Adam Tooze asks:

Does it really make sense to perpetuate a system in which disastrous financial risks are built into the profit-driven provision of basic financial products like pensions and mortgages? Yes the central bank can act as the fire brigade, but why do we such a dangerous situation as normality. Why do the smoke detectors fail again and again? And why is the house not more fire proof? It is time to ask who benefits and who pays the cost for continuing with this dangerously inflammable system.

Does it make sense? Probably not.

Lots of great ways to manage change in organizations. It’s a bunch of work to do this, but if you skip these steps, the results can and will backfire. I particularly like the guiding policy strategy where even if I don’t know something I can usually spitball the values and invariants of the situation that will fit the result.

The corollary to this is that in any field where there is a gender disparity, the surplus of people is subcompetent.

Let’s take software engineering as an example.

If we assume that programming ability is distributed equally between men and women–and there’s really nothing pointing in a different direction here– then it follows that if there are 80% men and 20% men in the field, then those 30% men are taking up the spots of women who would have been better at this work.

Ceteris paribus of course, which it isn’t for all kinds of similarly gender equity related reasons.

And to go one further, the incompetent men in the field know they’re incompetent. That’s why they try to keep women out and are often nasty to work with.

These days, “no one is taking any creative risk,” said Laura Mayer, a veteran podcast executive and producer who’s worked at several large publishers. “We’re seeing plenty of efforts to reverse-engineer what were successes in podcasting, and as a result, we get a lot of watered-down karaoke attempts at what worked out in the past.”

The more budget and production values a podcast has, generally the less it’s worth listening to.