Dr. John Gall was my pediatrician! When I was young, I was interested in astronomy and he gave me a membership in the astronomy book club. I only learned of his work on system theory after his death.
Wow, what an interesting guy. I have a big affinity for people who are interested in lots of different fields. Gotta love any story about someone who feels so strongly about some idea that they fork over their own money to self-publish the book. (IIRC Gall self-published the first edition himself after getting turned down by 20 publishers.)
You can look him up on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=baVVmaoAAAAJ&hl=en
In 2020/2021 he has at least 3 first author papers and a number of co-authored papers and apparently he wrote an impressive thesis. Even if he wanted to continue in academia, in a number of STEM fields, it would be sufficient for a degree. It's not a question of putting in time, it's about output.
I looked at a PDF of the bill that was linked to in the WaPo version of the article. It probably doesn't matter until the House passes its version, but there are funds for AI workforce development for example that might be of interest to those early in their careers.
Thanks, that's interesting to note. The main thing people seem to talk about is the 52 billion for semiconductors which is the "CHIPS" act. Just wondering about the other 200 billion. It looked like $29 billion went to the NSF?
FWIW, this was actually in my wish List on Amazon, so I will eventually get around to buying it. I have Amazon unlimited, so I don't know how much this will help you--the book's description caught my eye and I think it came up as a recommendation. I'll write a review when I get around to reading it (I have some other books in the queue). Good luck!
At it's best, that's what scientific reports is (in a number of subfields)--a place to put research that is reviewed for technical correctness. There may be debate about how well it succeeds, but I think it's useful. I would prefer to have more papers out where people worked on something, found it wasn't necessarily exciting, but it was solid work and it saves other people time.
@eloff I think our replies crossed. I think that the question is whether you are still at a net positive as a result of inflation (consider the counterfactual).
In what sense? In a world of fiat currency, post-Bretton Woods, what does money mean? I am not an expert by any means, but to me, it seems like the USD has value (ignore the rest of the world for a moment) because the US issues taxes that it says can only be paid with this wacky tokens called dollars and if you don't pay your taxes, then bad things happen. The rest follows from there. I think that you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that printing money leads to inflation which lowers what you can exchange your tokens for (maybe it takes more of them to buy apples). So, the first question is whether that is actually true. We have seen a fair amount of printing of money in recent years, but fairly low inflation. It's not obvious to me at what point that changes. The second question is whether inflation if it does occur is net bad/good and for who. I think we can agree Weimar Republic style hyperinflation is bad. However, let's say that inflation is 1% is that good or bad? For who? I think this question doesn't have meaning on an absolute scale. I think it has meaning relative to growth (and the productive capability of the full economy). Let's say that the economy is growing at say 6%, but we have 1% inflation--I'm fairly happy with that. But, let's say that we have 2% growth and 1% inflation--I'm less happy. Deflation is deadly (which has historically been the fate of gold based currencies), so we could argue that having a bit of inflation is insurance that we pay to avoid disaster. But, what about beyond that? The typical argument is that it helps drive consumption and encourages investment. Do you disagree?
> We have seen a fair amount of printing of money in recent years, but fairly low inflation.
The money weren’t distributed proportionally to the wealth of the people. Another reason, which though applies only in short- and mid-term, there are various nominal rigidities: contracts mostly use nominal values.
> The second question is whether inflation if it does occur is net bad/good and for who.
Well, that’s a whole nother question. You can create inflation using direct deposits to the holders of money.
It’s getting above my level of expertise but in addition to taxes, mortgages, corporate bonds, and state bonds also play a part.
Also inflation in the range of 1%-3% is considered a good thing because it helps encourage trade and prevents deflation. The amount of interest one can earn in a savings account or CD should also be taken into account.
I guess I'm weird. If I were offered 6 months of severance to quit a job at a successful company where I enjoyed the work and my coworkers, why would I take the offer? I've turned down offers that paid over 30% more because I like where I am. I don't think it's so uncommon.
I agree with you about the decision not to reflexively fire those responsible for the list. Though for the conversation to veer towards white supremacy and for ~30% of the company to leave, I do wonder if something else was going on there. I could be a bad judge of humans, but if it was just one guy overreacting, I would think that fewer people would have quit.
To be honest, I would leave almost any company that offered me 6 months salary in severance, if for no other reason than to work on projects for a couple of months while seeking a next job and then making double salary for four months. I passed up that opportunity once (and it was the right choice because it was my first tech company experience,I needed to build up years behind the keyboard and a portfolio), but I definitely would not today.
I guess it's just a different way of thinking that I'm unfamiliar with. I have turned down other job offers (30-40% salary increase--not 2x) because I like where I am--coworkers, projects, autonomy, city, etc.
