"Very important. General rule for English speakers - if you don’t do it in the human context, don’t do it in the nonhuman context.
Just make a little effort to say “she or he” or “her or him” if you don’t know the sex. It’s a little effort with a very important social message.
Nonhuman animals are *persons*, not *things*. Therefore, we should refer to a nonhuman animal as a “she” or “he,” never as an “it.””
I think it’ll get over it.
In the second chapter of Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Knight discusses two theories of profit—both of which he regards as wrong, but both of which point towards the correct theory of entrepreneurial profit under perfect competition.
It should be stressed that we are imagining a pure…
Reblogged for future reading
I would like the ability (without using x-kit and the like) to filter all posts on my dashboard by the post type, such as text, image, quote, link, chat, audio, video.
The fact that I can’t filter posts makes me not want to follow more people because it will just clutter up my dashboard even…
>deconstruction of Tumblr
OH MY GOD WHY, WHY DO YOU DO THIS ON A SITE WITH 13 YEAR OLDS WHO WILL ACTUALLY TRY THIS, STOP
Well, I’m not saying it’s the smartest thing to do, but putting a fork in the outlet like in the picture won’t shock you. Electricity needs to flow through a circuit, and a circuit is only completed if you have a conductor that connects the right to the left side of the outlet. Basically, as long as you aren’t stupid enough to stick the fork through both hole at the same time, no current flows.
And even if you complete the circuit on accident, outlets are designed to have enough voltage to power appliances without having enough pose a serious threat to life (it’ll still hurt like hell).
edit: I took a second look at the picture. If the end of the fork gets inserted into the ground, that will complete the circuit.
Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy - of Bundy Ranch - wins in his standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management when Sen.
Rationale: Schumpeter is one of the few economists who you never hear a bad word about. Aside from perhaps Murray Rothbard, who isn’t really respected outside Austrian circles, I have yet to stumble upon an economist who is truly critical of Schumpeter’s work. However, it is my belief that the only reason why Schumpeter’s theories have received so little criticism is because his arguments are so assertive, his conclusions so unfalsifiable, his economics so metaphysical, that it is hardly worth critiquing. Of course, his theories do provide interesting points to think about, but until somebody can adapt his theories to fit more formal testing, the value I see in Schumpeter’s work is largely esoteric.
… watch your back in theater 9 Mr. Peabody
u walk in the theater and the lights dim, frozen comes on screen, u sit through the movie, it was so good, u get up to leave but the lights have not risen, frozen is starting over on the screen, u briskly make your way to the exit and the attendant shoves you back inside the theater, don’t you wanna see your movie? he says, you claw at the door as frozen repeats over and over again behind you, elsa telling you to just let it go, your tears turn into tiny snowflakes, on the 3rd day people are eating the theater cushions, you have given up any hope of escape, you sing along quietly for the 43rd time, let it go..let it goo…
Kate of Eat the Damn Cake, The Stupidity of “Natural” Beauty (via theimperfectascent)
I lost whole years of my life to self-loathing and self-sabotaging because I couldn’t sustain being ‘gifted’. Don’t make the same mistake.
This is so, so important for teachers to understand. I try, in every report card, to focus on effort, not natural ability. And you know what? It makes a big difference in my classroom.
W. Brian Arthur, Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought
I think what this quote should show are the limits of defining rationality in a strict Bayesian adjustments fashion.