By Felix Salmon
January 22, 2010

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Just when you thought you knew just how dysfunctional the SEC was, it turns out to be even worse — WaPo

I think it was Goldilocks, not the bears — Reuters

John Gapper responds to me with a 950-word blog comment. What a mensch! — Reuters

Quote of the Day: CNBC is to Advisors as… — Felder

Venezuelan oil chart of the day — Gregor

In Brooklyn, the MTA turns its new LIRR train station into a tomb with gigantic security sarcophagi — Streetsblog

Some good advice for the NYT, which has already said that homepage visits won’t count towards your metered allocation — Atlantic

Fantastic open letter from OK Go about why record labels won’t allow YouTube videos to go viral — OK Go Forums

Do women have more unreasonable standards for attractiveness than men? — OK Cupid

First look at a Spike Jonze’s experimental, branded short film for Absolut — Fast Company

Many thanks to Richard Perez-Pena for describing me as “a respected writer on media” — NYT

When Gourmet got complaints about change in direction, “Reichl hired staff to handwrite notes in response” — Zocalo

The Faces Of Larry Summers And Paul Volcker Say It All — Clusterstock

Negative-correlation-between-price-and-quality datapoint of the day: the best jeans cost $32 — NYT

The world’s first street art disaster movie — BBC

Go read Paul Smalera on the NYT paywall — True/Slant

Matt Goldstein’s mugshot is being circulated around hedge-fund security guards — Reuters

Dan Roth joining Fortune to run — All Things D

One comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

From the OKCupid link:

> One interesting thing seems to be going on here: when the best-looking men write the worst-looking women, their message success rate takes a big hit. The knee-jerk response would be to somehow chalk it up to hunky spammers, but we very carefully control for that in these articles, and in any event why would better-looking girls be drastically more susceptible to it?

I really need to quit going through life with the assumption that everyone knows what “adverse selection” is.

Posted by dWj | Report as abusive