First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
***
Life has adapted to and survived in the real world and its wildly variable and changing climates, so it should be obvious, that (nearly) all its feedbacks have to be negative and its physiological changes limited. It seems this has been obvious to all but the adherents of the man-made global warming religion, who keep on proposing instability, positive feedbacks, and run-away reactions. They have once more been proved wrong by Fu et al. and Keenan.
***
It has often been shown that the differential attenuation rate between men and women from first year student to full professor could be well explained by a difference in willingness to submit to an insecure and unrewarding rat race while far more profitable careers are open outside of academia. Gino et al. have now filled the gap and show just such a mechanism to be indeed at work here. Now I’m not saying that the current selection mechanism is fair, appropriate or even geared to yield the best results, only that it seems not to be gender biased as such and if so not against women.
Interestingly it seems most women see things just as they are. It is only the minority of feminist activists and gender militants who oppose equal rights and opportunities and demand equal outcomes, i.e. preferential treatment.
***
Is it unfair to say that any result from gender studies is nonsense per se and that any closer look is only warranted if you want to find the precise form the nonsense is taking in the case at hand? Possibly, although personally I don’t believe so. In the case of van der Lee & Ellemers I can spare further comment, because it has all been already said far better by Casper Albers 
. Undergraduate students are failed for less. One more point perhaps. Their figure 3 is a textbook example of a completely meaningless and totally inappropriate data representation. What can it mean to sum applicants and awardees? Unsuccessful applicants plus awardees perhaps, and then their order would need to be reversed, but counting awardees twice?
***
And again geneticists in the 1000 Genomes Project Consortium display a unique and strange use of language and numbers. According to figure 2 their chosen unit for a population size is [females / (base-pairs * generation)] and that for time seems to be [tesla / (base-pairs * generation)], with the latter apparently convertible into years. And this is only with the help of their caption, the actual labels say microfemales and microtesla. Should the “T” be meant not to stand for the SI unit tesla here, they fail to mention the fact once in their article, far less give another explanation.
***
Extance is the first description of the bitcoin technology I ever saw that makes sense. It seems the activity of mining is not intrinsically tied to the generation of new coins but the recording of transactions, with the granting of coins only a by-product. This means the amount of mining will have to rise steeply, even if not quite exponentially, forever and with diminishing returns converging to zero. As long as the limited supply of coins account for a rising fraction of global commercial activities there is scope for a significant rise in value, but also in the number and frequency of transactions per (fraction of) coin. Contrary to precious metals this kind of coinage has to be unsustainable in principle.