2/ As a general principle, solving the symptom of a problem without solving the underlying causes is a terrible idea. It removes the urgency to solve the problem once and for all, making it grow larger.
3/ One question worth asking is, why is student debt not a problem in Europe?
The naive answer: government subsidies to students.
The real answer: contained costs.
The total operational costs for my ex-university in 2018 were "just" $7.8k / student / year.
3/ If we order the 21 parameters by descending predictive power, and apply it to the data used to build the model, we discover that:
- The first parameter alone predicts the outcome of many regions.
- The last parameter, at most, helps predicting the outcome of a single region.
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)
2/ One reason is that hiring inside is Lindier than hiring remote – not from a historical perspective, but (see below) for the range of circumstances that must be true and must hold true over time for remote hiring to be effective vs in-house.
3/ (Yes, there are good examples of hiring remote, but I suspect there's a lot of survivorship bias in there. Also, it's possible that you hire a better-than-internal remote talent and still lose the long-term game due to externalities such as morale hits or cultural problems.)
Often, the best approach is not A or B, but an alternation of A and B.
For example, action and reflection. Or study and application.
It’s not about balance, but about making hypotheses and verifying them.
For example, the human cortex 🧠 is based on the principle of *alternating* two operations: expansion and compression of information.
Only one operation would not be able to achieve any meaningful result.
3/ Instead, the cortex alternates these two steps:
- It expands information across all possible hypotheses, relevant or irrelevant.
- It compresses information, by eliminating the hypotheses that are proved wrong by sensorial stimuli and/or experience.
Of course, inclusive college admission is better than non-inclusive one. But it’s still pretty non-inclusive, to everyone for whom college is not a viable option, and to all towns and families for whom having their young go away is not a viable option.
Decentralization would probably be more inclusive than any form of inclusive centralization.