* On the role of divorce courts and government incoherence, which is my title and I think better than the alternative; interesting throughout. Compare it to my footnote in this Grant Writing Confidential post.
* Former Comcast employee explains how horrible Comcast is.
* The shift from “analyzing” to “creating.”
* “Reason and romance: The world’s most cerebral marriage,” which is (unintentionally?) hilarious throughout:
He eats the same staples every day. For breakfast there’s muesli, yoghurt, juice and an enormous cup of instant coffee, industrial strength and often made with hot water from the tap because boiling it would require putting on the kettle. In the evening he has raw carrots, cheese, romaine lettuce and celery dipped in peanut butter. Food has to fulfil two basic criteria: it must be healthy and involve the minimum of preparation.
I tried to read Parfit but he “is proudly a philosopher’s philosopher,” which may explain why I couldn’t figure out why I or anyone should care about what he argues. Contrast that with Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, in which every page feels relevant and actionable.
* Global income inequality is falling, but do the dominant media narrative creators care?
* Peter Watt’s Echopraxia is coming; mine is pre-ordered and yours should be too.
* Derek Huang on Old Masters vs. Young Geniuses.
* Comcast’s worst nightmare: How Tennessee could save America’s Internet.” Maybe.
The Story's Story 