Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
I find this sentence confusing. They will find a way because they must, in essence? But that's just it, they might not, or not quickly, particularly if the impacts are hard to quantify, as I suspect is the case here. They must, but not right away, which spells trouble.
They should find suitable alternative methods, and probably will (adapting ones used more sporadically already), but that doesn't mean that they definitely will, so longer term problems is pretty high risk.
I think reports of the death of the office are greatly exaggerated. It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now. Lots of reporting bias here: the sort of person who gets on with wfh is the sort of person who is on pb.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Not to mention the full-scale invasion of Grenada, just when Mrs T thought she and Ron were BFF.
Quite. I don't get why we get so starry eyed about 'the relationship'. Oh well.
That's actually a touch I dislike. I get when going against Trump you need to get a bit grubby, but that's touching a bit too close to his own tactics for my liking.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Yeah, on fucking tenterhooks for whether FDR was going to back Germany.
Why? It makes anti Trumpers laugh at his pathetic description of it as a China virus. But if your aim is to convince reluctant Republicans to stay away or vote Biden its a pretty clear signal of division that pushes them back towards Trump.
"If we must be slim, why are so many nurses fat? That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Yeah, on fucking tenterhooks for whether FDR was going to back Germany.
Was that ever a serious prospect? Staying neutral was, but siding with Germany?
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Did you miss the bit where others pointed out that if their company expected 100% office working they (and most others) would be seeking to join more wfh friendly companies?
The idea that a company can return to the old ways of 5 days in the office has gone forever - I did think about adding the word probably in there but actually, no it has gone.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
This site is skewed to well off over 50s, over 50s are only about a third of the workforce. Businesses will need the under 30s as well (or at least historically have done, as I point out, perhaps they will be an ignored generation). Working from home appeals far less to those as they learn less so future earnings are lower for them, they miss out more on the social scene and they would be working in shared cramped flats rather than nice houses with a garden.
Worse. Sooner or later companies will realise (and some in the US already have) that people WFH in Yorkshire do not need to be paid London salaries. And people WFH from Poland do not need to be paid Yorkshire salaries, and so on.
That's actually a touch I dislike. I get when going against Trump you need to get a bit grubby, but that's touching a bit too close to his own tactics for my liking.
It's just stupid. You'd have to be pretty pig ignorant not to know that Coronavirus has affected other countries badly. Trump is clearly not responsible there, so it makes no sense. You could try and argue he'd been responsible for the scale. Call it a trumpidemic or something. Even that's pretty tenuous.
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
I find this sentence confusing. They will find a way because they must, in essence? But that's just it, they might not, or not quickly, particularly if the impacts are hard to quantify, as I suspect is the case here. They must, but not right away, which spells trouble.
They should find suitable alternative methods, and probably will (adapting ones used more sporadically already), but that doesn't mean that they definitely will, so longer term problems is pretty high risk.
I think reports of the death of the office are greatly exaggerated. It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now. Lots of reporting bias here: the sort of person who gets on with wfh is the sort of person who is on pb.
I can well believe the office life is probably going to significantly change, not least because a lot of places already had plenty of home working arrangements and would encourage it anyway (with more employees than desks for instance). It's like virtual meetings, which the tech has been there for absolutely ages, but getting some people and places to do it has been tougher, and this situation has forced it on many, and those who resisted probably cannot resist it remaining to a much higher degree than before.
However, I also think we are at something of a risk of deciding a bit precipitously that everything has definitely changed forever. I mean, pretty unsurprisingly various environmental groups round my way have decided that of course any and all road building projects should immediately cease as they will definitely not be needed as everyone homeworks. That's an extreme example, and as I said I don't rule out that in certain ways things will change for good as a result of this, but I think people are a bit quick to judge on that.
"If we must be slim, why are so many nurses fat? That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
I find this sentence confusing. They will find a way because they must, in essence? But that's just it, they might not, or not quickly, particularly if the impacts are hard to quantify, as I suspect is the case here. They must, but not right away, which spells trouble.
They should find suitable alternative methods, and probably will (adapting ones used more sporadically already), but that doesn't mean that they definitely will, so longer term problems is pretty high risk.
No, more because over time the issue will be addressed. I came back to post this anyway https://pando.com/2020/07/22/unbundling-udemy/ but it shows how the market has taken a product that just about worked (udemy) and over a couple of iterations slowly fixed the missing bits in the earlier iterations.
That will be the same here, those companies that have decent on-boarding practices will eventually as people leave spread those ideas elsewhere.
Heck I introduced to Microsoft Consulting Services (of all companies) the concept of the on-boarding document where your first job is to follow the steps (setting up your computer) contained within it and update anything that has changed. The important bit is that you never give people the absolutely latest version, let them find things that don't work and resolve the issue. You learn an awful lot about people from how they react to such issues.
It's the 'over time' bit I have a problem with, particularly how long that might mean for many places and industries. I'm far from confident it will be of a time that won't mean big impacts.
It won't be now, simply because most firms won't have time to do anything about it given Covid (economic structural changes that require work to survive) followed by Brexit (which will probably meed the same again).
but those companies who do it well will be far better placed than those who can't and it will be obvious probably fairly quickly who knows how to train people and what works and what doesn't. I suspect knowledge by osmosis doesn't work as well as people think it does.
My company has ruled out long term remote working. Want everyone back in the office as soon as there's a vaccine, willing to pay privately for staff to be vaccinated if the NHS queue is too long. Open to people doing up to two days a week from home but would prefer people do one day or no days.
Essentially, the story is going to be "as you were" for us when there's a vaccine. Anecdotally I've heard similar stories across the City and for lots of London based tech workers.
Long-term, is there not going to be a competitive element to this? If you're advertising for a job, the option of home working is likely to become a big part of the equation.
If my office decrees everyone back full time my cv will be going out as I have preferred home working as have most of my colleagues. As you say I am sure there will be many firms offering full time home working after this. The company might all of a sudden find it self lacking team members.
With the levels of unemployment coming your company would have a very long queue of replacements
I doubt it because there probably aren't many software engineers laid off in the first place, secondly we keep getting told there is a shortage of us, thirdly we have both an odd mix of technology in use where its rare to find someone with all those skills and we are in quite a specialist area where it takes time to get up to speed with the problem domain it order to be able to write something that works correctly without breaking any of the various work flows etc
Interesting background on how the Lincoln Project works. Apparently they started with very little money and are still not a big hitter financially, but cheeky advertising durinmg interviews with Trump got small donations pouring in and they flourish by doing sharp, rapidly-made ad on current themes which frequently go viral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lincoln_Project
One of the leading lights of the Lincoln Project is Chris Vance, former chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. Very conservative, also very smart & very shrewd. Back in 2004 he did a great job for GOP gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi; fact that Rossi ended up losing by -132 votes was NOT Vances fault.
Realize arm-chair strategists will feel free to criticize Lincoln Group's approach, but keep in mind that most of us (yours truly included) simply are NOT in same league as Vance and his associates when it comes to politics as the art of the possible.
Latest data shows a rising swell. Not a surge or wave yet but worrying. England 14.5 reported cases in last 14 days per 100,000. Low point was 13.7 two weeks ago. London 9.9 reported cases in the last 14 days pr 100,000. Low point was 6.7 four weeks ago.
I've found some data!
Pillar 1 positive rates, per week. Note: Log scaled.
For the last 10 weeks -
This makes it official - the higher headline reported rates are driven by pillar 2 testing.
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Did you miss the bit where others pointed out that if their company expected 100% office working they (and most others) would be seeking to join more wfh friendly companies?
The idea that a company can return to the old ways of 5 days in the office has gone forever - I did think about adding the word probably in there but actually, no it has gone.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
This site is skewed to well off over 50s, over 50s are only about a third of the workforce. Businesses will need the under 30s as well (or at least historically have done, as I point out, perhaps they will be an ignored generation). Working from home appeals far less to those as they learn less so future earnings are lower for them, they miss out more on the social scene and they would be working in shared cramped flats rather than nice houses with a garden.
Worse. Sooner or later companies will realise (and some in the US already have) that people WFH in Yorkshire do not need to be paid London salaries. And people WFH from Poland do not need to be paid Yorkshire salaries, and so on.
The trend will happen but people are way over estimating its effectiveness and under estimating the risks. Keeping a traditional office for the next few years after the crisis is over will work fine for most businesses if thats what they choose to do. There are going to be several million unemployed so all those so sure they will just move to an employer of their choice might not be as successful as they imagine.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
"If we must be slim, why are so many nurses fat? That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
There are plenty of peer-reviewed trials of cases of sex with demons, dating from the middle ages. They tended to end very badly for those most involved.
But they didnt have hydroxychloroquine back then, a bigly learned scholar suggests it may help.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Yeah, on fucking tenterhooks for whether FDR was going to back Germany.
Was that ever a serious prospect? Staying neutral was, but siding with Germany?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
Working in an office you are just as likely to be sidelined or first against the wall for redundancy if you don't play the brown nosing office politics game. Never yet worked anywhere that the people promoted or survived the redundancy wave were the best staff rather than the staff that played the office politics game
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
Personally I'll be in the office for the foreseeable because my staff are here - if they're WFH, I'm WFH. If they're in, I'm in; just works best that way. Overall it'll change more slowly than people think at the moment, but it will change.
Some things do need to change globally though to go truly officeless - 100% electronic invoicing is a big one - don't see that happening shortly. But I think it will happen eventually.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
Probably best that way. My boss's boss's boss had been trying to get flexibility from their boss to work from home 1 day a week for ages, since they could never get anything done, and they finally can now.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
Miscalculation - that's unfair. The Germans put in a lot of hard work to get the US into WWI
"If we must be slim, why are so many nurses fat? That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
Perhaps Moore should focus on slimming down the fat between his ears?
The point is an unpleasantly made one, but it's certainly true that the medical profession aren't known for being good at looking after their own health. Average life expectancy of Doctors is famously low. Nurses and Doctors live in a world of drugs, numbers, routines and machines. They spend next to no time looking at nutrition in medical school, and as a consequence, few doctors get beyond the 'an apple a day' level of nutritional advice.
Latest data shows a rising swell. Not a surge or wave yet but worrying. England 14.5 reported cases in last 14 days per 100,000. Low point was 13.7 two weeks ago. London 9.9 reported cases in the last 14 days pr 100,000. Low point was 6.7 four weeks ago.
I've found some data!
Pillar 1 positive rates, per week. Note: Log scaled.
For the last 10 weeks -
This makes it official - the higher headline reported rates are driven by pillar 2 testing.
The last three weeks data is shown below. Column 2 is the reported cases (P1 +P2). Column3 is the seven day moving average. Column 4 is the ratio of the latest 7 day MA over the previous 7 day MA. If we could split the data between P1 and P2 we could see the trends in each. From what you say, it looks as if the contagion is being driven in the community rather than in hospitals, which kinda makes sense.
Probably best that way. My boss's boss's boss had been trying to get flexibility from their boss to work from home 1 day a week for ages, since they could never get anything done, and they finally can now.
Do you have any minions, or is that your complete company hierarchical structure ?
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Did you miss the bit where others pointed out that if their company expected 100% office working they (and most others) would be seeking to join more wfh friendly companies?
The idea that a company can return to the old ways of 5 days in the office has gone forever - I did think about adding the word probably in there but actually, no it has gone.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
WFH is a completely different experience to the office. It's chalk and cheese. If we really are going to see a radical shift to home working - but are we? - this will lead to massive cultural change. It will change society. So many things will be touched. The relationship between workers will be different. Hierarchies will change. Methods of control will be different. It will change the relationship between people and their loved ones, their partners and families. And friendships. They will be affected too. It will change things between men and women. Between the employed and unemployed. All sorts of possible ramifications spring to mind. Will it be such a career advantage to be physically attractive - e.g. tall man with good teeth and wide shoulders - if you're at home the whole time? Will assertiveness and "presence" count for as much as it did in the old days? On a more macro level will the South v North disparity widen or close as a result of no commuting? One could go on and on. Perhaps the consequences we logically expect will not happen and instead we see some very left-field and surprising effects.
I think it is fair to say that after that very good start, they somewhat regressed to the mean we have unfortunately come to expect from them since Walsh and Ambrose retired.
It's England's fairly consistent pattern of under performing in the first test in a series. It will be interesting to see if this applies to back to back series against Pakistan.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
Probably best that way. My boss's boss's boss had been trying to get flexibility from their boss to work from home 1 day a week for ages, since they could never get anything done, and they finally can now.
Do you have any minions, or is that your complete company hierarchical structure ?
I do have a few minions. I think 5-6 layers is seen as the upper limit.
Latest data shows a rising swell. Not a surge or wave yet but worrying. England 14.5 reported cases in last 14 days per 100,000. Low point was 13.7 two weeks ago. London 9.9 reported cases in the last 14 days pr 100,000. Low point was 6.7 four weeks ago.
I've found some data!
Pillar 1 positive rates, per week. Note: Log scaled.
For the last 10 weeks -
This makes it official - the higher headline reported rates are driven by pillar 2 testing.
The last three weeks data is shown below. Column 2 is the reported cases (P1 +P2). Column3 is the seven day moving average. Column 4 is the ratio of the latest 7 day MA over the previous 7 day MA. If we could split the data between P1 and P2 we could see the trends in each. From what you say, it looks as if the contagion is being driven in the community rather than in hospitals, which kinda makes sense.
"If we must be slim, why are so many nurses fat? That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
Perhaps Moore should focus on slimming down the fat between his ears?
The point is an unpleasantly made one, but it's certainly true that the medical profession aren't known for being good at looking after their own health. Average life expectancy of Doctors is famously low. Nurses and Doctors live in a world of drugs, numbers, routines and machines. They spend next to no time looking at nutrition in medical school, and as a consequence, few doctors get beyond the 'an apple a day' level of nutritional advice.
Working nightshifts (30% increase) is heavily linked to obesity. Stress is also considered a likely factor. So its hardly surprising that doctors and nurses might struggle.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
I think it is fair to say that after that very good start, they somewhat regressed to the mean we have unfortunately come to expect from them since Walsh and Ambrose retired.
It's England's fairly consistent pattern of under performing in the first test in a series. It will be interesting to see if this applies to back to back series against Pakistan.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
I rather like the theory that they did it to piss him off to ensure he'd perform extremely well. It worked.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
To an extent I agree. But feel I must ask brutal compared to which previous global empires?
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
I think it is fair to say that after that very good start, they somewhat regressed to the mean we have unfortunately come to expect from them since Walsh and Ambrose retired.
It's England's fairly consistent pattern of under performing in the first test in a series. It will be interesting to see if this applies to back to back series against Pakistan.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
I rather like the theory that they did it to piss him off to ensure he'd perform extremely well. It worked.
Having watched Broad for more than a decade now with great admiration finding ways to piss him off is really not a challenge.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
Thinking about it, the Ukraine was probably in the worst position in World War II as a nation. Absolubtely screwed any and every which way. Poland too.
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Did you miss the bit where others pointed out that if their company expected 100% office working they (and most others) would be seeking to join more wfh friendly companies?
The idea that a company can return to the old ways of 5 days in the office has gone forever - I did think about adding the word probably in there but actually, no it has gone.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
WFH is a completely different experience to the office. It's chalk and cheese. If we really are going to see a radical shift to home working - but are we? - this will lead to massive cultural change. It will change society. So many things will be touched. The relationship between workers will be different. Hierarchies will change. Methods of control will be different. It will change the relationship between people and their loved ones, their partners and families. And friendships. They will be affected too. It will change things between men and women. Between the employed and unemployed. All sorts of possible ramifications spring to mind. Will it be such a career advantage to be physically attractive - e.g. tall man with good teeth and wide shoulders - if you're at home the whole time? Will assertiveness and "presence" count for as much as it did in the old days? On a more macro level will the South v North disparity widen or close as a result of no commuting? One could go on and on. Perhaps the consequences we logically expect will not happen and instead we see some very left-field and surprising effects.
Question - do you wish to return to the stress of a one hour each way commute into London, or do you think people will prefer to do it as an occasional or weekly, bi-weekly "treat".
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
You will also be prescribed a bike which I believe is in effect a loan scheme
Agree that this has hit home more than any event in my lifetime.
Covid is strange because it is a deadly virus but it isn't a deadly virus for most people so the overall reaction is understandable and also, as we are seeing from da yoof on tour, ignorable. Certainly the measures taken, lockdown, etc are once in a lifetime events. But walking around it doesn't feel as though we are in mortal danger. Whether rightly or wrongly.
For me IIRC just before Gulf 1 there was a time when it was thought that Iran and Iraq would come together to fight the infidel, thus occasioning a literal clash of civilisations. A cultural war, but a hot one, not just one conducted in the Graun Opinion section.
Covid 19 is the biggest event of my lifetime. We aren't even halfway through and it is transforming the world.
Inter alia, it will mark the decisive moment when supreme power passed from the West to the East.
Not quite, but I suspect it will be the reference pointed use in the same way that the US is regarded to have replaced the UK as the leading power between 1939 and 1945 when in reality it was probably some time in the 1920's / 30's..
India was still part of the Empire until 1947
OK, how was India central to Britain's victories in WW1 and WW2?
For the latter, 2.5 million servicemen is quite an impressive start.
The Indian Army was vast, but not very deployable.
Otherwise The Raj would have sent 10 million men to France in 1916 and walked to Berlin.
Amazing how the Indian army won 31 out of the 181 Victorian Crosses in WW2 without being very deployable.
The Indian army helped to defeat the Japanese at Kohima and Imphal and then drove them out of Burma.
All under the superb command of Bill Slim, superior to Monty in just about every way.
Slim was one of the greatest Generals of the Second World War. Monty was a guy who performed reasonably well when he the massive advantage of Enigma decrypts and his opponent was starved of supplies.
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
You will also be prescribed a bike which I believe is in effect a loan scheme
Oh, that sounds very interesting. Any way to sign up for that, or not yet?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
To an extent I agree. But feel I must ask brutal compared to which previous global empires?
The immediate comparison is with the British Empire.
But the comparison is an unfair one, because for most of the time, America has been unchallenged. Britain was always surrounded and constrained by other powers of a similar magnitude. And it needed to trade with the world, so had an interest in its security and prosperity. If these things had not been true, perhaps we'd have been worse.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
I think someone once observed that America was the only great power to have gone from rise to decline without an intervening period of civilization...
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Agreed.
We have little problem with existing team members working from home. We all knew each other and worked very closely together before CV19.
Next month we bring on our first new developer since the pandemic. They'll be working remotely for the foreseeable. Now, we have Slack, etc. But... I still think getting fully up to speed on the codebase and on our development best practices will be harder.
There are plenty of peer-reviewed trials of cases of sex with demons, dating from the middle ages. They tended to end very badly for those most involved.
But they didnt have hydroxychloroquine back then, a bigly learned scholar suggests it may help.
And it would be a relatively parsimonious explanation for Trump
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
I think someone once observed that America was the only great power to have gone from rise to decline without an intervening period of civilization...
Ouch!
Though I prefer the version of that saying applied to David Steel!
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
What sort of bike do you think you can get for £50?
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Agreed.
We have little problem with existing team members working from home. We all knew each other and worked very closely together before CV19.
Next month we bring on our first new developer since the pandemic. They'll be working remotely for the foreseeable. Now, we have Slack, etc. But... I still think getting fully up to speed on the codebase and on our development best practices will be harder.
See my post further down - step 1 is to write the getting started guide for the next developer who comes on board.
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Agreed.
We have little problem with existing team members working from home. We all knew each other and worked very closely together before CV19.
Next month we bring on our first new developer since the pandemic. They'll be working remotely for the foreseeable. Now, we have Slack, etc. But... I still think getting fully up to speed on the codebase and on our development best practices will be harder.
I've recruited a junior to work for me from September, I'm also dreading having to train them remotely.
"If we must be slim, why are so many nurses fat? That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
To an extent I agree. But feel I must ask brutal compared to which previous global empires?
The immediate comparison is with the British Empire.
But the comparison is an unfair one, because for most of the time, America has been unchallenged. Britain was always surrounded and constrained by other powers of a similar magnitude. And it needed to trade with the world, so had an interest in its security and prosperity. If these things had not been true, perhaps we'd have been worse.
Im not sure American hegemony comes off any worse than the British Empire or most of the big other ones. Like all of them its a mix of good and bad, we are probably living through their decline at the moment so it feels worse than it has been on average over the last century.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
Statute of Westminster 1931 made dominions legally independent. By 1939, this had advanced to the point that while Australia, New Zealand declared war against Germany September 3, same as UK (neither had yet ratified the SoW) South Africa did not until Sept 5, and Canada until Sept 10.
Failure of UK to hold Singapore and defend Australia led to that nation aligning with US from 1942 forward. And in North Atlantic, Brits would have been scuppered without efforts of Royal Canadian Navy which quickly aligned itself as much if not more with USN as compared with RN.
Does NOT change fact that RN was North America's main, crucial defense against Nazis until at least 1943, also that RN was dominate force in Western Approaches, Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean & South Atlantic throughout the war.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
Fact that BP, etc shareholders spent millions corrupting - excuse me, lobbying - politicos & their entourages in Congress & Gulf state legislatures so they could pollute & poison one of world's great natural wonders is NOT mitigation.
Or I haven't got a clue and nor does anyone else but given the life expectancy of a NI Minister it probably won't be my problem come January when reality hits.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Potentially close contest? I thought Biden was a street ahead.
It could be a very close contest. We're still 100 days from the election, and there are a lot of moving parts.
I could see anything from a three point Trump win, to a ten point Biden one.
My probs -
Trump easy - 5% Trump close - 15% Biden close - 30% Biden easy - 50%
So presumably you think Biden is good value at current odds? I agree, although I wouldn't want to overextend my position with 100 days still to go.
Yes I do. I'm keen to see the opening spreads on the EC. If I can sell Trump at significantly above 200 I'll be in like Flynn with that.
Lol! 'In Like Flynn'? Just how old are you?
Can I retain a slight mystique with "born in the sixties"? -
Doesn't "Born in the sixties" implies you likely have congenital brain damage due to massive parental drug abuse? ("Massive" as in intake NOT avoirdupois.)
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
Medium to long term for us, I think it will mean that our offices become a bit more "hot desky". We'll have marketing Tuesdays when the entire marketing and sales team is in the office, and developer Mondays and Thursday, and legal and finance Wednesdays...
This means we'll need to have a little less space than previously. But we'll still have a physical office, and we'll still all meet relatively frequently.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
I think it is fair to say that after that very good start, they somewhat regressed to the mean we have unfortunately come to expect from them since Walsh and Ambrose retired.
It's England's fairly consistent pattern of under performing in the first test in a series. It will be interesting to see if this applies to back to back series against Pakistan.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
What sort of bike do you think you can get for £50?
Best bicycle I ever had, was one fished out of a dumpster. Minimal to say the least, but used it for two years to commute 7 miles to work and back three times a week while going to school.
Here in Seattle, you can easily buy a bike for equivalent of 50 quid at just about any homeless camp. Bit of cottage industry, stealing bikes from careless yuppies then selling them to other yuppies.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
Medium to long term for us, I think it will mean that our offices become a bit more "hot desky". We'll have marketing Tuesdays when the entire marketing and sales team is in the office, and developer Mondays and Thursday, and legal and finance Wednesdays...
This means we'll need to have a little less space than previously. But we'll still have a physical office, and we'll still all meet relatively frequently.
Does that not risk silos and disconnect between various functions, Robert? At some point it is useful for legal and finance to understand marketing, and for marketing to understand developers etc...
In some places, the move has been to create integrated horizontal work units, with the legal/admin working on a particular product line sitting with the developers/production/sales for that line so they work as a unit, not as competing disciplines.
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
What sort of bike do you think you can get for £50?
None, but a voucher or discount towards getting one would be logical it seems to me, if this is meant to be encouraged beyond people who are already cyclists.
Agree that this has hit home more than any event in my lifetime.
Covid is strange because it is a deadly virus but it isn't a deadly virus for most people so the overall reaction is understandable and also, as we are seeing from da yoof on tour, ignorable. Certainly the measures taken, lockdown, etc are once in a lifetime events. But walking around it doesn't feel as though we are in mortal danger. Whether rightly or wrongly.
For me IIRC just before Gulf 1 there was a time when it was thought that Iran and Iraq would come together to fight the infidel, thus occasioning a literal clash of civilisations. A cultural war, but a hot one, not just one conducted in the Graun Opinion section.
Covid 19 is the biggest event of my lifetime. We aren't even halfway through and it is transforming the world.
Inter alia, it will mark the decisive moment when supreme power passed from the West to the East.
Not quite, but I suspect it will be the reference pointed use in the same way that the US is regarded to have replaced the UK as the leading power between 1939 and 1945 when in reality it was probably some time in the 1920's / 30's..
India was still part of the Empire until 1947
OK, how was India central to Britain's victories in WW1 and WW2?
For the latter, 2.5 million servicemen is quite an impressive start.
The Indian Army was vast, but not very deployable.
Otherwise The Raj would have sent 10 million men to France in 1916 and walked to Berlin.
Amazing how the Indian army won 31 out of the 181 Victorian Crosses in WW2 without being very deployable.
The Indian army helped to defeat the Japanese at Kohima and Imphal and then drove them out of Burma.
All under the superb command of Bill Slim, superior to Monty in just about every way.
Slim was one of the greatest Generals of the Second World War. Monty was a guy who performed reasonably well when he the massive advantage of Enigma decrypts and his opponent was starved of supplies.
I often wonder how the Normandy campaign would have proceeded had Slim, and not Monty, commanded the British forces.
He would have got on better with the Americans, for a start. He could hardly have got on worse.
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Did you miss the bit where others pointed out that if their company expected 100% office working they (and most others) would be seeking to join more wfh friendly companies?
The idea that a company can return to the old ways of 5 days in the office has gone forever - I did think about adding the word probably in there but actually, no it has gone.
Now training new starters is going to be harder work compared to before but over time suitable methods will be found as otherwise companies will have longer term problems.
WFH is a completely different experience to the office. It's chalk and cheese. If we really are going to see a radical shift to home working - but are we? - this will lead to massive cultural change. It will change society. So many things will be touched. The relationship between workers will be different. Hierarchies will change. Methods of control will be different. It will change the relationship between people and their loved ones, their partners and families. And friendships. They will be affected too. It will change things between men and women. Between the employed and unemployed. All sorts of possible ramifications spring to mind. Will it be such a career advantage to be physically attractive - e.g. tall man with good teeth and wide shoulders - if you're at home the whole time? Will assertiveness and "presence" count for as much as it did in the old days? On a more macro level will the South v North disparity widen or close as a result of no commuting? One could go on and on. Perhaps the consequences we logically expect will not happen and instead we see some very left-field and surprising effects.
Question - do you wish to return to the stress of a one hour each way commute into London, or do you think people will prefer to do it as an occasional or weekly, bi-weekly "treat".
I think with a commute that long the majority would rather it not be daily and mandatory.
It depends very much on how being at home a lot more will impact your state of mind and your key relationships.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
Medium to long term for us, I think it will mean that our offices become a bit more "hot desky". We'll have marketing Tuesdays when the entire marketing and sales team is in the office, and developer Mondays and Thursday, and legal and finance Wednesdays...
This means we'll need to have a little less space than previously. But we'll still have a physical office, and we'll still all meet relatively frequently.
In such a set up the developer or finance manager who does the most days outside their speciality in the office will build up a knowledge advantage over those who do the minimum.
Without offices how different would the learning process in your twenties be? Understanding the technology, how different parts of a business fit together, how to manage and get the best out of people. Maybe I am a luddite but I dont see how that knowledge gets assimilated effectively by the next generation.
Perhaps this is a drawbridge moment, those with experience gained pre 2020 will have an enduring and significant advantage over those yet to gain it. Yet again the interests of the young will be ignored for the benefit of the rest of society.
Agreed.
We have little problem with existing team members working from home. We all knew each other and worked very closely together before CV19.
Next month we bring on our first new developer since the pandemic. They'll be working remotely for the foreseeable. Now, we have Slack, etc. But... I still think getting fully up to speed on the codebase and on our development best practices will be harder.
I've recruited a junior to work for me from September, I'm also dreading having to train them remotely.
I organize a lot of training workshops, inverted classroom adult education type of stuff, rather than PowerPoint data dumps. I am having to turn all of them into online offerings.
I start the first in 2 weeks - frankly no idea whether they will work, as everything I do is predicated on establishing teams and trust within the first few sessions, so that these seasoned professionals are willing to make themselves vulnerable, by speaking up and asking for help. I am really doubtful I can do that anywhere as quickly or effectively online as I can in person.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
NY POST - Maxwell lawyers look to keep ‘highly confidential’ evidence from going public
Defense attorneys for alleged Jeffrey Epstein madam Ghislaine Maxwell want to hide from the public sensitive evidence ahead of her trial — including any nude photos and sexualized videos that will be marked “highly confidential,” according to court documents. . . .
The bombshell files set to be released are from a 2015 defamation suit filed by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts.
The £50 bike repair voucher scheme seems a touch odd to me. Great if you've got a bike that needs repairing I suppose but what about if you haven't got a bike?
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
What sort of bike do you think you can get for £50?
Best bicycle I ever had, was one fished out of a dumpster. Minimal to say the least, but used it for two years to commute 7 miles to work and back three times a week while going to school.
Here in Seattle, you can easily buy a bike for equivalent of 50 quid at just about any homeless camp. Bit of cottage industry, stealing bikes from careless yuppies then selling them to other yuppies.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
FT: "Swedish companies reap benefits of country’s Covid-19 approach" Better than expected numbers suggests no-lockdown strategy helped business
and
Telegraph: "Spain's experience shows that Sweden's Covid approach could have been right all along" At the end of this we may well conclude that countries which attempted total suppression of the virus killed their economies for zero gain
And they didn't close their schools so they haven't got a cohort of badly educated, socially-traumatised kids.
Sweden now has 564 deaths per million and will likely soon overtake Italy on 581 as it has more new cases. Only Belgium, us and Spain will have more deaths per head then in the world than Sweden does
But, like Italy or Spain, they are only registering a few deaths per day, now.
Yet the Swedish recession will be dwarfed by the recessions (Depressions) in southern Europe (and in the UK)
And Sweden kept the schools open, and they're not even using masks.
It still too early to say, but if you HAD to choose a European model to follow (if you could) it would be Sweden
No. It would be Germany, far fewer deaths than Sweden per head and opened up its economy from lockdown earlier than us
++++++
Perhaps. But Germany now has a hint of a second wave, and it is possible their excellent earlier record was more from luck than judgement.
Sweden's outcome was a result of definite policy.
As ever, we shall see
Sweden still has more daily cases per head than Germany, it was German mass testing from an early stage and lockdown imposed when needed that was key.
Germany also has more facemask wearing than Sweden and now requires facemasks outside as well as inside
It does? - (looks outside) - Nobody seems to have been told.
'The head of Germany's public health agency has said he is "very concerned" by rising infections in the country...At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Wieler asked people for the first time to wear a mask outdoors if they cannot maintain a physical distance of at least 1.5 metres (5ft).
Previously the guidance had been to wear masks indoors in public.'
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
I should qualify all this by saying I really like Americans as individuals - every single one I've met has been charm itself. I simply think the epoch of American domination of international politics (for reasons that are not entirely America's own fault) has been pretty brutal.
I sense a man who has not worked on the trading floor at Lehman Bros.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
I think it is fair to say that after that very good start, they somewhat regressed to the mean we have unfortunately come to expect from them since Walsh and Ambrose retired.
It's England's fairly consistent pattern of under performing in the first test in a series. It will be interesting to see if this applies to back to back series against Pakistan.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
I think it is fair to say that after that very good start, they somewhat regressed to the mean we have unfortunately come to expect from them since Walsh and Ambrose retired.
It's England's fairly consistent pattern of under performing in the first test in a series. It will be interesting to see if this applies to back to back series against Pakistan.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
The example of Ireland is probably the best one to show that the Statute of Westminster meant independence.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Yeah, on fucking tenterhooks for whether FDR was going to back Germany.
Was that ever a serious prospect? Staying neutral was, but siding with Germany?
German almost became an official language of the US in the 1790s, alongside (rather than instead of, as is sometimes erroneously claimed) English. And there were undoubted German sympathies amongst the GOP and leading businessmen of the time. But there isn’t really a credible scenario in which the US would have taken a different side in WW2 that doesn’t involve going back and re-writing history for the century or so prior.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
So they were technically still legal powers Westminster had over those dominions well into the latter half of the 20th century exactly as I originally said, thanks for the confirmation.
Canada as I said only had full independence from Westminster under the Constitution Act 1982
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
The example of Ireland is probably the best one to show that the Statute of Westminster meant independence.
It was actually only the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 which vested full executive and legislative authority in Ireland in the President of Ireland and the Oireachtas
Comments
That so many NHS staff are overweight will only make it harder to convince the public to take weight loss advice
CHARLES MOORE"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/28/must-slim-many-nurses-fat/
However, I also think we are at something of a risk of deciding a bit precipitously that everything has definitely changed forever. I mean, pretty unsurprisingly various environmental groups round my way have decided that of course any and all road building projects should immediately cease as they will definitely not be needed as everyone homeworks. That's an extreme example, and as I said I don't rule out that in certain ways things will change for good as a result of this, but I think people are a bit quick to judge on that.
but those companies who do it well will be far better placed than those who can't and it will be obvious probably fairly quickly who knows how to train people and what works and what doesn't. I suspect knowledge by osmosis doesn't work as well as people think it does.
Realize arm-chair strategists will feel free to criticize Lincoln Group's approach, but keep in mind that most of us (yours truly included) simply are NOT in same league as Vance and his associates when it comes to politics as the art of the possible.
Pillar 1 positive rates, per week. Note: Log scaled.
For the last 10 weeks -
This makes it official - the higher headline reported rates are driven by pillar 2 testing.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
Overall it'll change more slowly than people think at the moment, but it will change.
Some things do need to change globally though to go truly officeless - 100% electronic invoicing is a big one - don't see that happening shortly. But I think it will happen eventually.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Do you have the split between the two?
The last three weeks data is shown below. Column 2 is the reported cases (P1 +P2).
Column3 is the seven day moving average. Column 4 is the ratio of the latest 7 day MA over the previous 7 day MA.
If we could split the data between P1 and P2 we could see the trends in each.
From what you say, it looks as if the contagion is being driven in the community rather than in hospitals, which kinda makes sense.
Of course not playing the man of the series in the first test really didn't help. Presumably the selectors who made that call have been offered the traditional whisky and revolver so they can do the decent thing.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903436/Weekly_COVID19_report_data_w30.xlsx
And found data split by Pillar 1 and Pillar 2.... by week only, though
I'd have thought £50 for either buying a bike or repairs would make more sense, or even simply removing VAT from bikes (if its on them, I'm assuming it is).
But the comparison is an unfair one, because for most of the time, America has been unchallenged. Britain was always surrounded and constrained by other powers of a similar magnitude. And it needed to trade with the world, so had an interest in its security and prosperity. If these things had not been true, perhaps we'd have been worse.
We have little problem with existing team members working from home. We all knew each other and worked very closely together before CV19.
Next month we bring on our first new developer since the pandemic. They'll be working remotely for the foreseeable. Now, we have Slack, etc. But... I still think getting fully up to speed on the codebase and on our development best practices will be harder.
Though I prefer the version of that saying applied to David Steel!
But get some notes ready for when he arrives.
Potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on a flight from Singapore to Hangzhou, China: An epidemiological investigation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920303124
I'll have to re-calibrate my mental image.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
Failure of UK to hold Singapore and defend Australia led to that nation aligning with US from 1942 forward. And in North Atlantic, Brits would have been scuppered without efforts of Royal Canadian Navy which quickly aligned itself as much if not more with USN as compared with RN.
Does NOT change fact that RN was North America's main, crucial defense against Nazis until at least 1943, also that RN was dominate force in Western Approaches, Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean & South Atlantic throughout the war.
And thank God - and them - for that!
This means we'll need to have a little less space than previously. But we'll still have a physical office, and we'll still all meet relatively frequently.
Here in Seattle, you can easily buy a bike for equivalent of 50 quid at just about any homeless camp. Bit of cottage industry, stealing bikes from careless yuppies then selling them to other yuppies.
In some places, the move has been to create integrated horizontal work units, with the legal/admin working on a particular product line sitting with the developers/production/sales for that line so they work as a unit, not as competing disciplines.
He would have got on better with the Americans, for a start. He could hardly have got on worse.
It depends very much on how being at home a lot more will impact your state of mind and your key relationships.
I start the first in 2 weeks - frankly no idea whether they will work, as everything I do is predicated on establishing teams and trust within the first few sessions, so that these seasoned professionals are willing to make themselves vulnerable, by speaking up and asking for help. I am really doubtful I can do that anywhere as quickly or effectively online as I can in person.
Defense attorneys for alleged Jeffrey Epstein madam Ghislaine Maxwell want to hide from the public sensitive evidence ahead of her trial — including any nude photos and sexualized videos that will be marked “highly confidential,” according to court documents. . . .
The bombshell files set to be released are from a 2015 defamation suit filed by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
- (looks outside) -
Nobody seems to have been told.
'The head of Germany's public health agency has said he is "very concerned" by rising infections in the country...At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Wieler asked people for the first time to wear a mask outdoors if they cannot maintain a physical distance of at least 1.5 metres (5ft).
Previously the guidance had been to wear masks indoors in public.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53566880
You claimed "requires", this is merely advice.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1288154030661869568?s=20
Do you think the effort of coming up with all these puns for your delectation is the problem?
I suppose you look younger than your age? Yes thought so.
Most people think they do.
Canada as I said only had full independence from Westminster under the Constitution Act 1982