Is this New York Times piece, entitled Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek, what the future of online journalism looks like?
Development (and redevelopment) is messy and complicated. Here’s how it’s been going in Haiti since 2010.
What would you do if you found $10 on the street? Your options are to give it to a hotdog vender or to a beggar (or to find some creative way out of the dilemma). I appreciated author Barbara Ehrenreich’s response.
Although I’m atheist, I defer to Jesus on beggar-related matters. He said, if a man asks for your coat, give him your cloak too. (Actually, he said if a man “sue thee at the law” for the coat, but most beggars skip the legal process.) Jesus did not say: First, administer a breathalyzer test to the supplicant, or, first, sit him down for a pep talk on “focus” and “goal-setting.” He said: Give him the damn coat.
And that of Nassim Taleb.
This question is invalid and answers to it would not provide useful information…I told Stephen that my allergy to economists was on moral, ethical, religious, and aesthetics grounds. But here is another, central reason: what I call “ludicity,” or the “ludic fallacy” (from the Latin ludes, meaning “games”). It corresponds to the set-up of situations in academic-style multiple choice questions, made to resemble “games” with crisp, unambiguous rules. These rules are divorced from both their environment and their ecology. Yet decision-making on Planet Earth does not usually involve exam-style multiple choice questions isolated from their context — which is why school-smart kids don’t do as well as their street-wise cousins. And, if people often sometimes appear inconsistent, as shown in many “puzzles,” it is often because it is the exam itself that is wrong. Dan Goldstein calls this problem “ecological invalidity.”