Friday assorted links


iTunes killed the album for casual music listeners long ago.

#1 - I am not sure exactly what is the message here... Mao was using Rhetoric for very different reasons that Trump and his team do. Actually, I think that Trump's rhetoric is just so random at this point that the "message" you get is much more about the listener than the speaker.

I think it works much better as a demonstration of the basic unpredictability of the far future. Something like 10 years, maybe 20, can be guessed by basic momentum, but I think starting at 30 years, you have to say "who knows?" Or similar numbers.

I think you are being optimistic about prognostication. Before the iPhone, who knew that smartphones could be a big thing? There are many looming possibilities, but who knows which ones will pan out? Practical fusion for electric power? Drugs that halt the progress of Alzheimer's Disease? An end to effective antibiotics? A worldwide pandemic of bird flu or wheat rust? There are many possibilities, but I'd guess the important ones aren't even being contemplated right now (except by a few people, commonly considered "cranks"). As prognosticator Barbie says, "Predicitng the future is hard.".

Actually, those of us in tech had been expecting a "convergence device." If I recall correctly it was discussed in Brand's 1987 book, The Media Lab.

Xerox PARC, while it was still a thing, did some very early iPad style tablets.

So, some things follow Gibson's rule of not evenly distributed. Not all, but a fair number.

Barbie said, "Math is hard." Lots of other people are credited with saying that prediction is hard, especially about the future: including Niels Bohr, Yogi Berra, Samuel Goldwyn, and of course Mark Twain (just about every clever saying has been attributed to Mark Twain). It may actually come from Denmark.

The Quote Investigator goes researching

Speaking of Trump and China, Bannon just got fired. Markets are happy.

Apparently American political institutions today are stronger than the Chinese ones in 1967.

Barometer, not a thermometer.

Yup, I am happy too. However, trying to be a bit of a contrarian here, what does that tell us about Trump? Is he better than expected (maybe he realized Bannon is not "flexible" enough) or worse than expected (someone who has no principles and is willing to get rid of anyone and anything to be popular?)

He's a businessman. So 1) he fires people and 2) he's new to politics and probably confused that 1+1 isn't 2, but instead adding up to politicized courts, leaks to the press and a special counsel stocked with Democrat lawyers.

Adding to the mess is that he probably figured he would be doing a job similar to a CEO where he cut taxes, streamlined regulations etc. Instead, people hang on his every word as a moral arbiter for the issues of the day. So he comments on Charlottesville with boilerplate law and order stuff, and can't figure out how to be moralizer in chief.

Maybe people should stop looking to political leaders to lead the way on right and wrong, and tell them to focus on the governance that they're clearly neglecting.

@FYI: it's obviously the latter. Trump is the most transparent public figure in history. He has no principles other than his own benefit and popularity. He is literally the textbook definition of sociopathic narcissist. This isn't even debatable. Even those that felt Hillary was worse have to see this.

" Markets are happy."

Evidence for causation?

listen to the last ~5 minutes of Thursday's Marketplace. Bannon is characterized as being a "muscular nationalist" on US trade policy. (

Although I suspect the more important signal to the market was that the CoS was making progress on getting the WH onto the same page (as much as possible).

Why would I listen to what Pravda thinks about any market?

Bannon was the trade war/blow it up/alt right/wacko bad cop vs Gary Cohn and the business Republican good cops. Rumor was Cohn, McMaster, and others were really getting tired of Bannon, maybe they told Trump "him or us". Markets like business Republicans.

So, no evidence then.

It reminds me of traditional religious reasoning, random good event is interpreted as God rewarding your virtue, random bad is event is interpreted as God punishing your sins. If the market went down, they'd say it was because of the disbanding of the CEO councils.

How is that CNBC article "evidence" that a complex stock market turned on one single bit of news?

Its speculation.

It really didn't move the needle much either way, and I'm not a big believer in personifying what the market "likes" or "wants". Especially in one day of trading. But there's no doubt investors do not want a trade war with China, and Bannon does.

"Evidence for causation?"

There is none, there never is.

Every day the pundits say "markets went up/down based on X" because X is some news of the day.

Its all speculation without basis. Here, they are saying enough people/funds thought "WH aide leaves/gets fired so I will buy stock today" to make a difference in the stock market.

Agreed, maybe I should have said markets firmed slightly after the announcement.

"markets are happy"

msgkings you are such a tard. The markets didn't care one iota. The movement when he was fired was on the order of 0.3% and of course they subsided to at least 0.1%, ie: noise.

You want to project that your useless ideas are validated by the market. They are not.

What did the market cares about: Trump's election and the repudiation of all things that your beloved deomcratic party held dear, there was a huge surge. Markets care about deregulation, lower taxes, and less of the arbitrary behavior of the previous administration. In summary: the market despises everything that you think has merit. You are a nothing.

Further, if you want to know exactly what the market 'thinks' about politics, when your allies in the 4th estate finally, finally, struck upon some moral bleating that somehow resonated on Trump's message about the occurance in charlottesville, the 'market' realized immediately that this imperiled economic freedom going forward and the indices took a noise dive.

That's what the market thinks, msgkings.

LOL that market sure hated ol' Obama, it only went up 300% or so under the "arbitrary behavior of the previous administration". You angry partisans crack me up (both sides, I'm not a Dem or a Rep).

> I’m not a Dem or a Rep

LOL. You partisan hack.

300% LOL, you're useless.

Wow you are a formidable debater. But why are you so angry?

But yeah, 300% was high. More like 166%. Not bad considering markets hate "the arbitrary behavior of the previous administration".

Face it, you kind of blew this one.

Your innumeracy and blatant disregard for the facts explifies everything you do and how you approach all problems. XLF up 25% within days of your side's loss. Amazing.

As how about that market validition of your hated of Bannon? Not so much, right? Your call was a prescient as that of Alex Baldwin after Trump's election.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself, son.

1. Before WWI began, a lot of smart people doubted that it would happen because of economic interdependence that was a result of the industrial revolution and economic liberalization that occured from 1880-1914.

In racial terms, WWI was a civil war (The Anglo Saxons vs. the Actual Saxons).


I'm guessing that we are more intertwined than we were in 1914 ( ).

# 4

"with discussions about men reveals no similarly singular or hostile theme. It includes words that are relevant to economics, such as adviser, Austrian (a school of thought in economics) mathematician, pricing, textbook and Wharton (the University of Pennsylvania business school that is President Trump’s alma mater)."

This confirms my suspicions.

3. 2100: no one under age 30 will know what a gas station or gasoline is. Except history reenactors who produce a gasoline substitute to fuel antique cars from 2050 with their father and grandfather.

It is rather simple to convert IC engines to run on straight alcohol. Antique cars will run on alcohol.

It is rather harder to find alcohol resistant gaskets for older cars.

4. Without some indication of frequency, this study is meaningless. Obviously, the word "lesbian," for example, will tend to be uniquely associated with women. One would have to know what percentage of the discussions about women involve imputations (for good or ill) of lesbianism to know what it means.

The paper is here.
My concern methodologically is that EJMR selects for the worst kind of human being (also not sure how easy it is to make troll accounts on here) both in its atmosphere and the fact that its a dwelling place for many medicore bitter PhDs who are angry about their performance on the job market.

"My concern methodologically is that EJMR selects for the worst kind of human being"

I concur; it is the Youtube comments section of the economics world and trying to generalize the economics profession from it is, frankly, absurd.

"Without some indication of frequency, this study is meaningless."

You're partially correct.


(but not totally useless, it is of huge use when virtue signaling!)

It does have a bit of those "X term most uniquely associated with each given state" maps flavor to it that aren't really that useful.

The model is determining the words with the greatest power of "If word X is used, then the post is about a woman." The last names of celebrities are specifically excluded for some reason, but I assume from the content that many of the threads are about discussing which celebrities are hot. (The most "masculine" word is, conversely, "homosexual.") Some of the high ranking words are misogynistic, though I would highly doubt that "pregnant" implying that the thread is about a woman is necessarily so.

When the paper looks at the number of threads about individual economists, there is little effect. (Women at top departments are discussed somewhat more than men, and the reverse at lower-ranked, but not strong enough to have a lot of confidence.) So essentially it's claiming that as far as work related threads, things are pretty balanced, but the (mostly straight male) audience also has a lot of threads about attractive women (and about their own girlfriends and wives qua girlfriends and wives.)

There's some small indication that more of the threads definitely about women are personal related compared to the proportion of threads definitely about guys. That is undoubtedly an effect of gender imbalance with mostly heterosexual guys. They're more likely to be talking about women than men when they use the terms "hot," "beautiful," or "gorgeous." I can certainly imagine that a forum filled with such threads could discourage women from participating, though I'd put it as more an uncomfortable environment than misogynistic per se.

As far as demonstrating pervasive stereotyping, it more demonstrates that when the forum participants think of "hot," "beautiful," and "gorgeous" that they think of women, than when they think of women that those are the first words that come to mind.

The study doesn't show much but it is another depressing example of what counts for research when the author is the right type, the school is the right type, and the message is the right type.

John says " they think of women, than when they think of women that those are the first words that come to mind."

Isn't this the point? Forget the number crunching. The whole premise of the study is absurd. Take the S words (words that prove “sexism”). They include words like hot, lesbian, tits, anal, etc. Wu may not know this, but can it really be a secret to Wolfers that young men spend much of their waking hours fantasizing about those things? In fact, speaking as an older guy, I am not immune to those thoughts myself. When I stop having those thoughts it will be because I am in my grave. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying it is particularly pretty — it is just a fact of life.

What these words ARE NOT is “hostile” to women.

It would seem like the most useful study would be to randomly assign a group of male and female undergrads or graduate students to visit or not visit the site for 1 year. Then, see whether visiting the site causes females students to leave economics at higher rates than male students. That would allow us to measure directly the hostility of the site as perceived by women, "hostility" in the harassment sense of a hostile environment that makes women feel unwelcome.

From the article, "When I asked Ms. Wu whether the sexism she documented had led her to reconsider pursuing a career in economics, she said that it had not. 'You see those bad things happen and you want to prove yourself,' she said." Her attitude is consistent with my own observation of women and minority scholars through the years.

1. China today devotes an enormous volume of public resources to make China competitive in the global economy, from infrastructure investment to education investment, while reaching out to its neighbors through its one belt-one road initiative. This while America has been making sharp reductions in the volume of public resources to make America competitive in the global economy and withdraws from its long-standing role as a leader in the global economy and threatens to build walls with its neighbors. Who wins an "economic war" between these two models? Isolationists/economic nationalists and Nazi sympathizers wished to keep America out of the global conflict in in the 1930s, while isolationists/economic nationalists and Nazi sympathizers wish to keep America out of the global competition today. Cowards then, cowards today. Not much has changed in 80 years.

Bannon now has a lot more free time to bitch about it...

You've always had time.

I'm actually glad he's leaving. I think he could be more effective out of the white house than in it, especially as a foil against the MSM which for all intents and purposes are now acting as a political 5th column in this country...and have also gone cotton-picking mad with their loss of status.

Breitbart in recent years has served extremely well to out just how far left of center the MSM has swung, how utterly and totally unfair and biased they are and how much they will use outright lies as weapons. Perhaps he can create "Breitbarlets" because more attacks on the MSM are sorely needed.

Just in:

"Bannon, backed by billionaire, prepares to go to war "

Good. Scorched earth. Peter Thiel/Hulk Hogan vs. gawker style. May many MSM heads be laid at his feet.

To quote him, "Fuck you. War."


I wish him the best.

You're whining when you point out that I'm whining.

For it is written by the Prophet Bandarra, the lion will rise and crush the serpent with its heel, and the oppresed, terrorized masses in Amrrica will rise up and tear ther American overlords limb from limb, and they will bathe in the blood of the regime and feed the overlords babies to the wild dogs that roam the streets of America.

Stop impersonating me.

I am serious, if you do not stop I will bring you sever conseqnced!

Thanks, but I can fight my own battles, twit.

I'm here to help!

No, you are not.

Wait, are you me or am I you?

If you fight this war, who will pay your bills. Let's be blunt: China owns America, controls what Americans do, buy or watch. The White House has surrendered, Wall Street and Main Street and K Street sold their country out. Americans have exchanged their firstborn right for cheap undearwear and what can be called only a Brobdingnagian debt. A ericans have sold their children into bondage for ever and ever.

China's NPLs account for an unheard of 21%. It is believed that off-the-books their bad-debt ratios nationally account for 34% of GPS. Their infrastructure spending is less about economic activity and functions more realistically as a job engine and their economy fundamentally has struggled to diversify away from an outsourcing model. I see this myself as I travel there once a month. It's a façade. A veneer. They are no where near as healthy economically as they'd like you to believe.

The US has problems sure, but we're the only nation that can "truly" print money since Bretton Woods financed by the all powerful faith and confidence in US Tbills. Someday this will fade but while we maintain the strongest military in comparison to the next 3 near-peers combined I don't see a full collapse happening. Just looked at the global freakout over the US real estate market 10 years ago. The world is just as dependent on the US economy and buying power as we are on them, maybe more so.

"The US has problems sure, but we’re the only nation that can “truly” print money since Bretton Woods financed by the all powerful faith and confidence in US Tbills."
It is not all powerful. It is insanely clear that the American giant has feet of clay. China has the national will to fight for its interests, meanwhile America has surrendered. Chinese money has bought America out.
I can not imagine America surrendering to Soviet demands that way or the Soviet Union kowtowing that way to America. When Stalin was alive, the Soviet Union produced a play about Truman called the Mad Haberdasher. But now Americans must walk over eggshells and ask themselves what the Chinese will think, lest they stop lending money to America and making business with America. The tail is wagging the dog and it is disgraceful.

"4. Justin Wolfers on misogynistic rhetoric "

Tyler, this is a leading indicator. I like this blog, but you should really consider closing it down immediately. Free speech and right of association are on the decline in America.

He'll get right on that.

Yeah, I hope he doesn't, I like the free wheeling exchange of ideas here. But how long will it be before another academic with an agenda does a detailed analysis of this site and dredges up the worst comments? It's all directly linked to Tyler and Alex. It feels as if the intellectual climate in the US is shifting and it's a bad time to be a political outlier. Frankly, they'd be better off if they ran a Marxist website.

I think you're being a little dramatic here.

Maybe, but is it worth risking their career over?

From the article:

"This is what Ms. Wu did in her paper, “Gender Stereotyping in Academia: Evidence From Economics Job Market Rumors Forum.”

Ms. Wu mined more than a million posts from an anonymous online message board frequented by many economists. The site, commonly known as (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the profession.
She then adapted machine-learning techniques to ferret out the terms most uniquely associated with posts about men and about women.
The 30 words most uniquely associated with discussions of women make for uncomfortable reading.

In order, that list is: hotter, lesbian, bb (internet speak for “baby”), sexism, tits, anal, marrying, feminazi, slut, hot, vagina, boobs, pregnant, pregnancy, cute, marry, levy, gorgeous, horny, crush, beautiful, secretary, dump, shopping, date, nonprofit, intentions, sexy, dated and prostitute.

The parallel list of words associated with discussions about men reveals no similarly singular or hostile theme. "

Now imagine if someone did something similar for this blog. Essentially dredging up the worst comments here. This blog isn't a general Economics blog. It's explicitly tied to Tyler and Alex.

Simpler explanation:

Imagine this blog was hosted by two guys working at Google.

"Free speech and right of association are on the decline in America."


Not exactly what we are seeing this week.

How does that article conflict worth the point being made? For example:

"He doesn't have a lick of sympathy for the site's members or mission, but he was able to erase their presence on the internet with the click of a button, and he's not sure anyone should have that power"

Most with monopoly positions are far less modest. You are probably refering to the parts of the article where the author signals his own leapfrogging loyalties. But what relevance is that to the question?

A little group of people found internet niches (MR?) where they could share odious prejudices. They were so well insulated in their little silos that they started to feel like a majority. So, when they marched with those views they were shocked to discover that most good people don't accept their "new scientific racism." Most saw it as dirty old wine in new bottles.

Watts and Al want to complain about loss of free speech? As the lead to the Reason article says, that's not what happened.

The speech was heard, and found repugnant.

Yep, as noted here - 'Take “Millennial Matt,” whose catchphrase — “Hitler did nothing wrong!” — earned him tens of thousands of fans before he went to the rally, but his Twitter account has since been deleted, his real identity publicized, and he is now begging fans for money to flee his hometown because “my life is in shambles.”'

Why any American would think that telling their fellow Americans 'Hitler did nothing wrong' would be met with anything but contempt and scorn is still difficult to imagine. Apart from the fact that he clearly confused sitting alone in front of a screen with actually being a member of American society.

Kids these days, right?

'The speech was heard, and found repugnant.'

Or to paraphrase a certain attitude (not referring to any particular MR commenter), when our fellow citizens make full use of the 1st Amendment, it is clearly hate speech when they don't agree with us.

Way to go. Claudia is not a sensitive type and she's been made to feel uncomfortable/unwelcome here plenty. I'll let her speak for herself, but I've seen it plenty.

Yes, that's a legitimate shame. Claudia was a good poster.

There were one or two commenters who treated Claudia shabbily. Many engaged with her.

You catch a lot of flak here, but you dish it out too. Good on you. Maybe it's about temperament.

This comment board is hardly one-sided, though admittedly, it is increasingly populated by people who just want to disrupt.

But I find smart people to disagree with every day here. People like you. I don't bother engaging with people who aren't worth my time.

+1 to all 3 of you (+3?)

The abuse Claudia received was wrong and unfortunate, however others here are regularly abused, albeit without gendered insults. Important to consider is that Claudia was hostile to the MR commentariat as she demonstrates in her tweet, which signals 1. that she fully buys in to this research which presumes workplace climate based on anonymous online commentary, which is most likely wrong, and 2. that she is interested in attacking MR commenters. As I recall, she regularly attacked MR commenters from her leftist perspective and assumed bad faith in the part of other commenters. I believe she also made assumptions based on the gender of poster's here. That being said, all it takes is one asshole to write a vulgar sexual comment in response to her to ruin it for everyone. Yet if that same comment were made to a presumably male commenter, the commenter would likely have a bemused amusement. Look at the abuse Art Deco takes, and he remains. Nathan seems to have taken a new name or scampered away. P_A has taken his fight against MR to the front lines. Why won't Claudia?

'and assumed bad faith in the part of other commenters'

Well, that is typical of a 'leftist,' isn't it? Not because someone is actually acting in bad faith.

'Why won’t Claudia?'

Because she is not anonymous - you think I would mention my name or job here? (Or anywhere on the Internet, but that is another subject.)

The really amusing thing is that she was probably the most prominent commenter with a profile that someone like Prof. Cowen would love to be associated with. Just look at her professional career -

Instead, regardless of her opinion of Prof Cowen or Prof Tabarrok, she scorns this place, and is quite willing to express that sentiment in public. And is then rewarded by seeing how that sentiment can be judged by anyone reading the comments at MR.

1. How was that not about policy? Anyone familiar with what actually happened knows it wasn't mere rhetoric.

#4: when a prominent man (respectfully) discusses a woman's research, and you link to that discussion by mentioning the man and not the woman, you are part of the problem here.

When Tyler signals, these are the kinds of comments that result. He is, in a way, a part of the problem.

Solution seems simple: offer males to pay them for undergoing sex-change amputations.

4. Misogyny isn't really a problem at GMU, since GMU has but one full-time female faculty member in the economics department. Her specialty? Home economics. No, it's agricultural economics/history. When I was in high school, girls were required to take a course called "home economics". George Borjas taught the class. It was early in his career. I think the girls learned how to sow and cook, but I'm not sure. They might have learned how to balance a check book, but that's unlikely (i.e., unlikely they would be taught how to balance a check book). My former wife attended an all-girls college, where she majored in "economics". I was never sure her major was accurately identified since she didn't seem to know much about "economics" ("John Maynard who?"). On the other hand, that woman could squeeze a dollar out of a nickel. I majored in "economics" too, but I learned the wrong lesson, as I seem to squeeze a nickel out of a dollar.

"n the other hand, that woman could squeeze a dollar out of a nickel. I majored in “economics” too, but I learned the wrong lesson, as I seem to squeeze a nickel out of a dollar."

Maybe you just aren't very bright?

I'm not bright enough to have written "sow" when I intended to write "sew", the former a term loaded with multiple meanings, some highly misogynist. My apologies to Borjas for suggesting he taught those girls how to sow. It's not true, no matter what Borjas may say.

Curious, I vaguely recall having taken home economics during junior high. It would have been a requirement since I would never have signed up for it voluntarily.

I recall making a tshirt and learning how to make an omelet, but that's about it. Really a waste of time. I could have been taking biology, but there wasn't room in the schedule to take physics AND chemistry AND biology.

#4. Reminds me of the blood-curdling description of the beta chimps murdering the alpha. It's aggression pure and subtle. It's about cliques and not-me memes. You know how they are. Moody, must be having a bad week. Who said the work environment ought not to be hostile? It's a competition, innit? Baa, baa. Water cooler that a thing?

My advice, if you've never worked in an environment that has a high percentage of women combined with fair-to-high performance standards, don't start. Legitimately they are some of the most unhappy gatherings of humans anywhere. There sexual competitiveness and emotional sensitivity results in two scenarios. One, overt snarkiness and passive aggressiveness that results in very little to no work being done, employment turnover and lots of unhappiness. Two, total and complete conformity, virtue signaling (which is really conformity signaling), and an over-the-top smiley-glad-handedness that hides snarkiness and passive aggressiveness that just goes underground. There is still lots of unhappiness. A bit more work gets done but innovation and the ability to say what needs to be said? Forget about it and it will be universally accepted as a personal attack. Men in both scenarios mostly end up scratching their heads trying to figure out what's going on, but being in the former is 10x more toxic.

I speak from personal experience.

" Legitimately they are some of the most unhappy gatherings of humans anywhere."

My wife worked for 1 year at UNC in a female only office. We relocated after a year, because it was the most miserable year of her life. Her boss was a person who enjoyed berating underlings and actually called my wife in for a conference on inappropriate clothing because my wife was wearing a skirt. The boss routinely wore skirts. She just didn't think anyone should.


It might be me. But isn't the share of stories relating to this singular analysis growing rapidly. I mean just on this blog I think it's up to like half of the last 10 posts.

It would seem odd, given how vast this world is, that this analysis of how power and discrimination between identity groups is affecting X, would be so often to find at the root cause.

I also find it curious that these posts seem to have its own language. Typically something will be "toxic", while something else will be "unsafe". Typically this whole thing is happening at the "intersection" of something. And while there may be an analysis, as in this paper, somehow the conclusion always ends up as either sexism, misygoni, racism and other such things. I dare say you've noticed.

Maybe I'm exaggerating. But the frequency to which this bore of an ideological analysis is turning up on this blog. I would say pay attention to your own words, Tyler. However long this moral panic goes on, surely one day it will end.

It's not just you. This stuff increased massively in intensity beginning with the Great Recession and it's not a coincidence. I believe has definite economic roots, specifically the economics of job loss, confidence loss, net worth loss, home loss. Plus a general realization that the last 17 years since the dot com bubble have truly sucked for America. Dot com burst, 9/11, 2 major wars plus a bunch of smaller ones, 07-08 crash, stagnant wages, increasing terrorist attacks at home and abroad, ISIS, and for the left Trump's election, etc. etc. etc.

There's a reason the young a screaming for "safe spaces". The last 2 decades look shitty as hell and I'm from the previous generation. Surely an economist could maybe write a book on the "intersection" of these phenoma....if only we could find one....

I'm not sure this will end. I'm pretty sure this is ratcheting up in intensity.

Good comment

#4. This just makes me think that men are sex-obsessed to an absurd degree. I sort of already knew that.

It does seem absurd, until you see what women obsess about. ;)

How strange how sweet here, above a pond, the dragonflies dart, and the sun strikes fire from their wings. The sigh of midnight trains, what unerring instinct—what scent trail that man knows nothing about—leads her to these places?

you forgot to capitalize the H in her. Otherwise, that was good. Quoting somebody, or three of four somebodies?

Seriously, that was good, with the exception of one or two words, and the missed capitalization which I already pointed out. Are you aware that your user name sounds sinister? There is no reason for that. I get it that in the 1970s someone calling themselves "Real Frankenstein" would more likely evoke images of Boris Karloff singing the Grinch song at Christmas than images of the legitimately nasty film from the 1930s, but today (40 years or more after the sinister movie Clockwork Orange, less time than the lovable Grinch followed the totalitarian evil of the original Frankenstein) is not the 1970s, and here in the 2010s the evil of Clockwork Orange is not as distant as the evil of Frankenstein seemed to be in the 1970s. Well ephemera is ephemera but we still need to pray for each other.

4. Here's ejmr's response to that article:

"I doubt her ML methods. Anal and dump should be closer together in the list of most frequent words in posts regarding women."

The thread seem to suggest that use of BB was mostly in reference to some person named "BB Lacroix." I looked, and there actually are many threads discussing her. Apparently, she was an attractive economics student that someone pointed out, but then people discovered that the attractive picture of her was fake (it was of some obscure model), which was why there was so much discussion, concerning the question of whether she's real or not. Then it looks like she became a meme on the site. This makes more sense since "bb" is more often used when addressing someone (e.g., "How you doin, bb?" or "I love ya, bb"), not the type of term you'd use when talking about women.

BB is also an abbreviation for Bulge Bracket, a term used for large investment banks

1. "19th and 20th Century perspectives and measures to address 21st Century problems." Great line. I believe the Chinese just disrespected the White House. If I were to predict the future based on rhetoric alone, I would say the Chinese will be our overlords soon. Adapt or perish.

3. "From chaos comes order" and from order will come chaos.

4. So much potential has been wasted.

5. National Affairs is a treasure trove of ideas. Yuval Levin once commented that the knowledge was there for when Republicans needed the information (paraphrasing). If ever they needed this information, now would be the time. Put down your phones/computers, turn off Fox News and read!

6. I look forward to totality. David Baron's "American Eclipse" and

2. Only 5 more months until I get internet powerful enough to stream music! (They say it will also be able to stream video, but I'm sure that can't be a thing. It would literally require megabytes per second.)

2. Spotify can apparently make good money for anyone except itself, with losses of over $600 million just in 2016 alone.

Thanks for this great post!

3: The meme that fission products are dangerous for ten half-lives of the slowest decaying isotope is just wrong.

It's the shorter lived isotopes that are the most dangerous. The longest lived isotope is never dangerous, because they don't have many decays per unit time, even just after the release.

- dk

#6 Did Annie Dillard plagiarize Woolf's diary?

Comments for this post are closed