I really enjoyed reading Captain Gopinath’s post on Arvind Kejriwal’s dharna, and I thought it made a lot of sense and is also a great refresher that supporting a party doesn’t equate to supporting every single thing they do.
An interesting article that touches upon the structural changes the brain undergoes as it ages.
I was amazed to read that there is a 3D printer that can actually print in carbon fibre.
Sad, and shocking to learn that the richest 85 individuals control half the world’s wealth.
What you are worth to Facebook?
This is a very useful Outlook trick, and I’d recommend spending the two minutes it takes to set up this folder, it will help you tremendously.
Finally, this video of reigning World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen beating Bill Gates in 12 seconds will bring a smile to your face.
“Sad, and shocking to learn that the richest 85 individuals control half the world’s wealth.”
Why is it sad? I don’t understand the fuss about wealth inequality. If the median and lower quartiles, deciles (whatever cutoff one wants to look at) is high enough for a decent life then how does it matter how high or low inequality is? Should it matter to a person (and to the world) if he/she has 1 million vs 1 billion?
But is that the reality we live in? Of course not, and that is why it is sad and shocking.
a) whether or not that is the reality, what does it have to do with inequality of the distribution?
b) and, it is the reality!! the median has been going up in the last 50-100 years. Didn’t Bill Gates say recently that poverty will soon be eliminated in another couple of decades.
c) The point of the comment was that there is a link made between how inequal a distribution is vs how the lower quartile is doing, which is misleading because it only means that they are doing worse off relatively, even though they might be doing fine in an absolute sense.
d) that’s not to say that inequality is not a problem. But, it is a problem in a Kahneman-esque irrational behavior sense. If two people have $100 they are both happy. If one has $200 but the other has $400 then even though both are better off (as compared to having $100 each), the one with $200 feels unhappy because he doesn’t have as much as the other guy. That’s a social problem also referred to as the keeping up with the Joneses syndrome.
e) but it is not a problem in the sense of linking poverty and inequality (as in the example, they both have more!). The state of the poor is better understood by looking at absolute measures rather than relative measures. For example, I should not judge my well being by whether my wealth is rising relative to Bill Gates’ wealth, but whether I have enough wealth to live a decent life. Beyond that point, it is a Kahneman social stability problem but not a poverty problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/26/bill-gates-reasons-to-be-cheerful-editorial