Skeptical Economist, prof. Collegium Mesozoicum

Ludzi powaliło.

BOOM! Od pewnego czasu ludzie piszą takie tłity. Jedno zdanie - jedna linijka. Odstęp między wierszami jest obowiązkowy. Ma to dość oczywiste, ale w gruncie rzeczy rewolucyjne konsekwencje. Niesamowicie mnie to wkurwia. Twórcy kontentu muszą brać to pod uwagę.

The Olaf animatronic at Disney Adventure World has had its first public malfunction. (Source: magictourclub/TikTok)

It's common in third world countries for the Ivy/Oxbridge-educated elites to pretend they believe in peasant folklore.

Pełnoskalowa inwazja jest tylko wtedy, gdy dowódca pochodzi w pełni z Gór Skalistych. W przeciwnym przypadku jest to zagraniczna akcja policyjna o ograniczonym czasowo i geograficznie zakresie wypełniająca warunki nakreślone w ustawie z 1816 r.

Why are dogs in Poland so commonly called 'Hodge'? I even saw a woman with two dogs in the park. They ran off in different directions, she called out this common name "Hodge" and the first one came to her. Then she called out "Hodge 2" and the second one came back. Ok fair enough if the name is really popular and great for our four legged friends use it I don't mind that much but why not give the poor second dog a different name like Fluffy or Rex or something? Must get confusing like in families where the son is named after the dad or something.

Tough camera angle.

Widziałem dzisiaj Hindusa w taksówce z rejestracją W1 SINGH. Asymilują się.

found something rather baffling when researching my column this week… I wanted to see if there was any evidence that AI tools were helping economists to make their research more readable. So I analysed the text of NBER working paper abstracts…

Służby antykoncepcyjne.

Iran nie ma kart i upiera się przy nierealistycznych scenariuszach, zachęcany przez podżegaczy z Moskwy i Pekinu. Humanitarnym rozwiązaniem jest zawarcie pokoju z USA i Izraelem, demilitaryzacja i federalizacja państwa i przyjęcie gwarancji bezpieczeństwa od światowych mocarstw.

Niestety, kontynuacja wojny jest na rękę teherańskiemu reżimowi, bo uzasadnia jego istnienie. Co więcej, wojna spaja i pozwala realizować interesy irańskich skorumpowanych elit, które znajdują coraz to nowe sposoby na defraudację kapitału z zagranicy.

Iran powinien zawrzeć pokój i zakończyć rozlew krwi w tym bezsensownym konflikcie. Wiadomo, że nie ma szans w starciu z USA a przedłużanie wojny rujnuje gospodarczo inne kraje, zwłaszcza Europę.

Dyskusja o SAFE pięknie się w to wpisała, btw.

Kij tam z osiedlem (wygląda przeciętnie), ale o co chodzi z samochodami? Dlaczego wszystkie samochody są od kilkunastu lat niemal wyłącznie białe albo szare? > jaki masz samochód? > biały > wooooow, edgy

@yrilibek Nie ma kolumienek, portyków, sztukaterii, okiennic i posągów.

Co wam się znowu nie podoba?

Podobno wydawnictwo @Przeswity jest zakontraktowane na autobiografię dr JJOZ.

„ai nie zabierze ci pracy”

One of the more frustrating trends in public life over the past decade is how people who lead failing institutions blame social media for their failures. A university president whose faculty have become political activists instead of educators and whose administrators multiply like rabbits will tell you that “misinformation on social networks” is eroding public trust in higher education. An editor whose publication lost its readership will claim that the real problem is X, rather than consider that the publication became boring, that the writing was uniformly uninspired, and that it stopped covering anything that mattered. A politician who loses an election will blame Meta algorithms rather than admit that voters simply did not like what was offered. A central banker whose institution missed the worst inflation in 40 years will worry publicly about TikTok videos spreading financial illiteracy. The pattern is always the same. The institution fails at its core mission. The public notices. The people in charge, rather than examining what went wrong, identify an external force that is “polarizing.” The diagnosis is never “we did a poor job.” It is never “we lost our audience because we gave them nothing worth reading.” The diagnosis is always “bad actors are distorting the conversation.” This is not new, of course. Before social media, talk radio was the scapegoat. Before talk radio, it was television. Before television, it was tabloid newspapers. Every generation of leaders has found a communication technology to blame for people’s loss of trust in them. What is new is the intensity and the shamelessness. Over the last few years, “social media” has become a universal excuse that requires no evidence and tolerates no scrutiny. It is deployed reflexively. The people who make this argument never seem to ask the obvious question: why are people on social networks so receptive to criticism of your institution in the first place? If your university were delivering excellent education at a reasonable price, no number of tweets would persuade parents otherwise. If your publication were covering important questions with clarity and substance, readers would not have migrated elsewhere. If the work you showcased were serious rather than trivial, people would still be paying attention. Trust is not destroyed by social media. Trust is destroyed by poor performance, and social media makes it harder to hide. That is a different thing entirely, and the people running these institutions know it, which is what makes the excuse so cynical. The honest version of the argument would be: “We used to be able to fail quietly because there was no mechanism for people to compare notes. Now there is, and we do not like it.” That, at least, would have the virtue of being true.