Agreed. Since no single term beats all the others for clarity though, I'm willing to grant them "reverse mentorship."
Personally, however, 'reverse' anything makes me think of "reverse racism," my least favorite phrase ever. Even in the absence of any political agenda, just taking the term at face value, it doesn't make any damn sense. Racism against white people is still racism. There's nothing 'reverse' about it.
I posted in another thread that it was ironic Facebook would be against the re-purposing of a facebook's info and photos, given that's exactly what Zuck did to create Facemash.
But honestly, one must sympathize with their desire to protect their brand. They don't need "their" photos to be the source material for the entire internet's memes and jokes. Let somebody with less at stake fill that niche.
"[I]magine the possibilities for a Halo movie done right."
This seems a tall order, if you plan to base the story around Master Chief. Now that's not a necessity, of course... but this is Halo.
Master Chief is a vessel character, like Neo from The Matrix or, dare I mention it, Bella from Twilight. The idea is for you, the individual audience member, to slip yourself into that hollow vessel and become the character. Master Chief is me. I am Master Chief. We are one in the same. You are also Master Chief. Master Chief is also you. By design, vessel characters have literally no personality. They should say and/or do nothing which would upset the illusion that you are them. Neo never says anything smart, never says anything stupid, never makes a moral choice we couldn't all see ourselves making. Hell, he hardly even talks period. Same goes for Master Chief. Obviously, you can write for/around a vessel character. The Wachowski brothers did it. But can you write for a vessel character whose story has already been told? Try and imagine, say, a prequel story where we watch young Master Chief running around military school or whatever. Did you imagine something boring? I did.
"But there are specific factors, or accelerators, that trigger such connections -- and there are three that Facebook is seriously lacking: Physical proximity, vulnerability and a clearly defined community."
He goes on to discuss how and why Facebook lacks each of the three.
C'mon guys, everybody knows it's wrong to take a bunch of info and photos from one facebook site and re-purpose them on another.
Mere hours before lamebook was hacked together:
"You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole."
Because it doesn't matter. Quite often, those parties are two sides of the same coin.
If they didn't list party affiliation on ballots, people would instead vote based on what? The names they like most? That's about how informed some voters are, unfortunately. It takes effort to get informed, and the entities that should inform them, often fail to do so.
(D)s, (R)s, and other letters in parentheses next to names are the sort of things that influence how people vote, and in articles like this, they affect future votes.
That said, it is somewhat sad that the informed citizen is a more rare voter than they used to be. The ballot in my state was so long that I had to make a cheat sheet to avoid having to memorize all of the names. I suspect that for non-partisan offices, a lot of people did just vote for names they like. If elections weren't so costly, it might be objectively better to hold local, state, and federal elections on different days, so that people who show up to vote for a president or a governor don't just mark the rest of their ballot without knowing who they're voting for.
These are all senators, though, so it can be assumed that they were mostly elected by people who at least had heard of them.
Critics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor,[10][12] which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form,[108] but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms.
[10] Caplan, Bryan. "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist". George Mason University. Retrieved 2008-07-04. "More than anything else, what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics, research tools that Austrians reject on principle...Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant...Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory."
[12] White, Lawrence H. (2008). "The research program of Austrian economics". Advances in Austrian Economics (Emerald Group Publishing Limited): 20
[108] Walker, Deborah L.. "Austrian Economics". Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved 2010-01-23.
Psychology isn't mathematically formulated either. Is it science? Perhaps an Austrian economist would argue that economics is more closely related to psychology than physics.
I have seen several mathematical "proofs" that not only god exists but that he is catholic. Is that science?
What does the artifact of being mathematically formulated have to do with something being science?
Psychology (at least contemporary research psychology) is based on empirical research and judicious use of statistical techniques; Austrian economics is based on philosophical handwaving. Psychology involves observation and allows for an element of surprise; Austrian economics, at least since the days of Rothbard, involves coming up with moralistic arguments for libertarianism. (The early Austrians were important in the history of economics, but being an Austrian economist today is like being a Freudian psychologist today; people do it, but one has to look askance at such a person.)
of course math is not the only ingredient needed to do science, but it's something you can't do without. If your theory is based on "self-evident axioms" that nobody is allowed to challenge, what you've created is a cult or religion, not scientific branch.
behavioral economics uses quite a lot of math alongside psychology.
in fact it can't. in middle ages (and indeed to this day) it is common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, yet it is blatantly false.
true, there are a lot of axioms in many branches of economics that noone is allowed to touch, some have more, some have less. But AFAIK nowhere as much as in Austrian School today.
