Note that they built human-virus labs in the middle of metropolises such as Wuhan and agricultural-virus labs in the middle of monoculture fields. That's everything you need to know about whether you should listen to them regarding risks.
The previous agricultural-virus lab was built on an island, so that the ocean could provide a cordon of safety in case of a leak.
They decided to move it in the agricultural heartland.
Decisions made around researchers, not around keeping our lives and livelihoods safe.
"The risk assessment didn’t even attempt to quantify the likelihood of malicious or deliberate acts."
"In 2001, anthrax stolen from a federal bioweapons lab killed five people and sickened 17 more."
"Trewyn [the researcher who led the efforts to build the lab] believes that the risk of accidental pathogen escape, in all its uncertainty, is worth taking."
They didn’t have the time to consider malicious behavior in their risk assessment, but they did spend a lot of time thinking about social engagement.
Stuff that happens when you’re judged by peers with no skin in the game, I guess.
Nothing about graduation rates (literacy rates, yes).
Instead:
– Knowing what matters for society to work well
– Being able to find a value-adding role in society
– Having learned that personal improvement is achievable
Things such as:
– What brings prosperity?
– What did countries that were wealthy and democratic do (or didn't do) that caused them to become poor or totalitarian
Seems banal, but…
2/6
…we only discuss how good it's to be prosperous or democratic without discussing how to get there or how not to fall back to the default state (poverty / absence of rights)
3/6
A problem of many organizations is that they are aware of the needs of employees (impact, recognition, growth, fair salary, etc) but fulfill them as they would with a checklist: let's do this superficially, checked, done.
Some examples (& solutions) ↓
1/8
Example #1: recognition.
Many companies and managers know that employees want recognition.
But they fulfill this need in a very superficial way. With a small internal award, a certificate, etc. Top red flag: it's HR-driven and/or feels cringe.
2/8
The alternative:
– make it personal: it should come from the boss or the boss' boss.
– make it congruent: a moment of recognition followed by a year of no recognition feels (and likely is) fake.
3/8
Whenever we desire an outcome but not the actions that would make us achieve it, we end up with inaction, busywork, shortcuts, excuses, and, ultimately, frustration.
(a thread of highlights from the first chapter of my book "The Control Heuristic")
1/14
You probably do not have a decision-making problem, but an action-taking one
2/14
Decision-making is not the same as action-taking.
The cortex is mostly responsible for taking decisions, and the ~basal ganglia determines whether we act on our decisions.
The recent wealth tax increase in Norway was expected to bring an additional $146M in yearly tax revenue
Instead, an estimated $54B-worth of ultra-rich left the country, leading to a lost $594M in yearly wealth tax revenue
A net decrease of $448M+
(sources and calculations ↓)
The Guardian estimates the wealth of the relocated millionaires at 600B NOK, or $54B. That would have been taxed at 1.1%, which means $594M in wealth tax lost
Norway raised NOK 16.1B = $1.46B in wealth taxes in 2019 (page 3 of the PDF below); increasing the wealth tax from 1% to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Plenty of replies who seem to think that leaving the country to keep one’s money is greed, but implementing a wealth tax to get someone else’s money isn’t