One: Ghost an op-ed that states Airbnb isn’t much more than lower-risk, sometimes-accidental real-estate speculation in order to make a broader point about the so-called sharing economy.
Two: Have two well-targeted outlets pass on said op-ed. Shrug. It happens.
Three: Read in Slate today: “It didn’t take long for the original hosts of the so-called sharing economy to find themselves competing with enterprising property owners.” Recognize this as the same essential point your piece made and be all like, “what the fuck?”
Four: Groan and wish for a second that you’d decided to work on cars for a living, which was the original plan, instead.
Or for god’s sake look at last year, he came out to a locker room of young SEC players and none of them gave a damn. How much of a distraction was he? Missouri went 12-2 and shocked everyone and Sam was voted MVP. Some distraction.
A vast majority of players won’t give a shit. This worry of poisoning a locker room is a myth. It’s the conservative mind set of the NFL management that is a greater threat. Thank God for Michael Sam, who will soon show how full of shit these anonymous assholes truly are.
”—A Deadspin commenter on Michael Sam, an NFL prospect who came out publicly over the weekend.
There’s a slice of the population, whether it’s the top 1% or .01% or whatever, that doesn’t just have more stuff and money. The sheer scale of the difference means they live what is simply a qualitatively different kind of existence. That gulf creates estrangement and alienation, and one of a particular sort in a democracy where such a minuscule sliver of the population can’t hope to protect itself alone at the ballot box.
“Online, each story is at best its own magazine, sent out to find its own temporary audience. … The author and the story choose their audience, and the editor’s role is to begin the conversation over who will read and share the piece — not to rework it for the group of people who happen to subscribe to your magazine.”—Ben Smith: What The Longform Backlash Is All About
“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”—President Obama
“They introduce themselves as pro-life. And I say, ‘Oh, I’m so glad. You must be fighting for healthcare for the poor.’ And they look at me like I’m bonkers.”—Sheila Walsh, a Catholic nun. The quote’s from 2002, but you really wouldn’t know it. (via ereyes312)
“If he can’t even bully one little small-town mayor into submission by oppressing his constituents and get away with it, how can we reasonably believe he’s politically skilled enough to cover up national scandals like orchestrating a foreign war, illegally colluding with big business, or violating the civil liberties of millions of Americans? It’s a little scary, to be honest.”—The Onion
In a sense, the tech companies [targeted] are more like the NSA than they would like to think. Both have seized on the progress in computing, communications, and storage to advance their respective missions. (When you think of it, Google’s original mission statement—“to collect and organize the world’s information”—might also apply to the activity at Fort Meade.) Both have sought to fulfill those missions by amassing huge troves of personal information—and both offer trade-offs that seemingly justify the practice. Google, Facebook, and others argue that they can use that information to improve the lives of their customers far in excess of any discomfort that may come from sharing that data. The NSA believes that it’s necessary to draw on that information to prevent a replay of 9/11 or worse. Both have established elaborate self-policing procedures to minimize abuse and claim to strictly follow the external constraints that limit their activities. When either makes a mistake, it invariably vows to do better—at least when its overreaches become public. Of course, the comparison goes only so far. If the NSA doesn’t connect the dots, the door is open to catastrophe.
Still others are drawn to South Dakota’s iron-clad secrecy, and protections of trust assets from creditors and ex-wives. Many of these features emulate those available in Bermuda and other island havens. Some wealthy families are also attracted by South Dakota rules that enhance their control over investment decisions and make it easier for them to set up their own trust companies rather than rely on a bank trustee.
In South Dakota, a farm state that’s home to two of the 10 poorest counties in the U.S., lawmakers say they’re bolstering the trust industry to generate work for local law firms and bankers, and forge ties with prosperous families that may one day decide to build a factory or a warehouse here. The legislators are turning the Mount Rushmore State into the Bermuda of the prairie.
“If a few academic researchers can get this far this quickly, it’s difficult to believe the NSA would have any trouble identifying the overwhelming majority of American phone numbers.”—Stanford researchers who found the NSA can probably identify individuals based on the metadata the agency is allegedly collecting and retaining.
A spokesperson for Coin, a product that digitally consolidates users’ credit and bank card information so they only have to carry one piece of plastic. But the product’s terms of service states: “You are solely responsible for your own losses or losses incurred by Coin and others due to any unauthorized use of your account.” So if the company’s data isn’t secure, apparently that’s the users’ fault.
“The people to whom GiveDirectly is sending money know if it’s better to spend an extra dollar on an iron roof or on school tuition for their kids or on livestock. This is borne out both in the recent randomized evaluation of GiveDirectly and in the voluminous literature on cash transfers (unconditional and conditional) more generally.”—Dylan Matthews: The Wonkblog Guide to Holiday Giving
The key to growth is not getting people to consume as much as possible. Consumption that supports the economy is predictable and smooth throughout people’s lives, not as high as possible in a single year then collapsing when they fall on hard times or retire without any money. For firms to invest more, and create jobs, they need confidence that there will be a market for them next week, next year, and in the long term.