Assorted links


In reference to none of these, which media outlet will cut through the b.s. on Donald Sterling? Come on the bandwagon, ye writers and critics, where it is safe and warm.

CNN has apparently found the next 24/7 coverage item. A pity, without their in depth coverage, that airliner is never going to be found.

Donald Sterling is the most important story in forever.

Maybe the French have a word for this mental illness.

Yes, Sterling is Démocrate.

I thought he was a billionaire that in the past gave to Democratic candidates, but recently registered as a Republic or some such. But whatever, only hyper-partisans really try to make the claim that Republican==Racist or Democrat==Racist, etc so it's all kind of pointless.

Is it because Sterling is a heavy democrat money bundler that pays his black players less than he does his white player?

OK what I want to know is, why the heck didn't anybody comment on that new axe from last week? Seriously that was the coolest thing I've seen in a while, just because it was awesome that a thousands of years old invention has been fundamentally improved. But everybody just started talking about what 5% body fat looks like instead.

Ahem....Splitting Maul. :)

Well it got 158 comments at Hacker News

1. "Something awesome that was discovered by chance or stumbled upon. " I thought we already have " serendipity" for this.

I think the word referrs to the item that was serendipitously discovered?

Yeah, I can't think of a single English word that fits the bill. I have always used the adjective form of serendipity to describe such a discovery. English probably has a word for it, I just don't know it.

Hard to disambiguate in context, but what about, simply, a "find"?

Trouve? Treasure trouve?

In other news, "right to [have others] forget" or "right to obliviate" would be a better translation than a right to oblivion.

In trouvaille there is the idea that the find is very positive and random, so lucky.
A "lucky find" could do the trick.

If you were an english speaker, you would realize that just "find" has the same connotation.

I guess you mean a "native english speaker". You don't need to be so contemptuous.

I might not be native, but I have an oxford dictionnary.
"Find: a discovery of something valuable, typically something of archaeological interest:
A person who is discovered to be useful or interesting in some way:"

It seems that the oxford dictionnary doesn't see the serendipitous side of the word, except if you think that every discovery is serendipitous.

Of course I might be wrong, please enlighten me.

Also, I'm pretty sure deontology is an English word too... maybe not in the context of the first use in French given, but certainly the second.

No you're thinking of "dentistry" not "deontology"

Deontology is definitely an English word, used mostly commonly in philosophy. It basically means a set of rules, in contrast to a set of principles.

While the French word list is fun, there are a few other questionable entries. The English equivalent of "Laïcité" would be secularism, unless you want to claim that cultural and legal variations make every word untranslatable, in which case French sorely lacks a word for social security. And "Droit a l'oubli" isn't a word but a descriptive phrase; it just happens that the legal concept it describes gets more attention in France than in the U.S. Do I get to claim that French lacks a word for "first amendment rights"?

There were only two entries I thought were actually good, the French for serendipitous discovery, and the phrase for being between two mirrors (and that one was a French phrase!)

Bit different. Trouvaille is a noun, I believe. E.g. 'That painting is a trouvaille.'

Trouvaille = treasure trove, or more archaicly, trover.

This list was pretty bad. French does have some interesting "untranslatable" words though (e.g. Débrouiller")

Ignore the bit about trover, i mistakenly included that.

#1: L'etat, c'est moi.

Il y a un poisson dans votre bibliotechque.

#6 This is a really good sign it's good to see the recovery is speeding ahead and people are dropping to their appropriate stations. More immigration would help this process along and get the US onto the next level of growth.

Republicans have saved us from the devastating effects of a 125% tax hike like the one Reagan signed January 6 1983 which along with out tax hikes led to increased wages and jobs due to wasteful government spending.

Republicans have proved in the 21st century you don't need capital spending - you can create wealth by aging asset price inflation if you reduce the amount of capital the money chases. The idea that labor creates real wealth is just so 20th century.

Really? When?

LOL when trolls collide

LOL! Too bad black hole isn't the result.

these low paying jobs create value

we need lower wages and bigger profits, says expert

6. Given workers are not consumers, but black holes for money, and consumers are not workers but persons who spend in proportion to how much the 1% stock holdings go up in market cap, it is obviously a good thing that workers get paid the minimum possible.

In fact, eliminating the minimum wage would spur growth because the 1% would get wealthier faster due to exploding profits which would explode consumer spending because far less money would vanish into the black hole of worker pay checks.

"But many Republicans oppose raising the wage floor while the economy remains weak. And many businesses staunchly oppose higher minimum wages because of the threat to their bottom lines."

Mulp - as I am sure you are aware, many economists oppose the minimum wage not because it reduces profits for the business owners but because the standard analysis is that increasing the minimum wage will reduce employment since it will make some lower skilled marginal workers uneconomic to employ. So getting rid of the minimum wage will increase employment, which generally speaking raises economic growth. Conversely increasing the minimum wage will result in more unemployment for these lower skilled workers, so perversely the minimum wage approach actually hurts the people that it was designed to help. Increasing minimum wages would have little effect on businesses profits, since they are determined by competition and desired returns. In other words, if the minimum wage increase did result in a higher wage bill for a business, then, as it applies to all businesses equally, over time prices would increase to compensate the business owner so that he gets the same desired average return as before the increase in minimum wage.

We often see this counter-intuitive result, where a not properly thought through policy is introduced and it actually makes things worse not better. This is why the science of economics was introduced, to try to avoid these errors.

If you would like to see incomes raised for lower skilled workers then a better approach might be the guaranteed minimum income, which also avoids the high marginal tax rates faced by people coming off means tested benefits.

1. I am the diabolizer!

4. Despite being an anarchist, I've never been a big fan of privatizing social security.

#2 More economists seem anti-net neutrality than CS / networking / EE guys.

But Economists have a much deeper understand of technology and related policy than EE guy. I mean come on, are you kidding me? This goes without saying.

I know, right?

Economists have such a good grasp on the productivity and welfare gains from computers and the internet. I trust them when they say we should enhance monopoly power critical utilities.

Economists know monopolies in technology are irrelevant as they usually read Wired magazine extensively to know about all the latest disruptive new technologies that are just about to definitely go mainstream. Most engineers and traditional tech people have little concept of how these systems actually work. They are small pictured people not big picture people like economists.

Based on the recent tempest-in-a-teapot misreporting over the benign, business-as-usual Netflix-Comcast interconnection, I seriously question whether many CS and EE guys or gals really know what they're talkiing about when they talk about net neutrality.

The thing is that CS/networking/EE guys are anti-net neutrality based on economic concerns, rather than technical concerns. The main fear is that the cable companies, who are deeply unpopular in the tech crowd, will screw everyone over.

The technical arguments are a lot more complicated. Very few tech people support net neutrality on strictly technical grounds.

The economists are aggressively ignorant of the technical details.

The subject of inequality seems to cause a brain fart, especially in those on the right side of the political spectrum. Could it be they are defensive? If so, why? It's undeniable that inequality is increasing (I have eyes and I can see, see, see). And it's undeniable that there's a strong correlation between high levels of inequality and financial and economic instability. It's that strong correlation that should be getting the attention. That "correlation doesn't mean causation" is fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far, not with the prospect of another financial crisis looming on the horizon. I have no objection to inequality, not as long as it doesn't result in financial crises, but I object very strongly if high levels of inequality mean recurring financial crises. As a technical matter, I would argue that r > g misses the main problem, the main problem being too low r, the resulting preference for speculation over investment in productive assets, bubbles, and financial crises. Rather than waste time and talent considering whether r > g, invest time and talent in figuring out how to increase r. There's too much capital chasing too few good investments. Why is that, and what can be done about it?

Re. too much capital chasing too few good investments: We may have become too risk averse, as a society?

Here comes the Mood Affiliation train right on schedule. Nothing you say there is supported by actual evidence or models. BitCoin is up, stocks are up, real estate is booming in NYC and San Fransico, the economy is going gangbusters right now. Employment is adjusting and more immigration would help push down wages for workers with less than PhD or equivalent graduate education to where they should be - at world market levels. The fact that Piketty doesn't even mention immigration and open borders as the solution the world's REAL inequality problem (inter not intra nation inequality) is an indicator of how poorly he has considered the problem.

Is there some evidence somewhere that high inequality is associated with instability?

Income inequality dropped during the recession but is headed back up. Consumption inequality has been pretty level for decades.

Latin America income inequality among the highest in the world is often given as the reason for their low growth, poor education, macroeconomic volatility, and political instability.

" It’s undeniable that inequality is increasing (I have eyes and I can see, see, see)."

I've got vision corrected to 20/20 myself and there's nothing that I've seen that indicates some huge inequality thing. The only evidence of this is in the media, somewhere between a missing Malaysian airliner and the pregnant daughter of two Democratic power-mad sociopaths. The next door neighbor could be a billionaire for all I know, he won't show me either his tax returns or his college transcript.

This comment epitomizes everything that's epistemologically wrong with modern movement leftists. Lots of jargon and bluster, zero connection to anything tangible.

(I have eyes and I can see, see, see).

How? It is utterly impossible that you actually see, see, see the big picture of the US, let alone world economy. A normal human can have about a few hundred acquaintances at a single time, anything else falls out of mind, because the processing-and-storage capacity of the brain isn't enough. We're not computers.

So very clearly you cannot see developments on such a large scale. The only thing you see is the articles in the media which feed you with their preferred talking points. And being human, you will pay your attention mostly to those news which confirm you previous prejudices, while ignoring those that speak to the contrary. Pay some attention to behavioral studies, especially to biases in human thinking - reading such a study, for example something by Daniel Kahneman, might prove more efficient (for the rest of you life) than obsesion about r > g.

4. Piketty and social security privatization.

Thus the Detroit and California public employee pensions invested in Wall Street are far better than the alternative of the poverty producing Social Security.

I consider this a win- you at least acknowledge the problem of collectively owned retirement accounts.

"Thus the Detroit and California public employee pensions invested in Wall Street "

I was under the impression that both the Detroit and California pension funds invested stocks have performed ok. It's that relatively little money was actually invested that's causing the problem, not the rate of return on what actually was invested.

Ever tried to cook a gallon of soup from a pint of water?

That is why Detroit and California pensions fail. Wall Street isn't Hogwarts.

6. The jobs we are creating and are predicted to create are mostly low wage McJobs. Meanwhile, housing, fuel, college and healthcare costs keep rising. But hey, lets talk about inequality and not the real issue which is that there is a low supply of decent jobs.

I find it quite striking you take for granted that healthcare, education, fuel, and housing should just be priced so that anyone can purchase them. You might as well throw in the price of Ferraris onto that list too.

Bean 'em up old chap! Don't forget the freshly ground cumin!

Goodness sake - Cumin? Brought back from Ceylon or Malacca, for the masses?! Have you gone made old chap?!

True. Maybe we should just ship the ZMPs off to China. Let the robots serve us our tea and reasonably priced ethnic food.

Not sure what you're talking about there, my good gent but I suspect the penal colonies in Australia could keep a good deal of the riff raff off the streets back home.

He did not say that healthcare, education, fuel, and housing should be priced so that anyone can purchase them. Obviously that would be impossible unless they were free. And if you think housing and fuel should be free, you are way on the left of just about everyone.

If there were more jobs that paid a decent wage there would be less inequality. It is just two ways of viewing the same problem.

#1: The blogger has never read the words laicism or serendipity in english, BI is crap.

BI IS crap, but trouvaille is not serendipity (serendipity is sérendipité in french), but the result of serendipity. What you get through it.

How about linking to last week's NYT article that explained how the U.S. middle class was no longer the world's richest. A Coasian presuppitation!

The first link, about concepts that exist in French but not in English, is ludicrous. Every single item, without exception, has an English language equivalent.

An informal but widely used set of rules for a profession. Also a philosophical concept denoting a set of actions taken out of duty, rather than consequence. "

1. Unspoken rule
2. Deontology


Whenever I see "language X has no word for Y", I know at least one of bullshit, ignorance or racism is coming along pretty soon.

Are people who pontificate about language on the grounds that they can read one of them examples of the Dunning Kruger effect?

"Are people who pontificate about language on the grounds that they can read one of them examples of the Dunning Kruger effect?"

Exhibit A: "Pierre" who comments here

Why so aggressive pal?
Did you have trouble digesting your breakfast? Trouble with your girlfriend?
I am just modestly giving my 2 cents. It seems to bother you a lot.
Sorry about that.

Actually, it is pretty common that language X has a single word for something that language Y must describe in several words. If you ever worked as a translator, you are familiar with this reality.

Look up, for example, the Bulgarian words for relatives: Bulgarians express things such as "older brother" or "paternal uncle" in a single short word, while the rest of the world must explain it longer.

#3 was totally excellent.

The problem boils down to what will happen to the million or so people that are incapable or unwilling to find gainful employment, have no assets ..i dunno

New platforms such as Facebook, etc. offer a lot of interesting new options for income generation: Facebook brand management work, BitCoin mining, Tweeting, etc. there's all stuff out there and all you need really is the ability to click a mouse - I guess if you have no hands that's problematic but mind controlled computer interface devices are surely on their way. I wouldn't be so concerned about it.

I would pay you .1 pennies per comment.

More than ten million people fall into that category and growing.

So far the answer seems to be "disability"

Good thing the new tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter are offering career alternatives.

Good-go vomit on yourself over there, and leave us alone.

The smart ones will enroll in my on-line ball point pen repair school. After completing the course, passing the certification test and buying the tool kit and parts inventory they'll be able to open their own shop and take advantage of the fact that in the current economy businesses and individuals will no longer discard used or defective ball points.

#6: No mention of demographics. Right now there are two distinct humps in the population pyramid. One hump is where people are transitioning from the most productive time of their lives into retirement. The other hump is where young people are entering the labor force for the first time. And there are relatively few workers in their 30s and 40s. Of course we will see a decline in high income employment and an increase in low income employment. How could we possibly see any other outcome, given the demographics we currently have?

Articles like this NYT piece are a maddening combination of willful ignorance, obtuseness, lack of imagination, and mood affiliation.

You are thinking too hard. Look at the monthly breakdown of jobs being created and look at lists of the top jobs for the 2020s. Eighty percent of these jobs pay less than fifteen bucks per hour. What do demographics have to do with it? There are too many people and not enough high quality jobs. And technology won't help - Average is Over

Sumner says: I don’t really have any idea what the top rate should be, but for extremely high levels of consumption it’s certainly plausible that an 80% rate might be appropriate. I’d support that rate in a deal for a pure consumption tax and abolition of income taxes. A $40 million dollar yacht will motivate a financier just as well as a $200 million yacht, in a world where financiers mostly care about how they are doing relative to other rich guys.

Well, unless, of course, such a change lead rich guys to start competing in terms of how quickly they can make their bundle and retire to a life of leisure. Far-fetched? I suspect Deirdre McCloskey wouldn't think so. After all, in historical terms, it wasn't very long ago that rich guys aspired to be a 'gentleman' who was above engaging in 'trade'.

And presumably do their consumption outside of the US.

It seems more likely that the rich guy would retire to a Caribbean country and just buy his yacht from whomever wasn't putting an 80% tax on it. So, what's the point in talking about what somebody might pay in a theoretical world, when it's pretty obvious that the rate would be avoided in the real world.

My understanding is that Sumner has been arguing for a "consumption tax" in the form of a progressive payroll tax. Which means that you wouldn't pay the tax when you purchase the yacht but when you earn the money that will allow you to do so. The rich guy would need to move abroad earlier in his career and would need to renounce his citizenship since the US is one of the few countries that tax worldwide income.

Are you saying that rich guys no longer aspire to be "gentlemen" and instead have their penises surgically removed and their flesh mutilated so they can pretend to be women?

Louche - disreputable or sordid in a rakish or appealing way.
There are so many more but my French brain is way out of practice.

So I cheated and did a little googling.
Flaner: (is a word I should know) to deliberately but aimlessly wander
Sortable: An adjective for someone you can take anywhere without being embarrassed.
Chômer: To be unemployed, but because it's a verb, it makes the state active.

“Nobody who works full-time should ever have to live in poverty,” Mr. Obama said on Saturday in his weekly address. “That’s why nearly three in four Americans support raising the minimum wage.”

Raising it to $10.10 would “lift wages for nearly 28 million Americans across the country,” he said. “We’re not just talking about young people on their first job. average minimum-wage worker is 35 years old. work hard, often in physically demanding jobs.”

Via Politifact:
"Te numbers from EPI and the White House show a noticeably older skew to low-income workers. A slight majority of workers earning under $11.10 are at least 30 years old, according to their favored data. if you look just at minimum wage workers using the BLS data, a full 71 percent are younger than 30.

Well 'obama' is french for bullshit.

The NYT simply quotes The One and accepts His words as facts. I am disturbed by your lack of faith.

How does "diaboliser" differ in meaning from "demonize?"

One is in a foreign language, the other is English. Duh.

I was wondering exactly the same thing, but your clarification explains it perfectly - thank you!

So Kevin Williamson thinks there are all kinds of good investments dying on the vine for lack of capital?

In the future, I would appreciate a warning that Tyler is linking to NRO.

Regarding Business insider's list of 7 supposedly unique French words, how does diaboliser differ from demonize?

The economist's letter on net neutrality seems to take it on faith that there are multiple options for internet access in any given neighborhood. I think this is either out of date (from 2005) or simply inaccurate, because tons of households have little choice in the broadband market. suggests that one-third have just one provider, and I know from anecdotal evidence (don't live in the us now) that lots of the 2+ provider areas count that shitty 1.5mbps internet as broadband. Mobile is also not a real option for home internet given the crazy data costs, and the fact that unlimited plans are dying. So the main premise of the argument against net neutrality is wrong.

In addition to concepts which exist in one language and not another, there are expressions which carry a feeling which is impossile to convey in the other language (joie de vivre just doesn't have the same ring after translating it).

Also, things are often interpreted differently when said in one language as opposed to another, even when they have roughly similar meanings.

In philosophy, it is very common when reading translated works that the key terms are left in the original language.

It is not only languages which differ in the way they use words. Every person uses language in their own manner.

Why worry about Da Sein and Sein of Heidegger? Because the English word "being" just doesn't have the ability to carry the full weight of German philosophical and linguistic history as reflected through Heidegger's mind.

Part of my work involves translation, and I routinely have to find ways to say something in English which can never ever represent quite the "feeling" conveyed in the original.

Comments for this post are closed