Posted by JS in computing, qotd
The first is about what makes a good blog:
To really work, Sierra observed, an entrepreneur’s blog has to be about something bigger than his or her company and his or her product. This sounds simple, but it isn’t. It takes real discipline to not talk about yourself and your company. Blogging as a medium seems so personal, and often it is. But when you’re using a blog to promote a business, that blog can’t be about you, Sierra said. It has to be about your readers, who will, it’s hoped, become your customers. It has to be about making them awesome.
So, for example, if you’re selling a clever attachment to a camera that diffuses harsh flash light, don’t talk about the technical features or about your holiday sale (10 percent off!). Make a list of 10 tips for being a better photographer.
Now about those Apple patents:
What worries me is that idea that Apple, or even just Steve Jobs, believes that phones like the Nexus One have no right to exist, period, and that patent litigation to keep them off the market is in the company’s interests. I say it’s worrisome not because I think it’s evil, or foolish, or unreasonable, but because it is unwise, shortsighted, and unnecessary.
No Comments »
Posted by JS in qotd
Apropos my previous post:
He despaired of the weakness of mind that ran in his family. “The ‘race is for the strong,’ ” Darwin wrote. “I shall probably do little more but be content to admire the strides others made in Science.”
Darwin, of course, was wrong; his recurring fits didn’t prevent him from succeeding in science. Instead, the pain may actually have accelerated the pace of his research, allowing him to withdraw from the world and concentrate entirely on his work.
Of course if Twitter were around in Darwin’s time he never would have gotten around to writing On the Origin of Species.
No Comments »
Posted by JS in qotd
A meta-lesson: Microeconomics ain’t easy, and don’t let a regression–or division by a baseline–be a substitute for clear thought. It’s a classic error to analyze a decision as if it were a one-time choice, without recognizing the underlying incentives that make the situation come up repeatedly. It’s disappointing to see Levitt make this mistake and then see him double down and defend his error.
I have a problem with the desire of certain economists to articulate simple models that lead to counter-intuitive results and then argue that our intuition is wrong. Well, sometimes it is, but often it’s not and the model is too simple or the assumptions are incorrect. It’s nice to see someone as notable as Andrew Gelman making a variant (and more specific version) of this same point.
The problematic assumption that Gelman highlights is something that seems to happen over and over again.
No Comments »
Posted by JS in culture, qotd
What strikes me about the Letterman scandal is the complete lack of acknowledgement of any ethical wrongdoing. I mean sure, older men having sex with young female assistants is icky, but nobody seems to be stopping to consider why this is icky.
Even feminist blogs, who really should know better, seen more obsessed with other things than this matter.
Here’s the problem. When superiors in an organization sleep with people who work for them, they are contributing to a culture that says, bluntly, sleeping with the boss is a way to get ahead.
Am I wrong in thinking this? Is the situation more complicated?
No Comments »