“Election machine manufacturers have resisted meaningful oversight from both states and Congress about their security practices, and have actively deceived the press about the use of remote monitoring software on election equipment in the past,” Wyden said in a statement to FiveThirtyEight.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/russians-are-targeting-private-election-companies-too-and-states-arent-doing-much-about-it/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/opinion/transaction-costs-and-tethers-why-im-a-crypto-skeptic.html

I’m with Krugman. I don’t get this either…

http://theconversation.com/when-corporations-take-credit-for-green-deeds-their-lobbying-may-tell-another-story-98988

Once uncommon but now mainstream, this show of support for a greener and kinder business model might seem like a clear step forward. But many of these same companies are quietly using their political clout, often through industry trade associations, to block or reverse policies that would make the economy more sustainable. And because public policy raises the bar for entire industries, requiring that all businesses meet minimum standards, lobbying to block sound public policies can outweigh the positive impact from internal company initiatives.

http://robertreich.org/post/175852888615

So do anti-poverty programs discourage work, as conservatives incessantly claim? If there is such an effect, it’s small enough to be invisible in the data. One thing anti-poverty programs do seem to do, however, is … reduce poverty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/opinion/benefits-work-and-poverty.html

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2018/07/12/the-rise-of-ad-shaming/

Now, emotional appeals like guilt and shame are the next step after stronger power plays like rigid paywalls largely failed for publishing companies. The challenge is that guilt and shame require a larger sense of community obligation for people to feel their effects, and I am not sure a pop-up is ever going to be anything other than an obstacle to get around.

The reward of inventing a new field is having a slim bibliography.

http://www.openculture.com/2018/07/john-nashs-super-short-phd-thesis-26-pages-2-citations.html

http://theconversation.com/busting-3-common-myths-about-homelessness-93035

https://medium.com/@jimmysong/why-blockchain-is-hard-60416ea4c5c

Second, blockchain is a way to look like you’re on the leading edge of technology. Like it or not, the word “blockchain” has taken on a life of its own. Very few people actually understand what it is, but want to appear hip so use these words as a way to sound more intelligent. Just like “cloud” means someone else’s computer and “AI” means a tweaked algorithm, “blockchain” in this context means a slow, expensive database.

The findings from the survey, conducted between Feb. 22 and March 8, 2018, reveal that even this basic task presents a challenge. The main portion of the study, which measured the public’s ability to distinguish between five factual statements and five opinion statements, found that a majority of Americans correctly identified at least three of the five statements in each set. But this result is only a little better than random guesses. Far fewer Americans got all five correct, and roughly a quarter got most or all wrong. Even more revealing is that certain Americans do far better at parsing through this content than others. Those with high political awareness, those who are very digitally savvy and those who place high levels of trust in the news media are better able than others to accurately identify news-related statements as factual or opinion.

http://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/