> I don't buy the taller buildings = more wealth, creativity and energy argument.
If you haven't read The New Geography of Jobs, I highly recommend it. It gives an excellent explanation of why having a higher density of knowledge workers increases their per-capita productivity and creativity.
I knew about Google's Ads Preferences page (http://google.com/ads/preferences), which lists the interests Google has inferred for me. This article taught me about the BlueKai Registry (http://bluekai.com/registry/), which lists the same thing (and a little more) for BlueKai. Does anyone know of similar sources of information for other advertising networks?
I think the fact that it's a positive review from MG Siegler means it's objective - since he's known to dislike Android devices. A negative review wouldn't necessarily be not objective, but a positive review must be objective.
> If the scalpers didn't exist, the eventual ticket-holders would still be able to purchase from the original vendor.
A lot of them wouldn't, though. If the scalpers sell the tickets for, say, $500, then the people willing to pay $500 get tickets pretty reliably. If the scalpers didn't exist, those people would have to take a roll of the dice along with the many, many more people who are willing to pay $45. A lot of them wouldn't be able to see the show.
I didn't mean the same people. The same number of people would see the show, and people generally believe in a first-come-first-served moral system - spend a night in an busy ER department and see how the general public like the idea of 'triage'.
Really, my point is more that those tickets were going to sell anyway, and all the scalpers are doing is reducing the potential audience for those tickets. I don't see how this specific market is 'smoothed' by this practise.
Nobody uses "tar baby" as a slur in America. It's like "niggardly" - ignorant people use an incorrect interpretation to try to shut down people they don't like.
That said, you'd have to be crazy to use "niggardly" now after the reaction it got whoever that was. If you use words that most of your audience doesn't know, what does it say about you? :)
From the paper (http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/s.shalvi/bestanden/Shalvi%20et...), page 5-6: "Shalvi et al. (2011a) asked participants to roll a die under a paper cup with a small hole at the top allowing only them to see the outcome, and earn money according to what they reported rolling (1=$1, 2=$2, etc.). As participants’ rolls were truly private, the authors assessed lying by comparing the reported distribution to the distribution predicted by chance (Fischbacher & Heusi, 2008). Participants were asked to roll three times but to report only the outcome of the first roll. Although all three rolls were private, the distribution of reported outcomes resembled the distribution of choosing the highest of the three observed rolls. Modifying the task to allow participants to roll only once reduced lying. Participants clearly found value in being able to justify their lies to themselves. The authors concluded that observing desired counterfactuals, in
the form of desired (higher) values appearing on the second or third (non-relevant for pay) rolls, modified participants’ ethical perceptions of what they considered to be lying. Observing desired counterfactual information enabled participants to enjoy both worlds: lie for money, but feel honest."
Shalvi et. al. (2011a) is:
Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011a). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 181-190.
http://www.reddit.com/r/coffee: 35,566 subscribers http://www.reddit.com/r/Wicked_edge: 26,612 subscribers