conjectures

Read this as 'sit down'.

Wow, actually slightly shocked how seriously this model seems to be taken or, at least, how sticky it is.

Coefficients, dynamics, number of entities involved, stationarity. There are so many unknowns and so many reasons to believe incomplete understanding could scupper predictions...

I know everyone likes to believe themselves to be a good Fermi estimator. But trying to model the world beyond 2050 when the weather a month from now is a hard problem. Well, let's say it's Quixotic at best.

Which makes me think the model isn't actually under discussion here, it's just all our priors about how much we fancy technology as a solution or not etc.

Tbh I would be more excited about that headline.

There's a job for deed poll.

That sucks, but perhaps worth considering switching it up on the jobs front.

Guess it's something of a function of where you live, but e.g. in London there will be plenty of companies with a better experience.

Sidecar pattern in k8s here ;)

+1 Just for the name. Side quest is exactly what such a thing should be called.

Depends how you define 'good for the country'. Upwards pressure on skilled wages due to increased demand rather than brain drain sounds like a decent place to be.

Wow, sounds both harsh and an ineffectual way to go at life.

> other way

Undoubtedly there is, e.g. steel making - with the attendant logistical challenges. But few ways to fairly directly convert electricity into money.

14 years? Rapid. Brits have spent 14 years on planning permission for Heathrow expansion :D

You dodged a bullet there then at least :)

Blitzstein is a good lecturer. I think I did this course back in the day.

Interesting points here. But, in round 2 of these dynamics, and if the article is true, it means ~every team contains a sacrificial lamb. So, rolling with the hypothetical 'team of 10' approx 10% of your payroll could be spent on ablative armor. Furthermore there's no guarantee the unofficial core teams aren't subject to the same dynamics as before, they're just operating, nominally, above the threshold set relative to the lambs.

Maybe someone needs to start a Firee-as-a-Service agency.

There's a phrase coined for this: Goodhart's law.

C.f. http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/240-goodharts-law-and-w...

Yup. The thing that's disturbing about this is that someone senior must understand Goodhart's law in the company. Which makes it more likely the side-effects are, in fact, intended.

Don't know, but putting numerical values on follower count is not likely to be that useful cross-platform due to differences in engagement level, demographics etc.

Never really occurred to me to read the feed on LinkedIn. I've liked about 3 things ever from people I actually know.

I get a fair number of interview requests through it though so it would have some value as a recruiting tool. Let's face it, CVs are a badly structured way of listing and distributing your employment history...

Whatever it is, it should be antifragile though.

Yes, in UK mine was terrifying. In all likelihood candidate would get destroyed trying that tactic.

Scientists and journalists of science taking each other apart in public circa 18 months after something started isn't remarkable. It's actually what should happen.

The author can pick apart declaration of interests in The Lancet's op-eds for conflict of interest because in scientific publications the declaration is made.

By contrast this article on 'unherd.com' does not have a conflict of interests statement. I don't know the author of the article, and am not told who reviewed it / or by what process. We're not told how the work was funded; at least they don't mention being bank rolled by a single hedge fund millionaire [1]. I'm sure one could write some similar article hinging on that fact and some suggestive eyebrow movements.

There's a lot of sanctimonious crap out there on the internet about the 'sociology' of science which somehow lacks any form of reflexivity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd

> I'm sure operators will push back on 'under one brand'

You're probably right, but I don't think they'll succeed. Everyone and their dog can see that TFL has worked well compared to the rest of the country.

I don't particularly like our government, but I don't doubt their commitment to populism. This looks like a vote winner to me so I'd put low odds on a u-turn here.

Seems like a variant of the Fundamental Attribution Error. Explain in terms personality something caused by situation.

It's not about that. It's about whether it's a 'stable' solution or not.

It's the same reason why most of the chocolate sold isn't fair trade and there's often modern slavery produced beans in mainstream products.

Calls for voluntary improvement are great, and may be heeded sometimes, but aren't uniformly reliable when there is no effective legal requirement and financial incentives point the other way.

This pattern leads to some feature incomplete rewrite being done slowly.

`tldr` program seems useful to know about, thanks.

Again, investing in passive index funds avoids most of the deli-style shenanigans. More policy based decision making, less judgment calls.

> Yes it lets more people without money buy houses, which I can see why socialists don't like that

Or libertarians, because government subsidies distort the market and all that.

> Taylor Wimpy owns 6,000 heactares of land.

UK has 25 million hectares of land, ~2m in the south east. The problem isn't Taylor Wimpy owning all of the unbuilt ones. The London greenbelt is 500k hectares. That's a more plausible bottleneck. Considering 'London greenbelt' is just one dimension of regulation on housing construction and Taylor Wimpy presumably owns land outside south east.

I'm glad you found a place, but I think this amounts to help to buy incrementing N.