal system.

cohabitation before marriage does not predict divorce.

lack of options = stability. any romantic endeavor taken up later in life will be less likely to rupture, because there will be fewer temptations to infidelity or trading up.

Even if you had the same options (i.e. a constant hazard rate), marriage later in life would result in fewer divorces simply because the time span is shorter...

#2 - Majored in does not equal graduated in. All those dudes getting a C or below in Econ 101, might be majoring in econ, but I doubt a high % are actually getting econ degrees.

Anecdotally, seems to me that men getting bad grades were more likely to blame the teacher/TA/whatever, while women were more likely to take it as a personal failure.

Urso, that was very close to the sentiment that tweeted when I first saw the article: "In PhD econ: male student gets crappy grade: he thinks professor's an idiot. if female student gets crappy grade, she thinks she's an idiot." Of course, that's a gross simplification but I think there is something to it.

Neither response is productive, but sometimes I worry the (often) male 'over-confident' response is tolerated more and sometimes even rewarded. (Fake it till you make it.) This study about hiring seems to support that concern: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/study-women-who-can-do-math-still-dont-get-hired/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 If nothing else I think this all underscores the importance of mentoring that is tailored to students actual not perceived abilities. See also Carola Binder's post on this in economics: http://carolabinder.blogspot.com/2014/03/female-econ-majors-its-not-about-grade.html

Buying a ball lens would be more expensive and inconvenient than making it, if you only need one. Here's a description of making a similar microscope that includes directions how to make the lens.

http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/usph/usph.htm

My dad made a microscope like the one described by C. L. Strong, and I remember it worked surprisingly well.

Hi, the NYT China rail report is not new, its dated December 2012 -- the line has been running for more than a year.

The sex trade is a legal problem only if you aren't the attorney general at the time you participate.

#1 But really, aren't we all living in a giant hamster wheel?

It is kind of on the nose for 'art'.

"Tibet independence" by several steps under the guise of a "middle way" and "non-violence", according to the article. No matter how the Dalai clique changed their approach, their attempt to internationalize the "Tibetan issue" has remained the same

The cheap 2000x microscope is really cool. The headline is silly - yes, it uses paper for most of its structure, but it isnt' "origami" - but has a (presumably glass) lens, light, controls, etc.

I always wonder how this sort of disruptive thing works into GDP: this would not necessarily replace megabux-level instruments, but would allow microscopes to be used in far more environments than they can be used now. Among other things, you could take these in the field when doing studies and don't need to bring samples to the lab to study them. But GDP would likely show a loss as these gadgets can't help but cannibalize sales of lab-grade equipment.

Comments for this post are closed