This. There are a few great and lots of ok engineers. But when it comes to managers, the scale is reverse. there are a lot of bad mangers and a few ok ones. yet to meet a great manager personally. May be its because the managers skill set is hard to measure?
Quoting from the article "The ultimate goal is to lock greenhouse gases away forever. Some could be nested within products like carbon fiber, polymers, or concrete, but far more will simply need to be buried underground, a costly job that no business model seems likely to support." This is the nub of the CO2 problem. you dont know what to do with it as a business.
"We are already approaching the point when it will be feasible — not necessarily desirable — for those engaged in what is quaintly called “white-collar” jobs to do perhaps 95 per cent of their work without leaving home. " :- he nailed the trend of working from home too.
"Rather than fill the information deficit by building an arsenal of facts, scientists should instead consider how they deploy their knowledge. They may have more luck communicating if, in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions. " - Apparently, doing science alone is not enough any more.
>discussions throughout the weekend centered on a desire for love, comfort, intellectual stimulation, decent leaders, a sustainable environment, friendship, and stability
This is the realization that comes after years of living. May be these are the things worth living for too.
I prefer PNGs to almost any other format in my documents, since they seem to be almost lossless and also dont bloat the size. Such a great work must surely be a product of a brilliant Mind. RIP Glenn Randers-Pehrson.
I read a passage related to this, in a book called 5000 years of trade. Countries can be categorized as rich/scarce in capital, land or labour. Those countries that are rich in say capital, tend to enforce protections on capital while relaxing the policies for land and labour. So coming back to this article, I would say that US being rich in capital has strictly enforced and nurtured conditions on its society by which capital has decent return through investment into student, house debt etc., while meaningly deteriorating the conditions for labour (wages). This is the reason why it is incredibly difficult to become rich nowadays in US through wages alone..
Summing up the discussions, it seems to me that US is the capital lending source for the world. Every country loans, saves and invests in US dollars to improve their economy. Previously this role was played by Gold but gold source is limited while US can ensure(theoretically) unlimited supply of dollars. So, in effect, all the growth that we saw from 1971 was due to this switch from Gold.
This arrangement works well for everyone. The other issue about US sanctions will push the rest of the world towards searching for an alternative, is not true.The reality is, the rest of the world adapts and tries to compromise with US. May be it is first mover or luck or strength of US economy, but this role played by US is not likely to be replicated or substituted.
But, interestingly, this role of US dollar is very beneficial for capital or investments in US. And by the same corollary, is very bad for US labor, since they are competing not just against the other countries, but against US dollar. May be this is also the reason for the unrest and social protests?
The Author is unfortunately right about the academic PhD program today, but mixes up two different things. A PhD is meant to teach you about what I call the "body of human knowledge" and to initiate you into it. Period. It does not matter if you can make a learning out of it, nor it helps you earn loads of money. All those hours of reviewing done by the DC members, journal reviewers etc. are done without the expectation of a single penny. It is done to place the PhD research in context among the world of human knowledge. Once you have done a PhD, you are supposed to get more confident dealing with unknown problems in general. Granted, other pressures like career, money and sometimes mere survival! take precedence after PhD but those are beyond the scope of your PhD.
Of course, you can work on cutting edge problems without a PhD but probably do it better with PhD. A PhD teaches a lot of intangible things like being comfortable with unknown problems , working patiently towards an end goal, get over the fear of failure etc. One thing it does not teach is how to earn money :).
In this context I would like to highlight unique cases where you do an "Industrial PhD" where you are working in a company and chose a relevant problem for a PhD. These have the "best of both worlds" and one is not bogged down with typical pressures in a regular PhD like those pointed by the author.
That said, the final word is that a PhD is merely a conduit. Its more of what you chose to do with it than what it is , which matters at the end.
Exactly my thought too. There is one more missing element here other than competence, namely Performance. The performance at a particular level depends on how the agents perceives the promotions are made. If randomly promoted or worse, promoted even without best performance, there is no incentive for people to perform even if they have the best competence.
The transformation of Microsoft into an opensource champion almost makes me feel old when I remember those days :) way to go, Microsoft and respects to Satya Nadella who managed this transformation.