Image via Wikipedia
now this is just stupid:
As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, “very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is,”
news.yahoo.com
my favorite primary school teacher once told us: “if you really understand the subject, you are able to explain it to anyone and at their level.” it has proven to me to be true over and over again in my life.
so all this ‘study’ might be saying, is that our beloved politicians are not smart enough to explain their ‘good ideas’. which is exactly why we need to replace them with a more directly democratic, hopefully crowd-sourced system.
if you simply assume that the current election systems are perfectly ‘democratic’, and you don’t like the result, that doesn’t mean that the voters are stupid, but that the system promotes other ‘qualities’ that good ideas.
meh.
Image via Wikipedia
there is a really interesting discussion going on this week, whether online journalists should cite other online “journalists” who “broke” the stories. it’s actually pretty complex question and this article sums it up greatly. it actually touches some points I wrote about a few days ago – the new, self proclaimed “tech journalists” have no idea how the real media ethics works, yet they demand same credit and awe.
Why Journalists Need to Link | Epicenter | Wired.com
If it was Siegler’s article that caused Vascellaro to call Apple, then Siegler certainly counts as an online resource used in writing the WSJ story, and should therefore, by Stray’s formulation, be fully linked and credited. On the other hand, if Stray agrees with Siegler, that doesn’t mean that Siegler agrees with Stray. Siegler cited no source at all, named or anonymous, for his scoop that Apple had bought Chomp: He simply asserted the fact. “Apple has bought the app search and discovery platform Chomp, we’ve learned.†If every statement in news writing needs to be attributed, then Siegler just failed that test.
www.wired.com
it’s great to see journalists are starting to be aware of the need to link outside their own domain.
Image via Wikipedia
Even after 50 years of intensive fights, this gender inequality persists, almost everywhere in the World.
I believe it still exists for two reasons:
- the current, male-dominated, business environment is ‘good enough’ to provide society with whatever it needs. so the amount of energy going into changing it is limited.
- there is a qualitative difference in how man interact with other man vs. women, specially at the age in which most startup founders are these days.
because of these two ‘facts’, some would say, is it really a ‘problem’. i’d say it’s evidently out-of-balance, but to figure out what exactly is broken here, we have to dig deeper.
Good questions have been asked lately of tech companies without gender diversity on their boards of directors.
[…]
If you’re not aware, studies also show companies with gender diversity at the top drive better financial performance on multiple measures – for example, 36% better stock price growth and 46% better return on equity. And, studies show the more women, the better the results.
[…]
Mike Maroone, AutoNation’s President and COO explained, “We looked at our board [and realized] it’s male dominated, while women make over 50% of the purchasing decisions in our business. And, the travel, music and news industries have been transformed by digital. We’re trying to transform the auto business and connect with the thinking of the digital generation, and we need this level of insight at the board level.â€
via: techcrunch.com
Image via Wikipedia
What might significantly change the way businessman look at gender inequality, and possibly classify it as a problem worth solving, is exactly this kind of research – pragmatic, practical, common sense even. if we are not employing women, we are by definition missing opportunities.
if you are in the business of making money, you are potentially vulnerable to competitors who understand the other half of the market better.
if you are in the business of changing the world, you have no chance to actually do so on your own.
now, my wife did an observation, that given how male-dominant the business is, any woman to actually make it to the top had to be 100x better than any man, so it’s no surprise that those companies are doing better.
wouldn’t it be great if the fate of the economy didn’t rely entirely on statistical luck?
