Economy – Page 3 – John Vincent

Unintended Consequences

There’s a list that must exist somewhere in the bowels of Government which describes the dumbest things that have ever been done. The law of unintended consequences. Where an aim may have been honest, but the reality was a deep dive in embarrassment and failure.

If this list doesn’t exist it dam well should. It’s a sort of lessons learned for civil servants, politicians and think tanks. Don’t propose anything X because the last time someone did that they crashed and burned. Or more subtly it was years later that people cursed the day that such a dumb idea was advanced.

I’m not going to argue against market forces. How could I. From an early age markets were part of my life. That’s local agricultural markets. My father bought and sold livestock. The bread and butter of livestock farming is to buy at one price, add value and then, hopefully, sell at a better price. Markets rise and fall in ways that are often mystical.

The UK imports approximately 46% of the food it consumes. Even that figure is 5 years old. I suspect that food imports have increased in the meantime. That’s in a country that is richly blessed with quality agricultural land. Fine, we (UK) are none too good at growing olives or avocados but the range of produce that it is possible to grow is huge.

Grassland is our greatest asset. Every time I flew back from an overseas trip, just looking down from the aeroplane remined me just how the UK is a carpet of green. Field systems that have ancient origins still dominate the landscape.

Livestock farming has changed radically since my father’s time. Fortunately, we have avoided, in most cases, the levels of intensification and factory methods that others have adopted. Hormone injected beef comes from cattle that live sad lives. People know this and have hands down rejected industrial farming to that level of intensity.

Domestic food production has changed because of Brexit and not for the better. One threat to domestic food production has been some of the ridiculous trade deals that have been struck by this Government and its predecessors. Making it harder for exporters and easier for importers.

Political policy towards the countryside has rightfully taken up the need to restore biodiversity and preserve some of our most precious landscapes. Trouble is that at the same time, little or no thought has been given to the need to support domestic food production. It’s like a policy desert. It’s one thing to talk about food security. It’s another to do anything about it.

With the Labour Government threatening to take large amounts of capital out of UK farming with their inheritance tax plans, they will be making family farming a thing of the past. It’s one of the dumbest things that have ever been done.

There’s general agreement that we shouldn’t encourage wealthy people to use land as a repository for their wealth. However, tax advisors have been telling them to do that for decades. Buy land and pay less tax. Reversing that long standing trend needs an intelligent policy not a crude sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even if it’s impossible to ween Labour politicians off their ideas on inheritance tax, there ought to be a way of doing it without penalising the innocent. Letting off those non-farming interests that politicians were aiming at originally. Dogma makes bad policy. It’s time to reemphasise the place family farming has in food production.

Exploring the Greatness of Great Britain

What’s great about Great Britain? GQ has asked this question[1]. Produced a nice article that looks at this subject with a cultural eye.

It’s a bit retro. When we (Brits) start talking about how great pubs are there’s a tendency to forget how many we have lost in the last decade. If we loved them so much, then more would have survived crushing economic pressures.

Brit pop was a wonderful surge in creativity that swept across the country in the 1990s. It was good – mostly. Riding that wave, because we are romantic souls about the past, are the band Oasis with their multimillion £ world tour. Accounts of which are tremendously positive.

I think I can take a position about what’s great about Great Britain. Having lived in Germany and travelled a bit, my perspective isn’t too insular or defensive.

Because we are no longer the world’s premier power and imperialism is a fading memory, we’ve shed the stiff upper lip and bowler hatted civil service bureaucrat image. It’s there in film and television to remind us of former times. It’s few who want to return to all that deep seriousness.

That seriousness is the burden that the US carries. If they send a gun boat somewhere it means business. For Brits it’s more a symbol of still being on the stage. Don’t get me wrong, as a country we box way beyond our size.

For all the right-wing jerks who parade around with false patriotism, our great strength is diversity. Having that legacy of the world map once having been painted in a great deal of red, we can now engage with multiple cultures and benefit from them all.

Number one of the lists of inherited advantages is being able to speak to the world. Not in their language but in ours. English doesn’t belong to the English any more, it belongs to the world. They amount to a lot; the times I’ve had fun reading Brussels English and being amazed at how it’s being used.

Pick a discipline. Science, technology, humanities, art, entertainment, there’s always a Brit that can be named as shaping the world. Influencing others and providing a spark that sets off a flame.

Now, being more parochial, I’ll look around me, in this town, and see a diversity of styles from punks who never stopped being punks to suited tie wearing customer service executives. Welly booted farmers in the town for a day to young gamers stuck to their small screens.

Sport is another anchor. If we (Brits) didn’t invent it, then it’s a derivative of something we did invent. Top that with the eccentricities from international tiddlywinks[2] to stone skimming. Despite the school of hard knocks we still value fair play.

Comedy is taking a downturn, but the British legacy is monumental. Irreverent, rebellious or intricate, often all three, even if we (Brits) do invite in the bland factory-made stuff from the US. In a unregarded small corner there’s a someone writing hysterical lines waiting to be discovered.

So far, as a nation, 2025 won’t go down in history as our best year. I’ve every faith that the best is still yet to come. Unlocking that dynamic zest, that quirky imagination, that complex amalgam happens several times every decade. Let’s hope the spark is just about to be set off.

[1] https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/

[2] https://iftwa.org/history-of-iftwa/

Future of Engineering

I do find it astonishing that back in the early 1990s I was still producing handwritten material that then got typed up by a typist. Then, were edits and errors needed correcting, “cut and paste” really meant cutting and pasting paper. Applying Tipp-Ex correction fluid was normal. Wonder who uses that now? It’s still available.

Engineering practice adopted word processing rapidly from that time on-ward. It’s now almost inconceivable that anyone would get someone else to type up their work. Early lap-top computers that weighted heavily on the shoulders, were carried to meetings as necessity but not love. The joys of trying to find a printer that would work was a daily mission.

In about 30-years we’ve gone from that primitive introduction to the digital realm to machines that want to write papers and reports for us. From brick like “portable” computers that required cables and batteries that drained in minutes to the complete world being available on-line anywhere on the globe.

The mechanisms by which engineering design and development were done have advanced in such a way as to make the past seem rather curious. I’m not saying that we’ve become ever cleverer and more inventive with the passage of time, just that the speed of trail and error has increased dramatically.

Past mechanisms did make the ability to change a path, once set on that path, difficult. I remember the reluctance to introduce changes unless an overwhelming case could be made. In this new situation, making changes still has a cost associated with it, but the resistance to change isn’t so much driven by the processes used.

What’s happing, like it or not, is that artificial intelligence’s transformative impact is touching, or will be touching, everything we do. That includes engineering design and development.

I’d say it’s a good time to be an innovator. In theory, it should be possible to explore many more possibilities that could be explored in the past. That is for the same level of cost in time and money. There’s not a single part of engineering practice that will not be impacted. Classrooms, meeting rooms and workplaces where the business of communicating technical ideas and testing them goes on, will be fertile ground for the application of AI.

I don’t think we understand just how transformative the impact will be on engineering. It’s not all upside either. Technology’s promises are great. There are perils too.

AI can only know what it’s been trained on. That maybe extremely extensive. However, innovation comes from creativity and inventiveness where the past may only be a partial guide. Also, there’s the danger of overreliance on these almost magical tools too. New skills must develop to be critical and knowledge of the deficiencies of complex algorithms.

All of this is a bit different from paper, correction fluid, scissors and tape. What an exciting time to be a young engineer.

A Critical Look at Clowns

There’s a section of British politics which will aways be clownish. I mean this in both a childish sense and a terrifying sense. There are plenty examples of mighty frightening clowns. The Joker was transformed from a comic book TV series of Batman into a menacing movie villain[1]. These are people who embrace a life of deception and chaos. It’s a streak of putting two fingers up to the “establishment”. At the same time making a healthy living from the populous. Milking every moment to advantage.

Having a beguiling nature sustains their success. I’m tempted to think of Peter Cook as the Devil[2] in the 1960s film Bedazzled. Dated as it is, the core theme remains ever relevant. Please protect me from what I want.

Often, clowns are figures of the establishment who have flipped. Driven by a sense of injustice, that somehow society doesn’t appreciate their great talents. Sadly, for them, the seeds of their own destruction are often sitting there waiting to germinate.

It could be said that former Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson was a master example. Although I’d not go quite as far as to equate him with Beelzebub. There’s a man who should have stuck to his first profession – journalism.

[Why is it that journalists, lawyers and management consultants aspire to be in Parliament so much? Is it the number one aspiration for societal archetypes – to reach for this pinnacle?].

This week, the media has reveled over a predicable political circus. Now, after having seen the Brexit Party, and alike, fade into nothingness, the UK has a new set of party clowns called Reform. It’s a troupe of escapees from the awkward right-wing of the political spectrum. They are complemented by a small group who claim commercial expertise to bolster their image.

As the tired and elderly Tory Party (Conservative Party) slowly decays and melts away, so this new bunch springs up to try to replace them in full. They have been called populist. In my mind a silly word to use as a general description. Since just about every politician, to a degree, is populist. Whatever the principals involved, few politicians stand at complete odds with the public. If they do, then their time in office can be cut short.

Watching and listening to the new parade of clowns at conference, it makes me wish for a minor revival of the traditional Conservative Party. There was a time when old fashioned social liberals and concerned environmentalists could be found in that British political party. Not anymore.

If I had seven wishes, one of the would be that competence and substance got more attention than loud mouths and false promises. I don’t suppose that’s on offer. Even if it was, I’d need to be careful what I truly wished for because I might just get it. Good advice for anyone. Imperfection is OK.

POST 1: When a Party leader admits his infant Party has no idea how to function in Government. Saying that defecting and discredited former ministers will fill the gap, trouble is ahead whatever happens. Satire is dead because real life has jumped the shark.

POST 2: UK Reform activists sing “God Save the Queen” at the Reform conference. The UK hasn’t had a Queen for almost 3-years. These people are happy to show-off as phony patriots.

POST 3: UK media fascination with sensationalism has given Reform an undeserving boost. The BBC has been ticked off for sacrificing impartiality in chasing this circus. Especially pertinent considering that Parliament contains 72 Liberal Democrat MPs and only 4 Reform MPs.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7286456/

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061391/

Aviation Regulations Outdated?

Machines, like aircraft started life in craft workshops. Fabric and wood put together by skilful artisans. Experimentation being a key part of early aviation. It’s easy to see that development by touring a museum that I’d recommend a visit. At Patchway in Bristol there’s a corner of what was once a huge factory. In fact, somewhere where I worked in the early 1980s. Aerospace Bristol[1] is a story of heritage. A testament to the thousands who have worked there over decades.

Fabric and wood played part in the early days. The factory at Filton in Bristol started life making trams. An integral part of turn of the century city life. Carriage work brought together skilled workers in wood, metal and fabrics. It was soon recognised that these were just the skills needed for the new and emerging aircraft industry. The Bristol Aeroplane Company (BAC) was born.

It’s war that industrialised aviation. Demonstration of the value of air power led to ever more technical developments. Lots of the lessons of Henry Ford were applied to aircraft production. Factories grew in importance, employing a large workforce.

My time at the Filton site was in a building next to a hanger where the Bristol Bulldog[2] was originally produced. This was a single engine fighter, designed in the 1920s, in-service with the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Right from the start orderly processes and regulatory oversight formed part of aircraft design and production. The management of production quality started as a highly prescriptive process. As aviation grew into a global industry, the risks associated with poor design or faulty production became all too apparent.

In the civil industry, regulatory systems developed to address the control of design and production as two different worlds. Airworthiness, or fitness to fly, depended on having a good design that was produced in a consistent and reliable manner. So, now we have a regulatory framework with two pivotal concepts: DOA (Design Organisation Approval) and POA (Production Organisation Approval). It took about a century to get here. Now, these concepts are codified within EASA Part 21, FAA regulations, and other national aviation authorities’ frameworks.

Here’s my more controversial point. Is this internationally accepted regulatory model, that has evolved, conditioned by circumstances, the right one for the future? Are the airworthiness concepts of DOA and POA out of date?

This is a question that nobody wants to hear. Evolution has proved to be a successful strategy. At least, to date. What I’m wondering is, now the world of traditional factories and large administrative workforces is passing, how will regulation adjust to meet future needs?

Maybe I’ll explore that subject next.

[1] https://aerospacebristol.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Bulldog

Paper in a Digital Age

It’s oblong and made of paper. My phone is oblong and made of a long list of exotic elements. Paper on the other hand is relatively simple. I’m sure a paperologist will correct me and describe its subtleties and complexities. Regardless, paper has been around for a long time.

Both have an ephemeral quality. Paper decays. It burns and bugs eat it. Digital media gets lost, overwritten or deleted. Without wires and suitable equipment, it doesn’t exist.

I think that God forbid, that if Armageddon did come to place, we’d find more paper remaining useful than surviving digital help. Henry Bemis[1] loved to read. Strangely, that’s what saved him from ultimate destruction. Try writing an equivalent story with an iPhone in hand and we would be disappointed with the results. That would really see a sad Bemis doom scrolling empty nothingness.

Contuining the banking theme. What I’m refereeing to here is an envelope containing my latest bank statement. Yes, I haven’t ticked the go paperless box on-line. To me there’s something reassuring about having a tangible paper copy of what exists in the digital ether. Even though it’s only a printout, it somehow feels more real.

Holding a statement in my hand, whatever its errors or miscalculations it cannot be altered. Unlike an on-line digital reading that a capable cybercriminal can flip in a second. Both have an ephemeral quality. One exudes a greater feeling of permanence.

Above “ephemeral” is the right word to use. My banking App on my phone is a good service. However, it encourages a certain neurosis. Whereas a paper bank statement turns up, periodically as a personal balance sheet summing up the ins and outs of a month, my App is changeable hour by hour, a less meaningful snapshot.

The News is full of this phenomenon. Snap shots of the county’s GDP going up and down every month are newsworthy but don’t tell us much about where we are going. That doesn’t stop politicians treating them as if they were a sign from some mythical deity. A small number that changes within a range of error doesn’t mark a beginning or end of an era.

I like tangible things. A paper report or statement is a tangible thing. I can hold it in my hand. It doesn’t change from moment to moment. It’s a record of a direction set, not an hourly windvane. However unfashionable, as a crusty gentleman of a certain age, I will continue to ask for a printed record of where I am and where I’ve been.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734683/

What’s in a box?

I didn’t have a jack-in-the-box as a toy. Springing into life at the flick of a catch. For the larger part frightening the living daylights out of a young child. Or is it play, and thus basic training that surprising events can be scary and fun? Early days of leaning to handle risks.

In this case my boxes are square. Although they don’t need to be square. They are square or rectangular on a ballot paper (usually). These boxes are a boundary within which a mark is put to say “yes” this applies or “no” this is does not apply. Naturally, that can be the other way around too. For that matter they can indicate all sorts of conditions or views.

Here’s my beef. Back in March, this year, me and the Sun developed our relationship. There’s the giveaway – year. My number of years on Earth clocked up to sixty-five. At the time, I didn’t think of this as any more significant than past birthdays as a man of mature years. Then I got to completing numerous questionaries. Yes, I have moved the subject to more stuff to do with data and its use. Collecting data has never been so popular.

Never in the whole of human history have we, you and me, been faced with so many questionnaires. Almost every time I buy a coffee, and use a card of App to collect points, next day my in-box has an e-mail with a survey. Most of these I just ignore. Now and then, I fill one in with the ridiculous idea that the insignificant draw prize they offer could come my way.

Please offer your feedback in this short survey. The number of minutes they say that are needed are never right. Then they, the collectors of my data, get greedy. Asking for “as much detail as possible”. At this point I want to say – get real. What’s even worse is clicking on the “Next” button and then an error message comes up saying “This is required”. What audacity. Checky. Pushing my good will to its limits. If there were questionnaires about questionnaires, when it asked: “please tell us how your experience was on this occasion” they would get more than 100 creative words.

All this said, my real beef is to do with the collection of personal data. There’s no obligation to provide such data, when it comes to marketing surveys. This is when the incentivising possibility of a prize comes in. Afterall this data is valuable to the collectors with little incentive for a respondent to offer it. Surveys with prizes must have published terms and conditions. I wonder if anyone ever reads these legal niceties.

To the point. One question that often gets asked is – tick the box appropriate to my age. What I’ve noticed is that several of these unsolicited surveys have a box marked sixty-five and over. It’s like a whole section of the population is piled into one big bucket. Like we all fall off the end of the bell curve. Over 11 million people in England and Wales are like one.

I’m part of a growing cohort. That maybe good or bad but it is the case. It’s the case too that my cohort spends. Again, for good or bad, we are the beneficiaries of some good fortune. However, marketing surveys continue to sit in the stone age. At both ends of the demographic bell curve, toddlers and more mature folk, we are viewed as the same, one big bucket. I imagine data collectors and the designers of surveys have wrestled with this one. Whatever, the results don’t sit well with me.

The Power of Numbers

If I was to give advice to a politician in power, it would go like this: numbers matter but don’t let them dictate the right course of action. Of course that’s fully loaded advice. The right course of action is subjective. That can mean expert or non-expert judgement of such a great wide range of felicity that it doesn’t bear thinking about.

For a long time, there was a mantra that organisational policy should be data driven. There’s quite a bit of wisdom in this statement as an alternative to arbitrary opinion and volatile reactivity. There’s no doubt an organisation is better off if it has a few able number crunchers.

I can recollect times when I’ve been advised to look favourably upon one way of presenting information as opposed to another way. Not that either was in error but that one way would reflect better on the management of an organisation. This is a perfect example of Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics[1]. Which is often nothing to do with lies but rather the presentation of information. Some would say manipulation.

Sacking a head of a Bureau of Statistics because the numbers their technical people produce are not favourable, well that’s one way to go. It’s the sort of action that’s take in devoutly authoritarian countries. Better not be embarrassing the higher ups at any cost.

Suddenly, I’m taken back to my “O” level history lessons. Our enthusiastic secondary school teacher who wanted us to love the Russian revolution as much as she did. It’s a fascinating but brutal period for Europe. Here I’m thinking of Stalin’s Five-Year Plans. A Russian official, in the late 1920s, would have been very unwise indeed to produce anything other than favourable statistics. However, for all the cruelty and suffering Russia did archive a rapid industrialisation.

Numbers matter. My dictum. If they are wildly inaccurate or manipulate numbers, they are worthless. Even presentational they are worthless because few will believe. Credibility is key but that’s often the issue. Who do you trust?

My domain has been aviation safety numbers. The analysis of these numbers can be of significant consequence. Going back to that data driven philosophy, if the numbers are wrong the direction of travel will be wrong. When policy making has an objective basis then it’s much easier to justify to a wide audience. There are advantages in having trustworthy numbers.

In the ideal world, a degree of independence is essential. This is so that the producers of statistics and associate information can endeavour to be accurate and unbiased. Doing this without fear or favour to any interested party can take some resolve. It’s only possible in an environment that is both inquisitive and respectful.

I say “degree of” as an observation. Just as investigators often follow the money trail, it’s as well to consider who is paying the bills. The analyst’s salaries must come from somewhere. Again, in an idea cultural environment where integrity and trust are valued, it’s not those who are funding the number crunching work that should determine (dictate) the results. Let the numbers speak.

The ideal world doesn’t exist but it’s clearly unwise to swerve away from it at speed.

[1] https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

Why 12,500 Pounds?

Regulation is a strange business. It often means drawing lines between A and B. Bit like map making. Those lines on a map that mark out where you are and the features of the landscape. You could say that’s when all our troubles start but it’s been proven unavoidable. As soon as our vocabulary extends to words like “big” and “small” someone somewhere is going to ask for a definition. What do you mean? Explain.

For a while you may be able to get away with saying; well, it’s obvious. That works when it is obvious for all to see. An alpine mountain is bigger than a molehill. When you get to the region where it’s not clear if a large hill is a small mountain, or not then discussion gets interesting. Some say 1000 ft (about 300 m) others say much more. There’s no one universal definition.

[This week, I drove through the Brecon Beacons. Not big mountains but treeless mountains, nevertheless. Fine on a clear day but when it rains that’s a different story. This week Wales looked at its best].

Aviation progressed by both evolution and revolution. Undeniably because of the risks involved it’s a highly regulated sector of activity. Not only that but people are rightly sensitive about objects flying over their heads.

For reasons that I will not go into, I’ve been looking at one of these lines on a regulatory map. One that’s been around for a long time.

I cannot tell you how many discussions about what’s “minor” and what’s “major” that have taken place. That’s in terms of an aircraft modification. However, these terms are well documented. Digging out and crewing over the background material and rationale is not too difficult, if you are deeply interested in the subject.

The subject I’m thinking about is that difference between what is considered in the rules to be a “large” aeroplane and a “small” aeroplane. Or for any American readers – airplane. So, I set off to do some quick research about where the figure of weight limit: maximum take-off weight of 12,500 pounds or less originated for small airplanes (aeroplanes).

I expected someone to comment; that’s obvious. The figure came from this or that historic document and has stuck ever since. It seems to work, most of the time. A confirmation or dismissal that I wanted addressed the question, is the longstanding folklore story is true. That the airplane weight limit was chosen in the early 1950s because it’s half the weight of one of the most popular commercial transport aircraft of that time.

There is no doubt that the Douglas DC-3[1] is an astonishing airplane. It started flying in 1935 and there are versions of it still flying. Rugged and reliable, this elegant metal monoplane is the star of Hollywood movies as well as having been the mainstay of the early air transport system is the US. Celebrations are in order. This year is the 90th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3[2].

What I’ve discovered, so far, is that the simple story may be true. Interestingly the rational for the weight figure has more to do with economic regulation than it has with airplane airworthiness. The early commercial air transport system was highly regulated by the State in matters both economic and safety. Managing competition was a bureaucratic process. Routes needed approval. Thus, a distinction established between what was commercial air transport and what was not.

POST 1: There is no mention of 12,500 pounds in the excellent reference on the early days of civil aviation in the US. Commercial Air Transportation. John H. Frederick PhD. 1947 Revised Edition. Published by Richard D. Irwin Inc. Chicago.

POST 2: The small aircraft definition of 12,500 pounds max certificated take-off weight first appears in US CAB SPECIAL CIVIL AIR REGULATION. Effective February 20, 1952. AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR TAXI OPERATORS TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 42 OF THE CIVIL AIR REGULATIONS. This was a subject of economic regulation in the creation of the air taxi class of operations.

[1] https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/douglas-dc-3/nasm_A19530075000

[2] https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2025-07-17_dc3_society_celebrate_90_years_douglas_dc3_airventure25

Rapid Change: Social Media’s Role

I don’t think we understand the impact our world of superfast global communication is having on human behaviour. A digital event happens with a group looking on, and gasping, and within hours it’s a talking point across great swaths of the INTERNET and social media. Worldwide in seconds.

We could be at a pivotal moment of human evolution. Every time humans have progressed there’s been something in our environment that has necessitated change. If we go back tens of thousands of years, it was the climate. People moved, searching for better prospects. When the rains disappear, migration happened. This still happens. Millions live in that time warp.

However, for those of us who live in communities where our basic needs are met, bar disasters, it’s different forces that motivate change. I say this after having watched a couple episodes of “Human[1]” a BBC series about the origins of modern humans. Billions of us fixate not on finding enough food or shelter but on scrolling.

I’m talking about a couple who got caught on camera. Obviously, they thought that their evening out at a rock concert was a private matter. It turned out to be anything but private. Suddenly these two people spark controversy and debate without any intention of doing so[2]. We live in a time where global social media can thrust a spotlight on any event, almost anywhere. The proliferation of high-definition cameras and the ease with which pictures spread has all speeded up in the last couple of decades. Any picture or video can go anywhere on Earth at lightning speed.

Past moments of human evolution never had these superfast phenomena to adapt to. Sure, we have had great steps in technology. I read that people are taller now than they were in medieval times. Industrialisation may have had downsides, but we are mostly better fed as a result.

Social media is not benign. It grabs attention, it demands an opinion, it drives rapid judgement and gets passed on to spark more cycles of comment and opinion. This conveyor-belt of comment and opinion takes on a life of its own.

There’s such a mix that it’s not always easy to determine what’s true and what’s people pushing their own certainties and prejudices. Judgements are expected to be immediate. Any appeal to caution and considered thought can be seed sown on fallow ground. Like a Vicar in an empty church.

These behaviours are being applied to the daily News and events like the recent Air India accident. Attention increases when there’s tragedy and mystery. There’s wisdom in saying that people should wait for the formal accident investigation to conclude. Only this does nothing to impede a rain forest of judgements. Real and self appointed experts fight to get their view top billing.

Maybe these are ephemeral and of no great consequence. I don’t believe that because, like it or not, decision makers are influenced by social media’s compelling nature. What this says to me is that adaptation isn’t an option it’s a necessity. Appealing to past custom and practice isn’t going to work. I don’t have an answer as to the nature of this adaptation. Sitting quietly waiting for attention to subside isn’t a good course of action.

POST: It’s kinda funny that a magazine like WIRED highlights how to dump social media. How to Delete All of Your Social Media Accounts: Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, and More | WIRED

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002fc72/human

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/astronomer-responds-coldplay-concert-kiss-cam-moment-rcna219678