Ulysse Sabbagh

Jason Kottke gathered some of the best reads on gun control. So I’m not going to reinvent the wheel here. 

We start off with an article published in the New Yorker which asks us to think about what will it take to make gun control happen:

What does it take? If a congresswoman in a coma isn’t sufficient grounds to reevaluate the role that firearms play in our national life, is a schoolhouse full of dead children? I desperately want to believe that it is, and yet I’m not sure that I do. By this time next week, most of the people who are, today, signing petitions and demanding gun control will have moved on to other things. If you want to understand why the gun debate can occasionally feel rigged, this is the answer: the issue is characterized by a conspicuous asymmetry of fervor. The N.R.A. has only four million members – a number that is probably dwarfed by the segment of the U.S. population that feels uneasy about the unbridled proliferation of firearms. But the pro-gun constituency is ardent and organized, while the gun control crowd is diffuse and easily distracted. In the 2012 election cycle, N.R.A. spending on lobbying outranked spending by gun control groups by a factor of ten to one.

Then Gary Wills, in the New York Review of Books argues that American children are being sacrificed to “our great god Gun”. In the Bible, God said: “you shall have no other gods before me”; he was also talking about Moloch, a God worshipped by the Phoenicians and Canaanites who was associated with the sacrifice of children. For Wills, the gun is America’s Moloch:

Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains-“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily-sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).

The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?

Very pessimistic, sadly realistic. His theory fits the reality really well. 

Next up, Firmin DeBrabander writes for The Stone (NYT blog of philosophers who write on timely and timeless issues) and says that an armed society isn’t such a beautiful ideal of society:

Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name – that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly – not make any sudden, unexpected moves – and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

Finally, James Fallows a veteran writer for The Atlantic said Americans should be talking about gun safety and not gun control:

I will henceforth and only talk about “gun safety” as a goal for America, as opposed to “gun control.” I have no abstract interest in “controlling” someone else’s ability to own a gun. I have a very powerful, direct, and legitimate interest in the consequences of others’ gun ownership – namely that we change America’s outlier status as site of most of the world’s mass shootings. No reasonable gun-owner can disagree with steps to make gun use safer and more responsible. This also shifts the discussion to the realm of the incremental, the feasible, and the effective.

A more optimistic view. 

I’m not American. I live in France and in England. And something strikes me: why aren’t we blaming the recent events that occurred in America on the country’s relative youth? Saying that some countries are younger than others isn’t condescending. European countries made mistakes centuries after centuries and remained unabashed.
The United States of America were created about 230 years ago. And 230 years after their creation, most Western European countries were still killing each other (with swords and the like).

History doesn’t make itself and change will not happen if no one is here to… well, make it happen. But if there’s one thing I’m sure about, deep down, is that one day, the United States will be a land free of guns for sale in shopping malls and children killed by too-easily-gunned-up madmen. The sooner the better. 

Jason Kottke gathered some of the best reads on gun control. So I’m not going to reinvent the wheel here. 

We start off with an article published in the New Yorker which asks us to think about what will it take to make gun control happen:

What does it take? If a congresswoman in a coma isn’t sufficient grounds to reevaluate the role that firearms play in our national life, is a schoolhouse full of dead children? I desperately want to believe that it is, and yet I’m not sure that I do. By this time next week, most of the people who are, today, signing petitions and demanding gun control will have moved on to other things. If you want to understand why the gun debate can occasionally feel rigged, this is the answer: the issue is characterized by a conspicuous asymmetry of fervor. The N.R.A. has only four million members – a number that is probably dwarfed by the segment of the U.S. population that feels uneasy about the unbridled proliferation of firearms. But the pro-gun constituency is ardent and organized, while the gun control crowd is diffuse and easily distracted. In the 2012 election cycle, N.R.A. spending on lobbying outranked spending by gun control groups by a factor of ten to one.

Then Gary Wills, in the New York Review of Books argues that American children are being sacrificed to “our great god Gun”. In the Bible, God said: “you shall have no other gods before me”; he was also talking about Moloch, a God worshipped by the Phoenicians and Canaanites who was associated with the sacrifice of children. For Wills, the gun is America’s Moloch:

Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains-“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily-sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).

The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?

Very pessimistic, sadly realistic. His theory fits the reality really well. 

Next up, Firmin DeBrabander writes for The Stone (NYT blog of philosophers who write on timely and timeless issues) and says that an armed society isn’t such a beautiful ideal of society:

Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name – that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly – not make any sudden, unexpected moves – and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

Finally, James Fallows a veteran writer for The Atlantic said Americans should be talking about gun safety and not gun control:

I will henceforth and only talk about “gun safety” as a goal for America, as opposed to “gun control.” I have no abstract interest in “controlling” someone else’s ability to own a gun. I have a very powerful, direct, and legitimate interest in the consequences of others’ gun ownership – namely that we change America’s outlier status as site of most of the world’s mass shootings. No reasonable gun-owner can disagree with steps to make gun use safer and more responsible. This also shifts the discussion to the realm of the incremental, the feasible, and the effective.

A more optimistic view. 

I’m not American. I live in France and in England. And something strikes me: why aren’t we blaming the recent events that occurred in America on the country’s relative youth? Saying that some countries are younger than others isn’t condescending. European countries made mistakes centuries after centuries and remained unabashed.
The United States of America were created about 230 years ago. And 230 years after their creation, most Western European countries were still killing each other (with swords and the like).

History doesn’t make itself and change will not happen if no one is here to… well, make it happen. But if there’s one thing I’m sure about, deep down, is that one day, the United States will be a land free of guns for sale in shopping malls and children killed by too-easily-gunned-up madmen. The sooner the better. 

How to avoid work: a 1949 guide to doing what you love

How to avoid work: a 1949 guide to doing what you love

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/12/14/how-to-avoid-work/

Brilliant book, written by William J. Reilly in 1949 and brilliant article, written by Maria Popova on her blog, Brain Pickings. 

Here is what she has to say about it:

A short guide to finding your purpose and doing what you love. Despite the occasional vintage self-helpism of the tone, the book is remarkable for many reasons — written at the dawn of the American corporate era and the golden age of the housewife, it not only encouraged people of all ages to pursue their passions over conventional, safe occupations, but it also spoke to both men and women with equal regard.

Interesting piece published in the New Yorker by John Cassidy. He takes a very offensive stance against austerity economics. 

In his article, Cassidy argues that George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been forced to admit that his government failed to validate targets it set to itself in June 2010:

Back then, Osborne said that his austerity policies would cut his country’s budget deficit to zero within four years, enable Britain to begin relieving itself of its public debt, and generate healthy economic growth. None of these things have happened. Britain’s deficit remains stubbornly high, its people have been suffering through a double-dip recession, and many observers now expect the country to lose its “AAA” credit rating.

A little bit of macroeconomics: 

At every stage of the experiment, critics (myself included) have warned that Osborne’s austerity policies would prove self-defeating. Any decent economics textbook will tell you that, other things being equal, cutting government spending causes the economy’s overall output to fall, tax revenues to decrease, and spending on benefits to increase. Almost invariably, the end result is slower growth (or a recession) and high budget deficits. Osborne, relying on arguments about restoring the confidence of investors and businessmen that his forebears at the U.K. Treasury used during the early nineteen-thirties against Keynes, insisted (and continues to insist) otherwise, but he has been proven wrong.

Interesting piece published in the New Yorker by John Cassidy. He takes a very offensive stance against austerity economics. 

In his article, Cassidy argues that George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been forced to admit that his government failed to validate targets it set to itself in June 2010:

Back then, Osborne said that his austerity policies would cut his country’s budget deficit to zero within four years, enable Britain to begin relieving itself of its public debt, and generate healthy economic growth. None of these things have happened. Britain’s deficit remains stubbornly high, its people have been suffering through a double-dip recession, and many observers now expect the country to lose its “AAA” credit rating.

A little bit of macroeconomics: 

At every stage of the experiment, critics (myself included) have warned that Osborne’s austerity policies would prove self-defeating. Any decent economics textbook will tell you that, other things being equal, cutting government spending causes the economy’s overall output to fall, tax revenues to decrease, and spending on benefits to increase. Almost invariably, the end result is slower growth (or a recession) and high budget deficits. Osborne, relying on arguments about restoring the confidence of investors and businessmen that his forebears at the U.K. Treasury used during the early nineteen-thirties against Keynes, insisted (and continues to insist) otherwise, but he has been proven wrong.

“Brian’s insight is that in a world of loudest and fastest, he has turned it down, doing it slow and doing it right,” Mr. Sicha said. “And by being consumer facing, he doesn’t have to have monster numbers. The people come ready to buy.” In fact, 10 to 20 percent of its visitors click on links, a rate that would make ad sellers drool. Mr. Lam hardly invented the model. The Web is full of mom-and-pop shops that live on referral fees for things like pet supplies and camping gear. Many companies also pay for referrals — eBay, Half.com, even retailers like Gap and Old Navy. A business that used to be mired in spam is becoming far more legitimate.

Great story about Brian Lam, former Gizmodo editor and now owner of a very nifty website called the Wirecutter. I wrote about it on Warston over a year ago:

Its purpose is fairly straightforward: on the website, you’ll find a list of the best gadgets for a proper category. The thing is that categories aren’t merely named after a certain function, like Printers. The categories are rather named after the consumer interpretation of the product. 

“Brian’s insight is that in a world of loudest and fastest, he has turned it down, doing it slow and doing it right,” Mr. Sicha said. “And by being consumer facing, he doesn’t have to have monster numbers. The people come ready to buy.” In fact, 10 to 20 percent of its visitors click on links, a rate that would make ad sellers drool. Mr. Lam hardly invented the model. The Web is full of mom-and-pop shops that live on referral fees for things like pet supplies and camping gear. Many companies also pay for referrals — eBay, Half.com, even retailers like Gap and Old Navy. A business that used to be mired in spam is becoming far more legitimate.

The last few days were about eating well, exchanging gifts and spending some nice relaxing time. I hope it’s been like that for you too.

The frenzied publishing rhythm of Warston shall start again. 

The last few days were about eating well, exchanging gifts and spending some nice relaxing time. I hope it’s been like that for you too.

The frenzied publishing rhythm of Warston shall start again. 

theeconomist:

Daily chart: doomsday predictions have a very long history.

Did you think you weren’t able to call people on board a plane because your phone was interfering with the weird stuff inside the cockpit? Think again.

Excellent article on The Economist’s tech blog, Babbage:

Intentional transmitters, like mobile phones, two-way pagers and walkie-talkies, present a different sort of problem. With these, engineers worry about the so-called “near-far” effect. Even if below permitted levels, any spurious emissions they might produce would occur close to an aircraft’s avionics, compared with the weak signal from a ground-based radio beacon hundreds of kilometres away, or the whispers from a GPS satellite thousands of kilometres up in space. The concern here is that weak, distant signals might be drowned out as a navigation receiver captures a spurious signal that may also be weak but is significantly closer.

Did you think you weren’t able to call people on board a plane because your phone was interfering with the weird stuff inside the cockpit? Think again.

Excellent article on The Economist’s tech blog, Babbage:

Intentional transmitters, like mobile phones, two-way pagers and walkie-talkies, present a different sort of problem. With these, engineers worry about the so-called “near-far” effect. Even if below permitted levels, any spurious emissions they might produce would occur close to an aircraft’s avionics, compared with the weak signal from a ground-based radio beacon hundreds of kilometres away, or the whispers from a GPS satellite thousands of kilometres up in space. The concern here is that weak, distant signals might be drowned out as a navigation receiver captures a spurious signal that may also be weak but is significantly closer.

What The Beatles can teach us about entrepreneurship

What The Beatles can teach us about entrepreneurship

http://www.ridinginshoppingcarts.com/post/37985541106/what-the-beatles-can-teach-us-about-entrepreneurship

ridinginshoppingcarts:

For example, did you know that in less than 2 weeks since the Beatles arrived to the US for the first time, Americans had bought $2.5 million worth of merchandise  One typical item was an ice cream sandwich called “Beatle Nut”, another popular one was a wig in the style of their haircut at that time (one newspaper described them as “75% publicity, 20% haircut, and 5% lilting lament”).

Fine article which mixes what The Beatles did with insightful business lessons for your startup. Also no one misses out a post which “Beatles” and “entrepreneur” in its title (speaking for me). 

LocalUncle is an iPhone app made by a Swiss startup that wants to apply the power of crowdsourced, location-specific information to crack real-time questions & answers. What is the Wi-Fi password at the local hotel? Where can I find cat food in Dresden? All that and more can come from the digital lips of your LocalUncle.

Excellent idea, nicely implemented and the design looks good. 

LocalUncle is an iPhone app made by a Swiss startup that wants to apply the power of crowdsourced, location-specific information to crack real-time questions & answers. What is the Wi-Fi password at the local hotel? Where can I find cat food in Dresden? All that and more can come from the digital lips of your LocalUncle.

Robert Sapolsky, a renowned neurobiologist gives the introductory lecture on human behavioral biology in Stanford University.

If the name seems boring, fear not; this course is about the subtle and complex relationship that exists between biology and the mind. It’s great to see this kind of courses available for free on the Web. 

My words are meaningless so if you want to watch a very good lecturer giving a very good lecture on a very interesting subject, click play. 

Read more here. 

Robert Sapolsky, a renowned neurobiologist gives the introductory lecture on human behavioral biology in Stanford University.

If the name seems boring, fear not; this course is about the subtle and complex relationship that exists between biology and the mind. It’s great to see this kind of courses available for free on the Web. 

My words are meaningless so if you want to watch a very good lecturer giving a very good lecture on a very interesting subject, click play. 

Read more here.