Continuing our discussion of price manipulation at Amazon is this interesting piece in the FT on algorithm-based price setting. Money graphs:

Amazon sellers – using third-party software – can set rules to ensure their prices are always, for example, $1 lower than their rivals’. More complex algorithms can analyse data to set prices most likely to secure a prominent position on the site.

But the tools create the risk of malfunctions similar to the 2010 flash crash, when algo trading was blamed for some US stock prices falling to near zero, then rebounding in 20 minutes.

Last year, out-of-control algorithms inflated the price of The Making of a Fly, a genetics book, to more than $23m, according to Michael Eisen, a biologist who blogged about it.

 

Last week Santino had a triptych about women in Marvel movies. It’s well worth your time.

Another thing Marvel’s feminist critics are missing is X-Men: First Class, which I’ve argued can reasonably be read as a movie about Mystique. All of which got me thinking about Mystique and women’s issues in movies and X-Men: Last Stand. 

Last Stand isn’t a great movie. It uses up three or four major stories from the X-Men universe, one of which is “The Cure” subplot from Astonishing X-Men.

If you haven’t read it, or don’t recall, the Cure is a serum developed to reverse the X-gene mutation, basically turning homo superior back into homo sapiens. In the comics (as in Last Stand) the Cure comes fraught with all sorts of existential angst for the X-Men regarding questions of identity and tribal loyalty. But it also occurs to me that it could easily be read as a parable about abortion.

Both the comics and Last Stand feature conflict between mutants who willingly seek out the Cure and the X-Men, whose position is that the Cure is an abomination and a threat to mutant-kind. The audience is meant to side with the X-Men, of course. But why? The mutants who seek out the Cure for themselves have their own reasons for doing so. They’re not compelling any other mutants to take it. They just want to be allowed to have the choice–to control their own bodies.

The more militant, anti-Cure mutants believe that the fact of its existence damages the dignity of all mutants, whether or not they take it, and that anyone who takes the Cure is committing a grave moral sin. They don’t just argue against the Cure–they seek to destroy it. They wish to deny all mutants the choice of taking it.

This certainly wasn’t the intended reading of the story, but I think it’s a fair one and fits the facts pretty nicely. And Last Stand could be given credit for doing a reasonably grown-up (by comic-book standards) exploration of a “women’s issue.”

Except for one thing: If you read the Cure as being a stand-in for abortion, then the heroic, sympathetic, mutant X-Men are the pro-life nutjobs. And you can’t have that, can you.

In answer to Santino’s question, my guess is: both.

The note’s not from me. It’s from Slate’s Allison Benedikt who’s trying to talk some sense into her feminist friends who think that aborting babies because the babies are girls might be, kind-of sort-of, at cross-purposes with feminism.

I don’t think I could paraphrase Benedikt’s argument with sufficient accuracy, so I’ll just give you the full meat of it:

It doesn’t matter that sex-selection abortions are rare in the United States. They do happen.And it doesn’t matter how slimy and slippery slopey the anti-choicers tactics are. (Aren’t you used to that yet? They’re good!) What’s relevant is that it’s entirely irrelevant why a woman wants an abortion.

Strategically, it makes no sense to give in to this idea that there’s somehow something a little queasier about having an abortion for gender than, say, for money. These are equally legitimate reasons (or, if you are on the other side, equally illegitimate). One might make you uncomfortable in your gut, but it can’t make the movement hesitate. Because that hesitation—that pause of, well, yes this one is complicated, or, as Amanda says, this one is “unpleasant to contemplate”—makes it that much easier for so many of those other reasons (money, timing, work) to seem a little not-OK too.

A couple weeks ago, before the Roberts Court proved to be a source of wisdom and justice, James Fallows was worried that the U.S. Supreme Court, which he claimed was indistinguishable from the courts in communist China, was carrying out a “coup.”

Fallows took a lot of heat for this. Rightly so.

But a reader just reminded me that there’s an even deeper level of silliness involved here. Because back in 1991, Fallows was wishing for a coup in the United States.

I can’t find a link to the full article on The Atlantic’s site. Here’s some lengthy quotation from a paper on the subject of coups:

The Audrey! The U-Force! The Duo Dock!

It burns! It burns!

As mentioned by the Czabe, this introduction of David Stern from the draft is priceless–the NBA commissioner seems to have totally embraced his heel heat:

As Czabe noted, the only way this could have been better would be if Stern had exhorted the crowd to stand for the Soviet national anthem.

Over at Twitter, Jacob Laskin wonders why some people dislike Novak Djokovic so much. I can’t speak for others, but my distaste for him goes something like this:

1) In the 2007 French Open, Djokovic is facing Santiago Giraldo. Djokovic is the #6 player in the world. Giraldo is a lucky-loser qualifier. It’s the first round. Djokovic wins in straight sets. As the final point ends, Djokovic rips his shirt off, screams, and begins a pose-down in the middle of the court like he’s Paul Orndorff circa 1985. This is the worst display of sportsmanship I’ve ever seen in tennis–worse than Justine Henin’s 2003 French Open faked let call against Serena Williams. It’s one thing to try to cheat another great player. It’s another to humiliate some scrub who’ll never make even $50K in prize money.

2) Then there’s his in-match injury time out/retirement history. For a few years before he really broke through, Djokovic had a tendency to come up lame at critical times during matches when he was having problems.

3) Then there’s his 2008 US Open post-match interview.

4) He’s not that good. Don’t get me wrong–he’s the best player in the world right now and has been for the last year. Probably will be for another 24 months, too. But he’s a transitional champion–not an all-time great, just a guy peaking at the exact moment that serious greats are eclipsing. Saying that he’s not Federer or Nadal in terms of talent isn’t a knock–just an observation. No one, except for Sampras, Laver, and maybe Borg and McEnroe at their peaks, is Federer or Nadal.

But Djokovic’s game, while impressive, isn’t all that special to watch. He’s a great all-court player with excellent fundamentals and good athleticism. But there’s nothing really awe-inspiring about any one aspect of his game. The transitional champion he most reminds me of is Hewitt. But at least Hewitt had that dazzling speed, which made him really fun to watch. As a matter of pure aesthetics, Djokovic doesn’t really do it for me. There’s a host of lesser players–Gasquet, Verdasco, Almagro–whom I’d rather watch even though they’re not his equal.