IceCreamGondola

Really interesting read. I used to work for gov in the UK as a Data Scientist doing similar work to understand impact of policy/production of statistics.

My team was given the freedom to explore and implement improvements as we saw fit which lead to some interesting work.

The disadvantage of it being not for profit is that things could nice at a glacial pace, particularly the acquisition of data.

2 main things

Devoted [0] - An app to explore historical prayers and creeds from the 3 main Christian traditions

God's Green Earth [1] - A pet project that doesn't even have a website yet. It will be a blog/photo gallery exploring the connection between man, nature and God.

[0] https://devotedapp.faith

[1] https://godsgreen.earth

As someone who used to work in Civil Service I can't say I'm surprised. The range of technical competance across the different government departments is staggering. Some are really making leaps and bounds while others are bloated, technical monoliths.

Yes, nowhere near as bad as Slack though. Zoom is awful on iPhone, it drains battery very quickly and has crashed my device probably 5 times in a row.

NHS certainly don't need a central IT system but there are massive gains to be made inside health boards. My wife works in the NHS and the fragmented nature of a lot of the data makes their work incredibly inefficient.

The NHS is notorious for having little to no connected IT systems. It's not that the data doesn't exist but it's so siloed that even within Health Boards it is hard to access.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no issue with global trade. What I have an issue with is our over-reliance on global trade.

That could be a possibility

Nothing wrong with needing to transport but the problem is that globalisation has made it economically more viable to sell globally than locally. Produce should first be sourced locally then globally when they really need it.

> In the 1970s, increasing incomes in urban areas stimulated the demand for meat and dairy products, but by the early 1980s government programs were only partially successful in increasing domestic production. Bedouin continued to raise a large number of sheep and goats. Payments for increased flocks, however, had not resulted in a proportionate increase of animals for slaughter. Some commercial feedlots for sheep and cattle had been established as well as a few modern ranches, but by the early 1980s, much of the meat consumed was imported. Although the meat supply was still largely imported in the early 1990s, domestic production of meat had grown by 33 percent between 1984 and 1990, from 101,000 tons to 134,000 tons. This increase, however, masked the dominant role of traditional farms in supplying meat. Although new projects accounted for some of the rapid growth during the 1980s, a sharp decline of roughly 74 percent in beef stock production by specialized projects during 1989 resulted in only a 15 percent fall in meat output. This reversal also highlighted the problems in introducing modern commercial livestock-rearing techniques to the Kingdom. [1]

Yes they don't have the capability to rear enough livestock so they have to import. Saudi Arabia existed before large scale imports like this, the problem is our (read: economically powerful countries) expectations are that we can get whatever we want whenever we want. When that happens tragedies like this occur.

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

Without knowing the in's and out's of supply and demand this really raises the question as to why 14,000 sheep needed to be transported. Our reliance on global markets for our produce is out of hand (probably preaching to the converted here).

If that's what they're going for then fine. I expressed my opinion that I wouldn't take them seriously. Underneath the ridiculous branding they may very well be a great VC firm but the website doesn't sell that to me.

Totally agree

See my response to TeMPOral downstream. Using names isn't the problem, saturating your company with the mythology is.

> A good chunk of countries, counties and cities on the planet have mythical beasts in their official signage. So do the militaries and companies dealing with them.

Yes they do and that isn't a problem. There is a difference between using symbols and names and then branding your entire website with said things.

> From the other end, entrepreneurial scene is full of discussions about a particular mythical beast, the unicorn (as 'DoreenMichele pointed out upthread).

The link 'DoreenMichele sent is not the point. I don't care about signage I care about branding. Starbucks isn't using the Mermaid mythology in how it describes its company, it uses it as signage. That's fine no issues there.

Side note: I think the "unicorn" obsession in the tech sector is stupid and overrated. If a company advertises that it's looking for its next "unicorn-x" then I pretty much write them off.

> Really, it doesn't seem to me that you're uncomfortable with mythical beasts per se. It's just this creature isn't part of the old, baseline culture. It isn't Greek/Roman/Chinese mythology. It's a part of the nerd subculture. That's what I think you're uncomfortable with.

I think that's a pretty big leap to make. I have no issues with a company calling itself "Cthulu". I have an issue with how it is plastered all over the site and has even formed its mission statement around it.

These I don’t really see a problem with. The name is inspired by fiction that’s fine. When I go onto a firms website and see images of a mythical monster plastered everywhere that’s when it gets a bit ridiculous.

Exactly, this type of question is to appraise the student's critical thinking and how well they can defend an action. Not an assessment of morality. It reminds me of Religious Education GCSE exams where they give a statement such as (from my GCSE):

"Women should be allowed in front-line roles in the army. State your opinion and explain why."

They weren't looking for a "right" answer but were assessing critical thinking and the ability to defend your belief.

Sorry but I would not trust a company that brands itself using a mythical monster to give me funding. If I'm putting the future of my company in the hands of some venture-capitalists I'd want to know they're the real deal and a company that uses:

"Our goal, as Cthulhu, is to support initiatives designed to rise from the dark depths of R’lyeh (metaphorically speaking!) and end up destroying or at least disrupting, some market paradigm."

As its opening line does not exude professionalism.

Making a mountain out of a molehill. As others have said, the further up the chain you go the harder the decision you have to make. The wording of the question is careful to avoid the outrage that people are stirring up. If you believed the narrative people are pushing on Twitter you would think Eton are training young people to commit atrocities and get away with it. It's pathetic and it's tiring.

Side note: How awful is the design of the https://www.indy100.com website?

Agreed, the quality of content on there isn't poor in itself but is aimed at getting low hanging fruit.

The idea of “centrist apathy” is pretty much unfounded. Most of the time people who describe themselves as center-x are people who would normally be characterised as left or right in the past. Instead we have increasingly polarised parties that represent the minorities and not the whole. Trump succeeded because he somehow managed to appeal to those who have been left out in the cold by the progressive left while also appealing to the right.

This really is the case for people like myself who have typically been center left. I would never vote for Trump but additionally I can never see myself vote for Sanders, Warren, etc. On the left end of the political spectrum there is no longer any space for people who aren't progressive enough.

The progressive left seem to be in the mindset that if they steamroll the population with ideas and rhetoric, rather than practical solutions then they will eventually follow. The paradoxical popularity of Trump is the result.