BlackVanilla

This seems like the games and aptitude tests that some employers make you complete near the start of the process. There is a difference, currently most tests are critical thinking tests or personality quizes that may not match up to the skills you need for the given job. But the important difference is one of test design, not whether it is on the blockchain or not.

The UK's Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (where people are put on furlough and the government contributes to wages) seems to have damped the creative destruction usually seen in recessions. To use a basic example, assuming there will be more remote work in the future compared to pre-COVID times, there will likely be fewer people who commute and fewer people who buy sandwiches at Pret.

Perhaps a better solution is to make furlough portable, so that workers can read the writing on the wall and be part of the reallocation we are soon to see. [1]

[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/11/05/making-furlough-p...

Discussion in 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7884602

I'm aware this issue has been prominent in US politics. In the UK, hopefully a public inquiry on the pandemic response is held and the rules on public inquiry allow for such emails to searched.

I think it would be wise for guidance on ministers' use of private emails to be made law.(1)

(1) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Relevant recent discussion: DARPA Awards Moderna a Grant for Up to $25M to Develop mRNA Therapeutics (2013) (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27359269)

This is a G7 agreement, so it seems the success of the policy will depend how much sway this will have with G20 countries. If it doesn't get the G20's agreement, what stops multinationals from simply domiciling themselves in another country like South Korea or Australia? It's currently done in Ireland, so this isn't a big jump.

Also, there are countries that are not in the G20 that could quite easily undercut an agreement, notably, Switzerland. It already acts as a tax haven for personal income (and corporate income), so an expansion of this haven seems forseeable.

Despite this, I don't think this is a reason to not act. There will be reasons why multinationals will not want to be domiciled in Switzerland.

I recently found out about Summit Public Schools. By the sounds of it, this model aims to provide students with more autonomy than they would in a normal school. There is an emphasis on self-directed learning and teachers act more as mentors than lecturers. If your metric to measure success is admission to unviersity, it works! They claim 98% of their students are accepted onto 4-year courses and have twice the graduation rate relative to the US average. [1] Even if that isn't your metric for success (there are good reasons why it shouldn't be) it at least demonstrates ability.

Perhaps this is a good bridge between school and homeschooling as we know it. I'm sure you can tell from reading this that I only have surface-level understanding, so I'd be interested to hear from anybody who knows more about these schools or other schools that do similar things. Or indeed anybody who wants to shake up education/has some good ideas!

You can read more here: https://summitps.org/

[1] https://summitps.org/the-summit-model/our-results/

I should've been more precise in my wording. There was not enough detail where it really mattered, such as the example you give of 'preventing/hospital management'.

My observation is that countries with detailed plans for rare, but serious, crises are more likely to be better-placed than a country that does not. I realise this is a fairly obvious one and other factors may change outcomes thereafter.

Taiwan had pandemic plans. Many suggest that countries cannot be compared. While this is true in some instances, it is not a useful observation in this case.

Taiwan had a detailed plan in the event of a pandemic, the UK did not. This allowed them to get started with contact tracing earlier and more effectively. The UK had to start from scratch. The UK would be best served to have detailed plans in the event of distasters (not just pandemics).

I think the most valuable thing we can glean from this is the failure of systems. The focus by the BBC has been on transient matters. What will happen to Johnson and Hancock for instance? I think the focus on this is misplaced. If 'lessons are to be learnt', we must focus on systems and their failures too.

Cummings mentioned the the example of PPE logistics. In February/March 2020, he asked what the plan was and an offical replied something along the lines of, "we should get the PPE shipped in a few weeks". Cummings said he was surprised that PPE was being shipped, rather than flown. PPE procurement had always been shipped, so the offical was simply following protocol even if it meant causing more deaths.

Another issue he identified was the scattering of authority. It was not clear who was in charge of pandemic planning. Ministers decided policy, but could not hire and fire civil servants or move people who could effectively solve these sorts of issues to where they would be most useful. He said if Bill Gates were put in charge on 1 March, he would find it a nightmare.

Obviously, this is one person's evidence and we should wait until hearing from more people before forming assigning blame. However, if we are to respond to the next big crisis better, we should look at our systems and not solely focus on the transitory state of politics.

Perhaps in cities, where there is more footfall, it might save money to employ one. But you're certainly right, in these rural Swedish shops, there doesn't seem to be.

Very true, and young people too! I think these shops could reduce loneliness as customers may talk to each other. There's more chance of interaction with a shop than no shop. The concern is where technology is used in place of staffed-shops, but perhaps you would have to make small talk with the security guard instead.