So, organizers try to include all the realistic contingencies in these simulations. Otherwise the simulation is useless for preparing people to act under pressure.
As of 2021, all the simulations I participated in while studying have been shelved.
Why?
/2
Because all of those simulations fail to account for an organized effort from a reasonably large, highly connected portion of the population to resist epidemic response measures.
/3
Of course, we assume some noncompliance, and even some efforts to spread noncompliance. That has happened in many, even most, historical epidemic responses.
But this (COVID) is many simulation organizers' first experience with...
/4
...online efforts to orchestrate formally oriented institutions (this term means "institutions that do not rely on people having preexisting personal relationships to work together on something")...
...around getting people to not get vaccinated or not wear masks.
/5
This isn't "John threw a fit at the rotary club" or "Nina the matriarch warned her family and friends not to get jabbed."
The sophistication of the COVID disinformation campaign is different, and bigger, than those (expected) occurrences.
It's rendering our sims obsolete.
/6
The upshot is, ten years from NOW, I expect that epidemic response simulations will have to include this contingency.
Hopefully by then we've figured out some ways to successfully address it, but from where I'm standing it seems as insidious as the pathogens themselves.
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have, four times now, witnessed a group of software and machine learning whizzes gather in a room (or Zoom) to brainstorm the reinvention of transport for eco-friendliness and human convenience.
All four times, the brainstorm "invented" buses. To the letter. All four times.
This is why, when people ask "can AI save XYZ," I usually think to myself "If AI can save XYZ, listening to folks who didn't grow up rich can save XYZ for like a millionth of the cost of AI trying to save it"
By the way, all four times were personal experiences.
I'm not counting the time when E**n M**k tried to reinvent transportation and invented the bus, or when Via tried to reinvent transportation and invented the bus, or when Uber tried to reinvent transportation and invented th
I want to share an observation that might prompt some thought.
Anytime a colleague who has been at a company <6 months has tried to get me to apply to their team, they either didn't stay for 6 months or they wanted out by 6 months.
This impacts how I respond to that request.
/1
I don't blame my colleagues for this.
I think tech companies (maybe all companies but I'll stick to what I know) tend to try hardest at the recruitment step and a lot less hard at the retention step.
And sometimes they effectively sell a fantasy to hire.
/2
Look.
Working for someone is a big bet.
Selling my friends on working somewhere is a BIGGER bet, by an order of magnitude.
@venikunche This is a tricky question. Here's why:
I think what you're asking is "at what age did you experience your age used against you personally."
But ageism has affected my career in tech separately from my personal age. It does this by shaping the ecosystem itself. Examples:
1/
@venikunche 1. I have never, at a tech company, had a manager over the age of 29, with one exception, who was 32.
It has therefore been impossible for any of them to possess significant management experience. This has affected my experience of, and expectations for, being managed.
2/
@venikunche 2. I have never had a mentor within my same employer with more than ten years' field experience.
To get these, I have had to specifically go find people outside my employer. Most of them have their own businesses because employers fail to recognize their value as FTEs.
3/
1. Most meetings already suck. They don't get better because the folks planning the meetings disproportionately hate meetings less due to they have what we call a high Caucus Score.
2. Remoteness EXACERBATES the way business as usual discounts the needs & contributions of low Caucus Score, remote, or asynchronous teammates. If a meeting is recorded, it's also, consequently, remote.
Let's talk about contract work versus permanent roles, specifically as an engineer (maybe it applies outside engineering, but I'll stick to what I know).
I have done, and still do, both of these, and I'd love to bust some myths about them.
MYTH 1: You have to choose one or the other at a given point in time.
I realize that, for plenty of folks with children and other obligations, having anything in addition to a full time job is not tenable, and I acknowledge that.
That does not mean it's always impossible...
/2
...to try a contract role while in a full time role, if they are curious about it.
Before I started my consultancy, I picked up teaching on the side of my day job. Once I started feeling more fulfilled in teaching than at work, I got A LOT more curious about contract roles.
/3
Once upon a time, during the dawn of the internet era, early web products often came from some college kid. The kid was almost always wealthy & well-connected, but he wasn't MARKET-savvy.
These people, now billionaires, have given beaucoup interviews on how they got started.
/2
Look: I'm as concerned about survivorship bias in drawing conclusions from these interviews as you are. But one thing stands out.
Asked how they got started, they all go "I was playing around and made a thing I wanted to use. Other people liked it. That was literally it."
/3