Another bank hits the skids: The Bank of Mom and Dad.
Once upon a time, AT&T tried to hijack the airwaves.
Could this be what makes introverts different? Seems credible to this one.
Whether you agree with them or not, the new CAFE regulations may not affect as many cars as we think.
An interesting look at which cities are the top-spending ones and which are at the bottom (excluding housing). It’s interesting, but I don’t know what it’s telling us. A city with affordable housing that allows people to spend more money on other things takes the top of the list while a city with unaffordable housing takes the bottom. However, a city that’s otherwise expensive takes the top and a city with a low cost-of-living takes the bottom. So where is it good to be? If Detroit’s on the bottom, I guess it’s probably better to be on top.
Why we should welcome carry-on fees.
A piece about Google’s business dealings in China delivers a very good point: “Google is not being criticized because they did business in China. Google is being criticized for having moral standards in the first place. If they had just kept their mouths shut and kept their eyes on the bottom line, like every other company in America, there would be no hypocrisy, and the critics would have nothing to complain about. Judging hypocrisy is easy. Judging the morality of doing business in China, well, that would take some real work. We can’t judge people for that because every company, every government and every individual in the world is dependent on China to some degree.”
A bunch of writers list a bunch of do’s and don’ts about writing. Some interesting, albeit contradictory, advice. (Part One, Part Two)
This is a common subject of interest around these here parts. Basically, having an attractive partner makes you more attractive. The results held more true for women than for men. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that romantic tastes are often subjective, so people are susceptible to outside influences. While there are some physical features that are attractive across cultures, men and women both take cultural cues as to what does and does not constitute attractiveness.
Web and I go back and forth on massive weight loss and how obtainable a goal it is. We’re not going to rehash that right now, but I do think there is something to this. Even if weightloss is as universally possible as Web suggests, the best approach from individual to individual may be radically different. This even leaves aside something that seems to me to be self-evidently true, which is that for a weight-loss program to work an individual has to be able to stick to it and what is a realistic plan for one person may be unrealistic for another (but the latter of whom may have a plan that the first couldn’t accomplish).
If Clancy and I end up staying in Callie, it seems more likely than not I am going to be a stay-at-home dad. So I found this interesting… and disconcerting. There’s a lot to like about Callie. The biggest concern I have so far is social isolation and that’s without considering this.
Re Google, its belated outrage at China’s censorship is likely a fig leaf for its real reason for backing away from the Chinese market: Baidu is eating its lunch there.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — April 16, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
This is a common subject of interest around these here parts. Basically, having an attractive partner makes you more attractive. The results held more true for women than for men.
The results held more true for women’s reactions. Women are easily swayed, or take a more nuanced view, depending on how you feel about that sort of thing.
…male volunteers were interested in attractive women regardless of their partners, female volunteers were more skeptical of attractive men if they were paired with unappealing companions.
Not that it really matters, most people are after
dudes or chicks, not both. I should also point out that pickup dudes discovered that, and they call it preselection. Then again, I’m commenting on a blog at almost midnight on a Friday night, so I’m not exactly an expert.
Comment by rob — April 16, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
The results held more true for women’s reactions. Women are easily swayed, or take a more nuanced view, depending on how you feel about that sort of thing.
Correct! My wording was unintentionally deceptive as I switched what I was talking about mid-paragraph (I do that with annoy frequency - usually the result of going back and editing something without reading it through at the end). I wish they had explained how different the results were.
Women are easily swayed, or take a more nuanced view, depending on how you feel about that sort of thing.
My guess is that it’s related to the overstated but true tendency of men to look at appearance first and women to think more “whole package”. Women are looking for more context clues.
I should also point out that pickup dudes discovered that, and they call it preselection.
It makes a good deal of sense. Particularly when we don’t know somebody and are looking to fill in gaps. I wonder if there is a study done within a group. Would a so-so guy in a buddy pic surrounded by attractive guys be off-putting because they don’t look as good in comparison? Or would they score points for being well-adjusted enough to have attractive friends? My guess is actually the former for men appraising women but the latter for women appraising men (though not to the same degree as having an attractive girlfriend).
Comment by trumwill — April 16, 2010 @ 11:46 pm
The Bank of Mom and Dad is an interesting article. Of course, there’s no mention of any of the youngsters joining the military, or getting a CDL, or simply going to a technical school. Sheesh…talk about kids having high expectations.
Also, I was floored by the fact that one family’s $250k nest egg would only get the two kids halfway through college. That’s about $60k/year, per kid. That is one expensive college.
Comment by Kirk — April 17, 2010 @ 10:34 am
I was sure the Bank of Mom and Dad article was going to be something from the Onion.
Comment by rob — April 17, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
“The biggest concern I have so far is social isolation and that’s without considering this.”
If you want to be socially active, then don’t bother with babies at all.
Seriously, you’d probably find the same restrictions as a mom out there. There probably aren’t that many educated, over-30 moms either. The dad in the article may be overestimating the camaraderie among mothers in general, or he may live in one of those few super-trendy areas that is very upscale and social.
Once your kids get independent enough to join things, it gets better. Or so I hear.
My dad used to make similar points about some women acting a bit threatened by a man raising children. Some like to think it’s their special turf. My theory about why breastfeeding has gotten so trendy in some circles is that it’s the one surefire way to exclude the man. Men can do everything else involved in raising a child. It makes the child absolutely dependent on the mom, so it helps allay any doubts or insecurities she has about being a stay-at-home-mom.
Comment by stone — April 17, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
The google Baidu relationship pre-pullout was rather complicated. Google was actually doing pretty well. While Baidu may have been the overall market leader, Google had a large and successful portion of the market; it just didn’t have the pirated mp3’s and other content that baidu provides. Baidu’s such a poor service anyway. It’s likely one of the other e-commerce titans will dethrone it now that google isn’t around.
Comment by ecco — April 17, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
“Baidu’s such a poor service anyway. It’s likely one of the other e-commerce titans will dethrone it now that google isn’t around.”
Maybe, but something tells me it will be a Chinese company that does. I don’t think the Chinese government liked the idea of Google dominating its market.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — April 17, 2010 @ 9:34 pm