Leave a comment

Comments 10

gonzo21 April 19 2014, 11:42:51 UTC
Oh wow, stunning photos, I'd been hoping another LJ filled with amazing photos would surface to replace that epraksina one that died. Good find. Thanks. :)

Reply

andrewducker April 20 2014, 11:40:00 UTC
Yeah, Apraksina moved to their own domain, LJ kept banning RSS from them, I read them over on DW for a while, and then their domain died too!

Reply

gonzo21 April 21 2014, 11:53:24 UTC
Victim of their own success perhaps? Or maybe they just got bored of running the blog. Was very good while it lasted though.

Shame LJ killed it off. You'd think they'd be clinging to every content provider they still have, irrespective of any minor copyright infringing that might be going on.

Reply

andrewducker April 21 2014, 11:59:45 UTC
LJ were hit with multiple DMCA takedowns - they have to comply with those.

Reply


drdoug April 20 2014, 06:06:31 UTC
The lies to kids are amusing, although I'd argue that 15's explanation (on not allowed to walk to school) is a bit of a simplification. The scope for deviating seriously from social norms about parenting is limited, particularly regarding perceived danger for the child. My kids could walk to school on their own, but I don't let them, because no other children their age turn up at school unaccompanied and I am fairly confident that there would be Trouble (in the Social Services Dept sense, and social ostracism) in a way I do not think would enhance their abilities to do stuff they want to do. Also, they are simply not allowed off the premises at the end of the day without a pre-designated adult to pick them up. I think this is an overreaction, but there isn't scope to change it unilaterally. Most of the fear behind this one is stranger danger/pedophile panic, which is massively overestimated ( ... )

Reply

andrewducker April 20 2014, 11:41:48 UTC
Yeah, society has changed dramatically over time. By the time I was 11 I was getting the train one town over to visit a friend to roleplay. Nowadays that seems less likely.

Reply


cairmen April 21 2014, 11:30:10 UTC
Interesting corollary to the sexism article: this gives a very reliable (if the data is accurate) rule of thumb to use when investing in stocks, picking actively managed funds, etc.

Pick the ones run by women.

Obviously it won't work every time, but if the figures quoted in the article are accurate on a larger scale, that's a hell of a competitive edge. And it's also one that most people won't take advantage of thanks to subconscious sexism.

(Over time, if this works, it should also provide a powerful counteractive force to institutional sexism. There wouldn't need to be too many FT / Wall Street Journal / Economist articles saying "invest in companies with more female board members, because of graphs" for boards to start looking to hire more women...)

Reply

andrewducker April 21 2014, 12:00:13 UTC
That's a very good point!

Reply

danieldwilliam April 22 2014, 13:00:49 UTC
The trick will be to know when to get out of the long-women market.

The ability to predict the downfall fo the patriarchy and its replacement by actual capitalism might be the difference between being able to afford to live in the coming robot heaven or being consigned to the welfare housing of tomorrow.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up