Whenever I fret and flail (frequently) while trying to create thing, I say to myself “Someone has to be the shittiest writer in the world but while there are people who still get paid to make up horoscopes, it won’t be me.” Then I write.

I’m tempted to be cheap and whine about having to pay more since I bought Reeder (this is what the App Store economy has done to us). This is the best RSS app for Mac and I use it on a daily basis. Silvio Rizzi has put in the work to create a beautiful application, which is not easy to do on the Mac. He deserves to get paid. Honestly he could charge twice as much and I’d still happily pay for it.

David Smith:

Good copying learns from another’s innovation and then applies it in a novel way to a new context in a way that doesn’t diminish the source invention.

Good stuff. This is something that has been on my mind as I’ve been working on an iOS game in my spare time. It’s inspired by some of my favorite games, but it’s also unique. Sometimes it’s hard not to feel like people will look at it and say he just ripped this or that off another game. He is invalid. David Smith explains how you can take cues without ‘ripping off’.

As expected, a rigorous statistical analysis confirms what every fan of any powerhouse team already knew: Teams with recruiting success tend to remain successful year after year and teams without much success tend to remain unsuccessful. Fixing the price of a year of a college athlete’s service to be comparable across all schools does not result in anything like competitive balance, and statistically, the level of imbalance has been growing over the last six years. It’s time to stop using that as an excuse why college football should be allowed to collude its way out of paying market rates for talent.

It turns out the powerhouse schools are successful because they spend so much more money on recruiting and facilities.

But how would things look under a pay-for-play model? Would the imbalance actually get worse?

Maybe not. If anything, the economics of price competition argue that as you let schools use money directly as a tool in attracting talent, you may empower mid-level schools to splurge on a would-be starter who might otherwise accept an offer at a top-tier school and end up riding the bench. When stars and benchwarmers all get the same compensation package, there’s no way for a smaller school to show they really want a player much more than the big school, which is free to stockpile talent. Both schools can claim they want the player, both can send 700 letters in one day, etc. The best way to show you mean business and that the other school is just engaging in what economists call “cheap talk” is price competition.

More Andy Schwarz being insightful and on point. Remember this stuff next time someone argues that paying players would be unfair or that if players get paid, they all have to get the same stipend.

Short of the Week is one of my new favorite sites. Definitely worth checking out to if you like video shorts (I only subscribe to the 3D Animated feed).

This one is hilariously terrifying. I’ve got the worst attention span, so when a video makes me stop checking the time to see when it ends, I know it’s captured me.