Sunday, January 31, 2016

How To Kick Your Procrastination Habit (Bonus: You'll Feel Less Stressed)

Those expense reports you’ve been putting off for months? That power yoga class you never seem to make? Chances are, there are at least one ... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
Those expense reports you’ve been putting off for months? That power yoga class you never seem to make? Chances are, there are at least one or two projects on your plate that have taken up permanent residence on your to-do list. You know you need to get them done, and yet you push them to the side to focus on something—anything—else, whether it’s diving into a less-urgent work project or spring-cleaning your entire closet.
In other words, you’re procrastinating.
Piers Steel, professor and distinguished research chair at the University of Calgary and author of “The Procrastination Equation: How to Stop Putting Things Off and Start Getting Stuff Done,” puts it simply: “Procrastination is the difference between what you are doing and what you should be doing.”
Experts say that people procrastinate for different reasons—they fear being judged, they’re overwhelmed by the project at hand, or they find the task downright unpleasant or boring (Taxes, we’re talking about you). But the result is the same: You’re left feeling strdo not wait until tomorrowThe moment you put off a dreaded project and focus on something that’s more entertaining—like scrolling through food photos on Instagram—you probably feel a blissful sense of relief. But on some level, you’re still haunted by the task at hand, knowing in the back of your mind that you still have to complete it—and that can take a toll on several fronts.essed out.

Is There An Olympic Curse?

Every few years, countries across the globe compete to host the Olympics. Conventional wisdom tells us that it is a “good” thing to host the... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
Every few years, countries across the globe compete to host the Olympics. Conventional wisdom tells us that it is a “good” thing to host the Olympics but the “data” suggests otherwise. I was inspired to write this article after reading Ken Rapoza’s article, “Brazil’s Economy Hasn’t Been This Bad Since 1930” in Forbes this weekend. A small voice in the back of my head asked: Isn’t Brazil hosting the Olympics soon? If so, shouldn’t their economy be booming (or at least doing relatively well) now (leading up to the games)? So I decided to take a closer look and analyze the facts.
Conventional Wisdom:
Traditionally, the case to host the Olympics was pretty straight forward: it should lead to economic prosperity and raise awareness for the host nation.
Economic Growth Slows Considerably After Hosting The Olympics
The facts paint a very different story. In most cases, since 2004, economic growth has slowed considerably for host nations. I limited the study to the past 12 years because the global economy has changed so much in the last decade that data from the last century is not as relevant. I’ll let the facts do the rest of the talking:
Here is a list of Olympic venues since 2004:
Winter Olympics:
2006 Turin Italy
2010 VancouverCanada
2014 SochiRussia
2018 PyeongChangS. Korea
2022 BeijingChina
Summer Olympics:
2004 Athens Greece
2008 BeijingChina
2012 LondonU.K.
2016 Rio de Janeiro Brazil
Now let’s look at Economic Growth (GDP) for these countries:

Interstate Licensing and the Quest to Expand Health Care Access

Imagine you were away from home and on vacation in Florida, and while you were out having a great time water skiing, you fell from your skis... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
Imagine you were away from home and on vacation in Florida, and while you were out having a great time water skiing, you fell from your skis and broke your wrist.
Oof.
Aside from the pain of the injury and the interruption of your holiday, I don’t think that most of us would be overly concerned about the quality of the care we would receive in Florida, just because we weren’t home; even though you might be distant from your own doctor in, say, Missouri, you would probably have little concern about the level of expertise you’d from a doctor in the state you’re visiting. Whether you broke your wrist in Florida, Missouri, Texas, Michigan, or wherever, I think we can all agree that a doctor in one state is trained close to the same way as, if not identically to, a doctor in another state.
Now imagine if your state prohibited doctors practicing in good standing in other states from practicing in your state. If your state needs doctors, this would seem like an unusual decision, and yet licensing laws across the country tend to do achieve precisely this end — making fewer practicing doctors available to patients. While most of us recognize that doctors do pretty much the same things from one state to the next, our state licensing regimes can make it difficult to expand care options to their own citizens by, in my view and others’, keeping physician supply away from patient demand.
Unnecessary restrictions on doctors who could practice in multiple states don’t just impact those who could be physically present in a state. In fact, technological advances, like what we’re seeing in telemedicine, have opened the door to letting doctors hundreds of miles away to promptly and accurately diagnose the problems a patient might be having while they’re in their own homes.
And depending on the situation, a patient may prefer telemedicine with a doctor, wherever that doctor might be and for all sorts of good reasons. The patient may live in a rural area without easy access to a hospital. They may be uncomfortable immediately bringing their medical problem to an emergency room for fear of unnecessary expense. They may simply prefer talking to a doctor at a distance rather than up close and personal.
Whatever the advantage, however, I think we can all appreciate that the location of the doctor and his license is usually irrelevant — just as where we are when we see the doctor is largely irrelevant. Whether I’m in Florida seeing a doctor or the doctor in Florida is seeing me in Missouri, my care is going to be about the same, and chances are solid that my care will be pretty darn good whatever the state is where the doctor is licensed.

How To Provide Mobile Experiences At Live Sports Events

Live sporting events have been a core part of human culture for a very long time — the first Olympics occurred in 776 BC. While athletes hav... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
Live sporting events have been a core part of human culture for a very long time — the first Olympics occurred in 776 BC.
While athletes have been affected by technological advancements, the live fan experience has predominantly remained the same.
We sit in the stands, watch the action visible from our vantage point and struggle to figure out what happened on the other side of the field — a rather limited (and frustrating) way of participating. If it wasn’t for missing the energy of the crowd, sometimes it seems wiser to just stay at home and watch the event on HD television.Winston-Salem OpenDisruptive change is everywhere and major sports stadiums are struggling to fill seats because of the sometimes better experience available from the comfort of our own couch. With better TV coverage and immersive video games that put people in the middle of their favorite teams, some fans think, why fight the traffic and pay to watch the game live?
In a way, sports are becoming a victim of their own digital success. But that can change if venue owners expand the experience to include unique mobile experiences that fans cannot get at home, and update processes and infrastructure so they can more holistically manage fan engagement, team performance and venue operations.

Hillary Clinton Should Stop The Faux Feminism

With the Iowa caucuses days away, 2016 has the potential to be a historic year for American women and feminism. Former Secretary of State   ... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
With the Iowa caucuses days away, 2016 has the potential to be a historic year for American women and feminism. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s de facto candidate and the so-called political glass ceiling is in her sights. Ironically, the self-proclaimed feminist champion would have a better chance if she resists her modern feminist instincts. She has the opportunity to set a new standard for American women in politics. Here are three places she could start.
1. Leave the gender card in her purse
It must be tempting for the former First Lady to use the carrot of a historic victory to court American women into her column. At her first campaign rally last spring, Clinton said, “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I’ll be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States.” While saying that people shouldn’t vote for her just because she is a woman, it’s clear that making history as the first female president is a centerpiece of Clinton’s campaign.
During the first Democratic debate in October, moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN asked Clinton how her presidency would differ from President Barack Obama’s. She said, “I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.”
Her campaign released a “44 boys is too many!” video advertisement in December full of little girls reading letters to Clinton encouraging her and calling her as an inspiration.
But basing a candidacy on gender undercuts a central premise of feminism—the goal of equality between the sexes. And it will only get her so far.
Already, playing the gender card appears to be failing with younger women. A recent USA TODAY/Rock the Vote poll found that Senator Bernie Sanders has a 19-point lead over Clinton among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.
2. Thank the entertainers for their support, but don’t put them center stage
All candidates look for endorsements on the campaign trail. Clinton has signed up a list of celebrity endorsements and has even taken a selfie with Kim Kardashian. Actresses Kat Dennings from “2 Broke Girls,” Lena Dunham from “Girls” and America Ferrera from “Ugly Betty” have already voiced their support for Clinton.
We can’t blame Clinton and other candidates for highlighting famous supporters, since people look to celebrities to set trends. But Clinton runs a risk of further suggesting to the American people that the goal of her candidacy is to deliver a symbolic win for her gender, rather than provide leadership or policy solutions.
It is particularly telling when Clinton turns to Hollywood’s leading ladies to help her make dubious policy arguments. For example, Patricia Arquette celebrated winning Best Supporting Actress at last year’s Oscars by calling for wage equality. Arquette said, “To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”
The actress was parroting an often-made argument by those on the Left who claim to be fighting the Right’s so-called “war on women.” But economists and experts across the political spectrum have debunked the claim that the statistic that women earn just 77 cents for each dollar that men make is evidence of rampant discrimination. The wage gap myth doesn’t take into account choices that impact earnings, such as education level, years of experience and hours worked, among others.
Unfortunately, Clinton ignored the economic evidence and embraced Arquette’s remarks, “I think we all cheered at Patricia Arquette’s speech at the Oscars, because she’s right—it’s time to have wage equality.”
Women are better off hearing the truth, even if that means speaking out against popular entertainers.

China And Japan: The World's New Currency Sinkhole

Friday, the Bank of Japan shocked markets by announcing it would charge financial institutions 0.1% of their balances in certain current acc... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
Friday, the Bank of Japan shocked markets by announcing it would charge financial institutions 0.1% of their balances in certain current accounts, essentially imposing a negative interest rate.
Previously, the central bank paid 0.1% on those accounts.
Stocks around the world rallied on the news. Why? “Japan’s central bank basically did nothing, but did it in a way that looks like it’s willing to do something in the future,” Matt O’Brien explained in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. “In other words, it’s about the message it sends—that they haven’t given up and are willing to try new things—more than anything else.” He likened the move to a “Jedi mind trick.”
The Jedi mind trick worked “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” and on Friday, on our planet, the BOJ’s announcement had a similar effect, not only lifting equity prices but also, to the delight of Japanese technocrats, depressing the yen against the dollar.
Jesper Koll of WisdomTree Japan explained the warm market reception. “It really is a very, very strong signal,” he told Voice of America’s Steve Herman. “It is a penalty for the banks to just lazily give their money to the central bank rather than investing it in the real world.”
Japan’s bankers have many well-known sins, but being lazy is not one of them. Yes, they’re not lending, but it is not because they are sloths. They’re not lending because there’s little demand for money.
For years, successive Japanese governments have tried to compensate for falling consumer demand with public works, concreting most every river in Japan and connecting isolated islands with suspension bridges. They financed the wasteful projects by issuing more and more government bonds, JGBs. The imposition of negative interest rates is, as Koll noted, a signal, but not of the good kind. As Daiju Aoki of UBS Securities in Tokyo told Reuters about the central bank’s decision, “This shows that the ability to buy more JGBs is limited.”

The One Thing We Need To Stop Robots From Achieving World Domination

It is, of course, wise and beneficial to peer ahead for potential dangers and problems — one of the central tasks of high-end science fictio... thumbnail 1 summary
भिडियो सहित हेर्नुहोस !
Advertisement
It is, of course, wise and beneficial to peer ahead for potential dangers and problems — one of the central tasks of high-end science fiction. Alas, detecting that a danger lurks is easier than prescribing solutions that can prevent it. Take the plausibility of malignant AI, remarked-upon recently by luminaries ranging from Stephen Hawking to Elon Musk. Indeed, my own novels contain some chilling warnings about failure modes with our new, cybernetic children.It is one thing to yell at dangers. Alas, it is quite another when it comes to offering pragmatic fixes. There is a tendency to offer the same prescriptions, over and over again:
1) Renunciation: we must step back from innovation in AI (or other problematic tech). This might work in a despotism… indeed, 99%+ of human societies were highly conservative and skeptical of “innovation.” (Except when it came to weaponry.) Our own civilization is tempted by renunciation, especially at the more radical political wings. But it seems doubtful we’ll choose that path without be driven to it by some awful trauma.
2) Tight regulation. There are proposals to closely monitor bio, nano and cyber developments so that they – for example – only use a restricted range of raw materials that can be cut off, thus staunching any runaway reproduction. Again, it won’t happen short of trauma.
Newer Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)