Absolutely loving me some Nightmares On Wax right now.
1. Given to or characterized by the use of long words.
2. Long and ponderous; having many syllables.
1. A long word.
Sesquipedalian comes from Latin sesquipedalis, “a foot and a half long, hence inordinately long,” from sesqui, “one half more, half as much again” + pes, ped-, “a foot.”
25 April, 2012.
I took the last of my things from my room at my parents’ house this afternoon. Left the room in a fit state for their guests to use. Transferred said things to my new house. And here I am. With all my things.
And so. I no longer live with my parents. I live in my very own house. All by myself.
Sigh. It’s going to be a big change. It feels a bit like waking up in the morning. I am not a morning person. I’ve been sleeping so long. Laying around the folks’ place with dogs for company, watching Gray’s Anatomy in my bathrobe, playing Boggle and reading Reddit all day. So damn lazy. Now I have to start working on my house. Tomorrow, I’ll paint the bedroom. Now I have to get a job and pay my own way. I suppose I’ll have to start showering every day. Sigh.
It’s a good thing. A very good thing, even. A big step in the right direction. But, I’m not gonna lie; it also feels like a cold drop. It feels like waking up in the morning, late for work.
Mattoid: a person displaying eccentric behaviour and mental characteristics that approach the psychotic.
A monopoly is a consumer-side problem. In contrast, there is a less-well-known corresponding supplier-side problem …
A monopsony is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. It is an example of imperfect competition, similar to a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers. As the only or majority purchaser of a good or service, the “monopsonist” may dictate terms to its suppliers in the same manner that a monopolist controls the market for its buyers.
Monopsonies suck for their suppliers because the suppliers are systematically starved of profits by the middle-men running the monopsony. Which can lead to suppliers going bust, and a reduction in the diversity and quality of goods available (via the monopsony) to consumers.
exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity … Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Monopolies suck for their customers because they don’t have to give a shit about product quality or price: they have you, the customer, over a barrel with nowhere else to go.
(It’s kind of like inflation and deflation in economics. Inflation is bad; deflation, its opposite, is not good, it’s simply differently bad. Similarly, both monopolies and monopsonies are bad.)
And the peculiar evil genius of Amazon is that Amazon seems to be trying to simultaneously establish a wholesale monopsony and a retail monopoly in the ebook sector.
It strikes me that the education market (wrt textbooks, for example) is a good example of the damage monopsony can inflict. Because large school districts dictate prices (and, crucially, content), the textbook market is a particularly tough one for publishers. And the evident result is a dearth of text options available to teachers, with those options tending to be similar and blandly palatable, rather than diverse and challenging.
I hope that increasing use of computers by students will help change this. As large, bound-paper textbooks increasingly are replaced by tablets, direct publisher-to-student distribution becomes easier. At the same time, content should become more granular, allowing a diversity of smaller content-providers to compete with large publishers on the merits of a single lesson or module, without the need to produce a comprehensive textbook. I believe these two trends will lead to a more robust and diverse, less monopsonistic (monopsonic?) market for educational content.
New word of the day: Pronia. Nice word for me to learn, having experienced it acutely during my manic episodes.
According to Pronoia.net, Dr. Fred H.Goldner claims that he, writing at Queens College in October 1982, published a paper in Social Problems (V.30, N.1:82-91), in which he coined the term pronoia to describe a psychological affliction. He characterized pronoia as a mirror image of paranoia, which leads the sufferer to unrealistically believe that persons or entities (e.g. governments) conspire against them.
Pronoia is the positive counterpart of paranoia. It is the delusion that others think well of one. Actions and the products of one’s efforts are thought to be well received and praised by others. Mere acquaintances are thought to be close friends; politeness and the exchange of pleasantries are taken as expressions of deep attachment and the promise of future support. Pronoia appears rooted in the social complexity and cultural ambiguity of our lives: we have become increasingly dependent on the opinions of others based on uncertain criteria.
“You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.”