I wonder if, in the specific case of the job, the test would not be: were the two part of your decision to apply and then think you would accept if offered the position. If not, then are these more like second order aspects for the decisions you made (apply, will accept). Once you know you didn’t get the job you’re looking for things the resolve how you should feel about it—be happy, be sad; anything other than ambiguous.
In other words, why weren’t these two relatively significant attributes of a job you were interested in not part of your initial decision. Were they resolved/reconciled with one another before and then when not getting the job something changed?
Perhaps the another test would be to look at other situations where clearly good and bad coexist: driving you car, breathing, pretty much anything else we might do on a daily basis. Is it the case that for the situations we don’t find ourselves in some internal conflict that we really have assuming one side just doesn’t exist/is not true or have we accepts that both good and bad are coexisting?
If most of the time we are accepting the good and the bad together, why is it that in some cases we cannot?
Is it possible that rather than your mind is actually taking both as true but struggling with how to actually compare the two? Without that internal scale on which you can put to the two alternatives and see which has more weight you are stuck jumping back and forth between the two looking for something that allows that comparison.
That is good to hear but was not part of the news story I read—which wasn’t one of the ones in the google search—and the report I read was from the Saturday so perhaps prior to his clarification/retraction. I would say his retraction/clarification was provided because that “possible interpretation” was noted by more than just me.
I don’t see how those are really all that far apart—both say if the results don’t support me they are questionable. After all, if an election is contested and that cannot be resolved what does happen with a sitting President? Does the US just do without one for a while?
But perhaps more relevant, it was merely pointing out the extent of the situation in the current election—neither side is willing to say the results can sure to be taken as is but that they will be looking closely and very likely questioning them.
Public news reports. But here is a google search for you. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Did+Biden+say+he+could+only+loose+if+poling+places+were+messed+with%3F&ia=web
Just to add balance here, Bidden was reported as saying the only way he could loose would be due to some type of voting place shenanigans—one possible implication being he will also not accept the results.
I suspect one of the highly positive/reassuring points might be the military has come out saying they will not get involved.
If you are pulling air from outside do you also have some exhaust outlet to keep internal pressure largely constant? If not, could something be going on with building a positive pressure inside that then creates problems with your intake air flow?
I did recognize that there was an incentive in that direction. I think the question on that point is would this type of policy increase the behavior towards contracting the infection significantly more than currently exists over the benefits of a more open economy that takes some account of the fact some people are not at risk or a threat.
As you note yourself, incentives to defect, and so increase the spread, already exist. The approach I was musing about might offer a middle ground that perhaps counter intuitively actually increases the incentives to comply by producing a safe customer base. Would there be people tying to make their fake “I survived COVID and have (temporary) immunity IDs”? Yes. But it seems to me that with a legal option to operate on a limited scale under conditions that are actually safer than the current limited operations might just get the business to consider looking rather than looking the other way.
Also, broadening the focus towards who has recovered might support some better work place organizational aspect. For instance, if employers do have a growing number of staff that has been infected and recovered and now back at work (or could return to work) having the most at risk employees than have never been infected working in close proximity to the recovered workers and away from those who may become infected is probably a net good for that high risk person.
The point really is not about restaurants and diners but shifting some focus on we do have a large and growing group of recovered people who should pose no risk to others any time soon. The idea that we only have one population of people when looking at business activities and what can and cannot be open, at some point, becomes rather stupid and actually increases the average level of risk compared to what could be achieved I think.
The big mistake is indoor dining. Indoor dining is a terrible cost-benefit ratio. It’s one of the most dangerous things you can do. The experience is nice, but it’s in no way vital. The reason indoor dining is happening is because without it, the bars and restaurants would die, with long term consequences.
What happens if we say, indoor dining is fine, and even at above 50% occupancy levels as long as the diners can all prove they have been infected and recovered? They all probably still have whatever immunity one gets—at least I would assume if immunity goes away in 3 or 4 months we would have clear examples of reinfection by now.
In fact, the solution to implementing that approach might go a long ways towards opening up international travel as well. That restriction is significantly impacting a lot of less developed countries. One might thing that is a more robust approach than the idea of the COVID-19 passport which seems to depend mostly on testing for the infection in a very short period prior to departure.
I wonder if there is not also another way to approach your goal. This may not get to everything you wish to improve but perhaps gets out of the whole eliciting honest and constructive criticism from your direct reports.
For the most part I see a people manager’s job as not only making sure they are doing their job but more importantly have the support and resources needed to accomplish their responsibilities. So an indirect way of assessing your own performance on the job as their manager is to inquire about the challenges they are facing and then consider what role you can play in removing some of the challenges.
Are the figures for the past decade the total burned, the planned burn or just the wild burn?
I ask because I read something, not closely at all, sometime in the past week or so, that seemed to be saying for the past decade environmental policies and regulators have been preventing so much of the planned burn the west has a serious problem Based on that one might think that rather than some mild years coming up more of the same, and even more of that, might be more likely.
For those living there I just say “Hope that is wrong!”
While I don’t think this quite gets to where you are suggesting every contract I have ever seen includes some clause that pretty much talks about the independence of the sections and how they stand even if some other clause is invalidated. That seems to be a form or modular/scope structure.
Perhaps the question there is where the difference might be. For instance, when using the software metaphor I don’t think it is really good to compare a simple application to the contract but more like a whole suite of applications. Don’t compare Excel to the contract but Office365. In this setting, does contract seem to stand a bit more firmly than say the security around the inner working of the applications within Office?
Or is than not really a good comparison?
I think another point to keep in mind when thinking of comparative advantage is that it is clearly a necessary condition for trade (or at least seems obvious to me that it is) but not clearly a sufficient condition.
Even in this two good model it seems that one must accept there is an implied third good, everything else (leisure, sleep, something else?) so the analysis of the two goods is a partial equilibrium analysis. If the margins are getting changed there then the general equilibrium has now been disturbed. That will then feed back into the two good relationships.
I think one of the questions then is just what margins or constrains are being relaxed when looking to trade based on the comparative advantage.
For instance, lets assume that the two islands specialize in either coconuts or bananas and then trade at the 1:1 exchange. Production and consumption has not changed. Since they clearly had more minutes in the day to increase output on their own consuming 10 bananas and coconuts a week was optimal. If that level of consumption is not changed due to trade (generally assumed to be the case but lets ask) what happens with the time no longer needed for production?
If the additional available time is now just boredom I would think trade becomes a bit of an annoyance and trade is curtailed. If that is true on one side but on the other they other things they can do with the time a different form of friction emerges, perhaps one side claiming the other is dumping or protectionist.
One aspect of such engineering is clearly what is the focus—clearly the “improved super human” a la Star Trek is perhaps too ill defined so it will have to be about doing things in parts.
I would be curious about your thoughts on where the current state of knowledge and technology might be between targeting intelligence versus targeting longevity. If we could make good progress on the longevity front that then releases some constraints on the efforts towards intelligence. However, it that is the harder nut to crack then one could argue focusing on intelligence gains leads to a relaxed constraint on longevity research.
I suspect the two paths are not all that complementary to one another beyond some rather basic level so parallel tracks might not work as well (assuming bio-engineers with the sufficient skills are a binding constraint).
Somewhat related to the above, am I correct in thinking your focus is less on improving the currently living and more on upgrading the next generation with these efforts?
Yes, you state that much better than I did.
The idea was that we have chromosome pairs, each will have the same set of genes, but the gene on each chromosome can vary but are still the same “gene”. So the label as allele (or mutation—not quite sure where one draws the line between mutation and allele) seems a bit more clear to me.
Interesting and I look forward to reading the other posts in this effort.
One minor nit. I think the correct terms in the bit on recessive traits is not gene but allele (genes contain two alleles as I understand the claims).
Perhaps I misunderstood what I was reading but I thought senescence in cells was not about them dying out but rather them becomes zombie cells—no more division or “life” but not really dead or disposed of. That resulted in them (often?) pumping out various proteins that were not well coordinated with the bodies needs. I also thought some of the newer research was suggesting a connection between the quantity of senescence cells and the onset of cancers. Particularly on this last bit you seem to be saying the reverse so I’m a bit confused.
Seems the entire discussion boils down to what should or should not be allowed to be sold. In a standard market one assumption and prerequisite for selling something is a legitimate ownership right.
Did Hansen establish some ownership right the blackmailer enjoyed? Did anyone establish any ownership rights at all?
In the case of the NDA bit that seems like a completely difference class than the case of blackmail. There seems to be a serious asymmetry between the “pay me to keep my mouth shut about your information” and that of “I will share this information with you but you must not disclose—and I will even provide some compensation to add the incentive for nondisclosure beyond the pure contractual obligation and stated remedy”.
I don’t see why one thinks homicide is a good proxy for crime in general. I wonder if a different approach here might be simply focusing on homicide and incarceration to see if that sheds any light.