There’s an interesting idea here for teaching about technological advancement in macroeconomics classes. After thousands of years of a binary code being less efficient, along comes intentional transmission of signals with electricity requiring a brand new language with less characters. It’s a good thing the mathematicians were doing basic research without practical applications, instead of only learning what they’d need to know on the job.
I came across all 4 of these in local newspapers one sitting in early July.
I’m sorry that he died, but if it was me I would’ve had my name changed.
I live in rural southwestern Utah. We have polygamists around here, mostly from this guy’s hometown. They can have unusual names, but the last paragraph is a doozy.
I probably shouldn’t find amusement in a baby’s name, but I heard a preschooler called by the name “Remedy” last week too, so I guess it’s a thing. Then there’s this one’s three names:
Now for a little economics. I think many people who are not economists think that if you give a person an unusual name, that this is probably not helpful to their life prospects. At a naïve correlation level, this is true. But when you dig deeper, the story becomes more nuanced. It turns out that you and I aren’t prejudiced against odd names at all (at least in terms of the measurable financial outcomes of the person with the odd name). So why do people with unusual first names have worse lifetime financial outcomes? It turns out that it’s the skill set of the parents: parents possessing fewer valuable life skills to impart to their children are more likely to choose unusual names for them. So, in some sense, the damage is done before the name is chosen. Rand Dee had the good sense to choose more reasonable names for his children than Jay Sun, Brad Lee, Camn Ron, Kenn Dell, and Fred Rick … but it may not have mattered if they stayed in Hildale.
P.S. A little family detail: the middle-aged sheltie Australian shepherd mix we adopted last year is an independent thinker. He often will refuse to budge when asked nicely to go somewhere. But he’s helpless when I circle around behind him: something compels him to get up and move forward. Who knew herders are hard-wired to be herded?
Readers of The New Yorker presumably find this amusing.
To an economist, this actually seems like a good idea.
Reading Proust may deliver some benefits, but it’s an investment. If it makes more sense to pay someone to do it for you, then you probably should.
English professors may object to that. But I’d point out that they’re paying their students with grades rather than cash, and that the notional difference between those is bigger than the actual difference. I’m sure most of them would gladly pay an economist to read Smith or Mill for them, although I think both of them may have been better writers than Proust.
FWIW: Yes, I have read Proust (back when they used to call it Remembrance of Things Past). It was OK, but it’s not a classic that I’d recommend. And no, I didn’t read it in the original. It is long, but not ridiculously so: lots of people have read Donaldson’s three Thomas Covenant series, and that runs to perhaps a thousand pages more (I’m just finishing it up).
This is kind of a classic cartoon. I was unable to figure out when it was originally published (and I promise I spend tens of seconds looking on the google).
With the development of internet technology, work at home jobs are increasing in the market. Also setting up small business online with ones own bank savings can provide excellent work at home opportunities. Apart from savings, banks offer0 credit card to cater to short term finance needs. Partial tax payments like tax credits are also available to promote online businesses. Market now offers several alternatives to traditional credit card debt which are helpful to work at home businesses.