Thread by @swardley

This has almost nothing to do with what is beneficial to the economy and almost everything to do with power, status symbols, inertia and vested interests. UK should be encouraging adaptation not trying to recreate the past. Disappointing from a UK Gov figure ->

https://twitter.com/MPIainDS/status/1447071058490712064

X : Do you think it really matters?
Me : I wouldn't talk about it if I didn't. We need our corporations to adapt, the new behaviours that are emerging depend upon remote working, distributed communication and access to data.

It's all about future state. As we currently stand, China will be the space fairing nation of 2050 with km wide space stations, the emerging Star Trek -phys.org/news/2021-09-c…

The UK will do a nice line in luxury yacht rental and frozen yoghurt - ft.com/content/351cf2…

X : You don't believe in the UK mission?
Me : What mission? Boris talking hot air about unleashing the future? "The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought" ... we don't even have a handle on our supply chains.

Me : Look at the list of behaviours. This is what we need to do as a nation if we want to unleash our "talent". We have great people hampered by decades of useless "leaders". We need to distribute leadership across Gov and Corporations, move towards more "leaderless" leadership.

X : DAO?
Me : Those are exactly the sort of things we should be experimenting with. Adapting to a remote world is more than just using zoom which is why so many with power associated with physical presence and status symbols want to get everyone back into the office.

X : How do we do that?
Me : Adopt the new world?
X : Yes
Me : Well, you can't ignore inertia caused by status (top floor offices etc). So, for the short term you'll have to recreate it in virtual spaces whilst we learn new practices. IDS column is sending all the wrong signals.

X : China has won AI battle with U.S?
Me : Eh?
X : reuters.com/technology/uni…
Me : That was obvious about 6 years ago when I wrote my China vs US report. Nothing surprising here.
X : Explain.

Me : You need to look carefully at how China plays the game. Btw, you can't see the pattern unless you map it but China deliberately targets and moves up the industrialised side of the map. It's very skillful and the effect can be seen in exports -

https://twitter.com/swardley/status/660536823194628096

Me : It is very targetted, use of SEZ and other techniques. This requires a deep understanding of supply chains and components -

https://twitter.com/swardley/status/1306351651209523210

Me : Back in 2014/15 when I compared US vs China, looked at different industries, how evolved the components were, how Govs were targetting ... then ... well ...

https://twitter.com/swardley/status/1306353240334897153

Me : The problem (as was then, still today) is the US / UK have very poor understanding of supply chains and little to no situational awareness at an executive level. IDS and his get back to the office mantra is just another symptom of this.

Me : If you look at the maps, AI was a key component of many supply chains and yes, it was already a point of strategic investment for China Gov circa 2014/15. Which is why UK Gov national AI strategy in 2021 is so ... sad + late + wrong - gov.uk/government/pub…

Me : We don't even have the foundations (data sharing etc) in place, we don't understand the supply chains, we don't have an industry to speak of. UK is a bit like Oracle turning up to the IaaS cloud battle several years after it was over and declaring it would be a major player.

X : So how could UK beat China?
Me : Beat? Competition means "seeking together" i.e. one or more actors seeking something. Conflict (fighting together) is just one way of playing the game, there are other ways for competition i.e. co-operation, collaboration etc.

X : Competition is a zero sum game.
Me : If you believe that, I can guarantee one outcome in the long run.
X : Which is?
Me : You make it a zero sum game with you losing.

X : We can't beat China?
Me : We can compete and that does mean unleashing our talents which in turn means adapting to this new world and these new behaviours. It does not mean rushing back to the office. This is why I dislike IDS' column. It's the wrong play.

X : Why so sure?
Me : Evolution. Physical space is being industrialised to a utility with virtual space.
X : Maybe not.
Me : Hmmm. China plans to be the leading space faring nation by 2050. Do you agree the future of humanity is in space, beyond the Earth?
X : Probably.

Me : Ok, so let us think about those future space faring nations. Are you expecting them to rush back to some centralised office for physical meetings or to remotely collaborate and work together? Once you've answered that, you should know where things are going.

X : Is X real?
Me : In the above, I weaved together eight different conversations, all of them real. X is no-one and everyone.