Ici, c'est un stéréotype depuis longtemps

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_v...

In fact, I suspect that this phenomenon is so general that I propose a general law:

If person A suggests replacing people doing B with an AI chatbot, person A is almost certainly a stronger candidate for replacement with an AI chatbot than people doing B.

It's essentially that Thatcherism and the consensus that followed it didn't believe in investment but rather a kind of vulture / disaster economy - Rees Mogg gets rich when businesses fail. Now Deutsche Bahn is being privatised it's getting pretty crappy too of course.

In fact, I suspect that this phenomenon is so general that I propose a general law:

If person A suggests replacing people doing B with an AI chatbot, person A is almost certainly a stronger candidate for replacement with an AI chatbot than people doing B.

Grew up in Leeds but I've no horse in the race, lots of great food both sides of the Pennines - some nice fusion too, the Brussels Sprout Bhaji is a Christmas offer in a few places.

As many people can attest, if any of you is passing through Manchester I take any Internet visitors for excellent Indian food and provide overly literal conversation on diverse topics.

> wider public involvement in this (and am working on projects to improve public involvement) because ultimately we want democratic input in pandemic response from those affected, not "technocratic" decisions.

But, yes there were an awful lot of insincere grifters.

> employment, prisoners, the homeless, pensioners etc. There are quite serious health economic analyses that suggest that school closures were one of the least cost-effective interventions - many countries kept similar R numbers with schools open and closed.

Personally, I'd really like much >

I would say that almost all of us working on pandemic response from the current Chief Medical Officer down are very concerned with all the inequalities that pandemics exacerbate, and learning loss is a very important one of those, alongside disproportionate impacts on those with precarious >

Sorry just to clarify in the second sentence "much" should have been "little" of course.

I think it was a big problem explaining how people like Watson were tolerated - now it's probably a bit less, but too much is still goes on.

Vigesimal > tous.

My other pet peeve is when journalists say things like "Can Reeves get her sums to add up?" as though the national economy is just a matter of basic arithmetic rather than an incredibly complex non-linear system.

Probably nothing is universal; the ones I get focus on supposed benefits for energy, others may be more on althetic performance.

I don't know if exogenous Testosterone is any worse than other dubious interventions, but it's somehow very persuasive and that may make it one of the bigger public health threats - these "TRT" ads are everywhere, and seem to be a common thing the algorithm serves you as a middle-aged male.

There's a similar problem in the UK where "cost efficiency" calculations for vaccines are done extremely well technically, but the Government simply doesn't value the health benefits very highly (low £ per QALY) so we get lower coverage. I pay for a flu jab but that's a barrier for many.

Maybe it doesn't matter practically, but some have large retraction watermarks that obscure content. I can see the argument that sometimes a very strong statement of unreliability of a paper is needed of course.