6. Remote work will dramatically go up
Transnational work will increase
7. Demand for Business Real Estate will go down
8. New tools for remote work will appear, making it more productive
9. Real estate will go up in suburban and rural areas
10. International tax evasion will increase
And states will increase their pressure to close those loopholes
11. The explosion of creators will continue
12. More ppl will work remotely in more than one job. More freelancers
13. White-collar workers will be less competitive in high-income areas. Unless they have a unique skillset, they will be replaced by high-skilled workers in poorer areas
14. But high-skill workers will make even more $ than before
15. Business travel will go down. It might take time for it to go back up again, if ever
16. That might make air travel for tourism much more expensive, since business travel is the biggest share of their income
17. Citizens will have more power. The public opinion will matter more
18. Multinational organizations will have more power, from companies to supranational governmental organizations
19. Nation-states will have less power. They're already measured against their peers. Now they will be much more so.
20. Rich ppl will get richer, especially those with high skills
21. Everybody will become an investor, whether that's through apps like Robinhood or Coinbase, through NFTs, or other ways we haven't thought about. The best (or luckiest) ones will live their entire lives off of good bets.
What else?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scientists have something to learn from musicians.
Their business models are changing in a similar direction. The ones who realize it quickly will gather an impact and wealth that few could have dreamed of before. 🧵
The currency of scientists is references to their published papers: The more references they get, the more successful they're considered, the more likely they are to get tenure, go up the ranks, and make $
That business model means they need to please their peers and the scientific journals.
Both of these are traditional gatekeepers who have a strong incentive about reputation. The more on the cutting edge the paper, the better. The more jargon, the more it looks advanced.
How many times have you heard excuses of why the West couldn't control COVID? Only islands, only authoritarian regimes...
Alternative interpretation:
To be clear, I'm not saying it was sufficient to do test-trace-isolate well to control the virus. But it was necessary: without it, you couldn't succeed.
The countries who did test-trace-isolate well also did other things, notably all have a good fence. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
I think it can be improved: 1. Your setup is unnecessary (everybody shares that context)
2. The rest is mostly about the pbm. That part is strong and well structured. But 95% of your email is about the problem, while you state it's about resolution
3. You're missing a "midpoint", WHY this problem exists and hasn't been solved yet (recent change in resource alloc? Process broke?)
4. Your solution is 1 line but doesn't give confidence that it will solve the pbm: no root cause, no reason why it will solve the pbm
Some ppl make fun of those who say new technologies (like blockchain or AI today) change everything. They counter that ppl always say “This time, it’s different”, but they’re always wrong
Tell that to 19th century rural workers vs machines
Tell that to WWI generals sending their troops to be mauled by machine guns.
Tell that to the Catholic Church when the printing press broke it.
Tell that to the feudal knights made irrelevant by gunpowder.
Tell that to the Gauls when they saw Romans for the 1st time
Tell that today to cab drivers around the world
Travel agents
Western manufacturing employees
Yellow pages publishers
Encyclopedia salespeople
Those who laughed at COVID
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
The right aspect: When you disagree with other ppl, it’s very common to assume it’s because of their malice, and it’s usually wrong.
But stupidity isn’t the answer either
Ppl might have:
Different goals
Different incentives
Different data
Different experiences
Different assumptions
Different aspects of the same conclusion highlighted
Different processing of the same info.
A different processing of the same info might be better or worse.
If better, you might assume they disagree with you because of malice or stupidity, when in fact you’re just wrong.
If they have worse processing, it might be lack of training, youth, tiredness...
Bravo @NicoMartinFC pour ce prix qui célèbre votre démarche scientifique!
Cette semaine, c'est l'anniversaire de l'article où vous m'attaquiez. C'est une bonne occasion pour l'analyser en détail, sans revanchisme, pour mieux comprendre les nuances de la démarche scientifique.
🧵
Intro
L'article commence par la conclusion, qu'il communique avec un jugement personnel, soutenu par une rhétorique agressive.
Démarche scientifique: 0
Rhétorique: 3
Fourchette
Mon article original avait été publié le 10 Mars. Vu que les infectés tardent environ 2-4 semaines à mourrir, on peut estimer les infections en France le 10 Mars en fonction des morts 2-4 semaines plus tard (500 - 10.000).