A bunch of bankers

[Dave Birch] A fascinating research paper shows that

male chess players choose significantly riskier strategies when playing against an attractive female opponent, even though this does not improve their performance. Women’s strategies are not affected by the attractiveness of the opponent.

This seems to me to be as reasonable explanation as any as to why the banksters (bankster = banker who works for a privately-held bank that is “too big to fail”) took such absurd risks with other people’s money. As soon as women began appearing on trading floors, the male bankers were unable to control themselves and began putting ever-larger bets on ever-more absurd propositions that they didn’t really understand, confident in the knowledge that they had no downside. In the old days, when bankers were generally rather dull (but rather rich) men, the risks they took were proportionate. Now that bankers include attractive women, it’s all gone pear-shaped. I suggest that it is only a matter of time before the first lawsuit is filed by an out-of-pocket customer against a bank for employing women who are too attractive: perhaps this is what UBS has in mind with its new dress code that prohibits tight blouses, short skirts and black underwear.

In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen megabytes

Twansparency

[Dave Birch] There’s an interesting post over at Virtual Economics. I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit about it since I read it. It’s about adding a new convention to Twittering to help when people tweet about companies:

There’s already an agreed taxonomy for doing so – you take the ticker of the company, and precede it with a dollar sign. Thus Google is $GOOG, Apple is $AAPL, Microsoft is $MSFT. Search for postings about Google by sticking $GOOG into the search box and you get a page like this… So we need a way to add disclosures to tweets about companies, preferably one that doesn’t take up too much space and allows for some nuance.

[From virtualeconomics: Proposing a disclosure taxonomy for Twitter]

The post is asking for a similarly simple taxonomy for letting readers know if you are posting about a company that you have an interest in and it proposes a logical, but too complicated set.

I commented: Actually, I think you’re probably right, although we need something simpler. I’ve got two ideas. There certainly ought to be a common mark for “my company provides paid services or products to the company that is the subject of this tweet”. Perhaps “@$”? So I might write “I see that @$VISA has announced their in2Pay product today” as distinct from “I see that $VISA has announced…”. There also needs to be a simple taxonomy for “I have a financial interest in the company that is the subject of this tweet. So perhaps “%” followed by the twitter name of the company. Thus I might write that %@chyppings is doing some ground-breaking work on mass-market NFC services, instead of the more neural @chyppings.

This seems like a simple and desirable element of transparency that would add to the twitter experience.

In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen megabytes