WSJ: “Studies show that for optimal health, it’s best to consume most of your calories earlier in the day rather than later — for example by eating a large breakfast, a modest lunch, and a small dinner. This pattern of eating aligns with our circadian rhythms, the innate 24-hour clock that governs many aspects of our health, from our daily hormonal fluctuations and body temperatures to our sleep-wake cycles…Studies show that a meal consumed at 9 a.m. can have vastly different metabolic effects than the same meal consumed at 9 p.m. This emerging field of research, known as chrono-nutrition, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition researchers think about food and health. Instead of focusing solely on nutrients and calories, scientists are increasingly looking at meal timing and discovering that it can have striking effects on your weight, appetite, chronic disease risk and your body’s ability to burn and store fat.”
WaPo: “In a new working paper…, Aviv Ovadya and co-author Luke Thorburn of King’s College London make the case for what they call “bridging systems” — algorithms designed to elevate posts that resonate with diverse audiences. They see the approach as an antidote to today’s toxic Twitter and Facebook feeds, which tend to highlight the most attention-grabbing content, even if it’s polarizing. Social media that reward pure engagement — likes, shares, angry comments — have an inherent “bias toward division,” Ovadya argues. The headlines, pictures and videos that thrive tend to be those that immediately appeal to a specific audience, whether that’s vaccine skeptics on Instagram, conspiracy theorists on YouTube or teens with eating disorders on TikTok. And if that content also repels or alienates another group, that negative engagement can amplify it further.”
WSJ: “For years, researchers thought it was impossible to change your personality. It was fully formed by early adulthood and that’s it. But now, a body of research by personality psychologists shows that we can change, that many of us want to, and that we’re often happier when we do. A key is to start small. Use your strengths to change your weaknesses and fake it until you make it. “Changing your personality is similar to losing weight,” says Nathan Hudson, an assistant professor of psychology at Southern Methodist University, who studies personality change. “Just setting the goal won’t help; you’ve got to take actionable steps and stick with it.””
Noah Smith: “I’ve been writing a series of development economics posts, trying to highlight successes (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Poland, Turkey), failures (Pakistan, Haiti, Ukraine), and countries that are somewhere in between (Philippines, Jamaica). In general, I’ve been trying to think about these stories using the framework offered by the economist Ha-Joon Chang and the author Joe Studwell. Essentially, the idea is that A) it’s much better in the long run to be a manufacturing country than a natural resource country, and B) exports are really important for importing foreign technology and business practices. This theory — which is now getting a little bit of renewed attention from economists — is a refinement of the industrial policy ideas of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and various economists at the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry.”
Economist: “Industrial policy is just about as old as industry itself. Scarcely had Britain’s Industrial Revolution got going when Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Treasury secretary, argued for protection of his country’s industry, declaring that Adam Smith’s arguments in favour of free trade “though ‘geometrically true’ are ‘practically false’”. America, France and Germany industrialised behind tariff barriers. After the second world war scores of governments tried to help industrialisation along, with seeming success in places like Japan and South Korea, and rather different results elsewhere. Policy today is of a different sort: pursued by countries already at the technological frontier, in a world of complex global supply chains. Yet past research still holds valuable lessons…Interventions often raise costs and thus hurt consumers. Messrs Baldwin and Krugman judged the Japanese were made worse off, on net, by the effort to build a chip-exporting industry. Because the output of one industry is often the input for another, help for upstream producers can inflict pain down the supply chain. Reviewing efforts to boost steel industries across 21 countries, Bruce Blonigen of the University of Oregon found such interventions sharply cut the export competitiveness of downstream industries.” More: “Just as America wants to be at the cutting edge of semiconductor production, so do governments in Asia and Europe. All have national champions, and scores of startups vying for a slice of the action. As America and its allies offer more aid, these firms will lap it up. In the process, there will be a duplication of efforts across borders, a waste of public funds and recrimination between countries meant to be co-operating. It may take hundreds of billions of dollars to relearn why America was once an opponent, not an advocate, of subsidies.”
Tim Martinez: “Is every customer/client the same? Is it possible that some customers are better to acquire than others? Maybe because they turn into recurring patrons or that they have a higher appreciation for the product/service you offer. It could be that some customers are simply a better fit for your offering thus making them more loyal and better advocates. Or to put it even more bluntly, maybe their $ is simply more profitable. Conversely some customers are simply the opposite. They drain, take all they can and end up being an expense on time, energy and capital. Revenue is king – yes, but some kings turn into tyrants and dictators. Your job is to know the difference.”
