Why airport security is broken - and how to fix it.
A former head of the Transportation Security Administration acknowledges the flaws in the current TSA system, shows how we got into this, uh, mess - but also sets out five specific ideas for reform: No banned items, allow all liquids, give TSA officers for more flexibility and rewards, eliminate baggage fees (I love his thoughts on this!), and finally, randomize security. It’s an interesting and frustrating read - It all makes logical sense, but I don’t see any of his suggestions happening any time soon.
Source 
How to be creative - And why “the creative type” is a myth.
There’s been a good bit of content around brainstorming and creativity, but this WSJ piece by Jonah Lehrer (author of one of my favorite books, How We Decide) is one of my favorites. Lehrer writes about how creativity isn’t magic - or even a trait we can inherit. He even writes about drunk students solving 30% more word problems than sober students. A highly entertaining and educational article.
No need to panic about global warming.
Last week, the WSJ ran an article titled just that. And it was signed by 16 scientists. Going against the popular opinion, these scientists have set out to tell the world that the temperature changes we’re seeing are pretty normal in context. (See, context is important!) They want their studies to be shared, but they don’t want to lose their jobs. This was hands down the best article I read last week.
EDITOR’S NOTE/UPDATE:
It’s important to note, as my cousin so aptly put: “The overwhelming consensus of hundreds of climatologists and studies of the climate (I’m talking 99%+ here) agree with the IPCC report’s conclusion about climate change. There isn’t a serious scientific debate about it.” I’m still trying to figure out the whole newsletter thing, though it feels a bit more comfortable each time I open up my MailChimp template. One thing I struggle with is how much of my opinion to share, but I suppose that’s half the reason I write these! When sharing, I think there is often an implication of agreement, which wasn’t exactly true in this case. I should have called out the number of comments on the WSJ article, and maybe also added a “just” in front of the number of scientists that signed it (16.) Or also shared The Guardian’s article, which ripped apart the WSJ piece. I’m sorry. I still thought the WSJ piece was an interesting read, but in context of the many other articles and positions out there. Thanks for hanging in there with me!
