In addition to a touching personal tribute, this article also illustrates the jobs crisis for PhD graduates. Someone who started his career in the 1950s works into his eighties, teaching from hospital, and dies less than a week after retiring. This is not a good model, and a good argument for mandatory retirement ages.
I think others have given good recommendations, but will add the Atlantic and New Yorker.
Also agree that a problem with The Economist is that it is always overtly pushing a particular view of the view world (rooted in a faith in the rationality of markets), which is coupled with fairly strong advice/prescriptions in much of the writing.
I kinda have the exact same experience with The Atlantic as OP does with The Economist. I used to read it regularly but now it feels there's 5% good articles and 95% some kind of highbrow clickbait.
On the front page now:
1. Seven books that will make you smarter
2. Whoops, I Deleted My Life
3. How Much Would You Pay to Save Your Cat’s Life?
4. The Strength of the ‘Soft Daddy’
5. The Black Investors Who Were Burned by Bitcoin
Etc.
These don't sound like articles that are worth my time. I did persevere with reading the magazine for quite a while out of habit but by now I'm pretty much convinced that most of these articles will be just as vapid as their titles.
I think that everything that's in print is available on the web site, but there are also web-only things, so the print magazine may be a bit of a "quality/triviality filter" in that regard.
I like The Atlantic in general, although I think they have a bit of what I sometimes call a "contrarian bias", e.g., prioritizing "the conventional wisdom is X, but here's why it's wrong" think-pieces even when their theses aren't particularly strong. (Slate and Salon were much worse about that in their heyday.)
No, there is a lot of online-only content. I believe there's a daily email with new content, and often that content is quite weak compared to what's in the print version.
This is a selection of about 60 story links on the front page. The story about cats is about people paying thousands for organ transplants for pets, which is somewhat intriguing and new to me.
I believe it's not actually contrails specifically but rather the effects of releasing exhaust (CO2) at a high altitude (which would happen whether the contrails form or not).
CO2 is just the basic evil everyone talks about. Water is a lot more evil (much broader range of wave lengths of light absorbed than the comparatively tiny range of CO2), if it is in the air.
Water changes it behavior depending on the relative amount in the air. A sufficiently high amount will act on visible light (contrails, clouds, fog, ...), but even in its "transparent" form it messes with wave lengths outside of the visible range.
Contrails are created by local changes of temperature at the wing tips (turning the invisible water into visible, temporarily) and by adding water as part of the exhaust. Burning CxHy leaves some H2O, visible or not.
I would have guessed that the visible form is contributing more to cooling than the (probably more common) invisble form. Possibly a matter of when they turn invisible, which might be more likely in the morning than at night (those produced during one day staying visible during the night helping with heating but vanishing next day, not helping with cooling).
Modelling water properly is quite surely complicated, with bigger effects than CO2. Not only for contrails.
Contrails are ice from water in the exhaust, unrelated to the wingtips. You will sometimes see vortices at high angles of attack on takeoff or landing, but those don’t turn into contrails.
It’s true, though. Water causes roughly 30°C of global warming. We can’t get much if any more from water vapor, but there are several positive and negative feedbacks from clouds that are quite interesting. High clouds are ice, which allow transmission of visible light, but absorb in the infrared.
Not perfect, but twice in two days is too much! I have other servers on digital ocean that have had no issues, so will probably put all my eggs in that basket!
> Most views I've heard are that it is quite impossible to force someone to buy a company
Those views are simply ignorant; there are plenty of cases of the Delaware Court of Chancery ordering specific performance on merger deals. It is nothing even loosely similar to “quite impossible”.
a distinction without a difference, he doesn't own anything beyond the board seat that his equity holdings afford him. Vanguard owns more of Twitter than he does.
reply