Thread : this is going to be my penultimate post on Swedish mortality & covid. After SCB's next update, Jan 18th, we can consider the prel. numbers for all cause mortality 2020 fully stable, and I will then do a final update. What follows below, is still subject to minor updates.

The evils committed by Ravi Zacharias were enabled by a toxic organizational leadership that is evidenced by how these same leaders responded when confronted about the widespread and ongoing abuses being perpetrated by the namesake of the institution. 1/29

Please take time to read this piece by @DavideAFrench and the 26-page letter written by a first-hand witness. Here are just some of the excerpts: 2/29

"At one point, Ravi suggested to me that the Task Force “issue a statement that they [the Thompsons] are hooligans, they are scoundrels, they are thugs, they are serial extortioners.” If we didn’t do that, he told me, he would ask his attorney to do so on his behalf." 3/29

"...I distinctly recall Ravi & Sanj mocking the Thompsons’ marriage & scornfully predicting how soon Brad & Lori Anne would get divorced. “I predict their marriage won’t survive the year,” Ravi asserted with laughter. “A year?” replied Sanj. “I wouldn’t give it six months!” 4/29

"In 2017, in the early stages of his RICO against the Thompsons, Ravi would often invoke Kelly [his attorney], making statements such as “my attorney said we are going to crush them.”" 5/29

X : Do you think cloud will decentralise?
Me : Already has - started with regions and AZs and is now rapidly expanding into outpost, greengrass, EKS anwhere.
X : No, I mean many providers.
Me : There are two forms of decentralisation - provision and control (i.e. authorities) ...

... what is happening is decentralisation of provision (i.e. cloud everywhere, at the edge) but under centralised authorities (Amazon, Alibaba, MSFT, Google etc).
X : What about decentralisation of control?
Me : Many companies working to a common standard ...

... that was the dream of OpenStack but they blew that on day one creating a collective prisoner dilemma. They are trying to recorrect this with K8s but the cloud has moved on, higher up the stack ...

... so, the idea of a marketplace of many different companies each having authority is ... wishful thinking by past vendors and clients they've hoodwinked. Maybe in 15-20 years we will get another go ... open source is a long game ...

... more likely is many points of provision i.e. companies offering EKS anywhere on a utility basis but under centralised authority e.g. AWS.

So, yes, the cloud is going to edge, has been for sometime but it'll be AWS / Alibaba / MSFT cloud that is everywhere.

There is a highly instructive symposium on "Veil of Ignorance" #ProcessTracing in the new @APSAtweets QMMR publication https://t.co/nxqEQ9HaRz There is lots to say ab it. For now, I want to focus on whether (causal) qualitative research has a problem w/ confirmation bias that 1/

needs to be addressed.
In short, Veil of Ignorance process tracing aims to blindfold the data collectors and analysts to the hypotheses to reduce risk of confirmation bias.
Proposal receives a lot of criticism by all respondents, partly for valid reasons, partly not, IMO 2/

If there was no bigger issue with confirmation bias, there would not be much benefit in talking about blinding in qualitative research.
As Beach notes, the intro to the symposium does not present evidence that bias is a problem. This is correct, but there is also no evidence 3/

that confirmation bias is not a problem. It's an absence of evidence situation with regard to comprehensive, direct evidence, i.e. from verification studies of qualitative research (for studies that are built on an epistemology for which the idea of verification makes sense). 4/

However, I'd say there is circumstantial evidence that confirmation bias is a problem.
1) Evidence for confirmation bias in quantitative research: The developments around #OpenScience and transparency in quantitative research in different disciplines present diverse evidence 5/

Lot of chat about instructional coaching. To get it right, don't underestimate the time it takes!

- There has to be a shared vision for effective T&L from the coaches. Keep revisiting this and keep unpicking all the elements so they are able to break them down and explain them.

We used the Evidence Review by @ProfCoe to create some effective teaching habits, using a lot of TLAC techniques and work from @every_lesson. Knowledge and expertise and ability to break this down is vital.

Lots of time then required with coaches to look at lessons and look at highest leverage point. In one training session our coaching team picked out over 30 tweaks in a 5 minute video. Where do you start? Why there? Consistency key. Leads to great debate.

Time needs to be built in. Time for visits, time for coaching sessions, time to practice. SLT need to all understand the process and buy-in and all live it. Putting staff development first is truly exciting and hugely powerful if actioned in the way it is desired.

Teachers/coaches need to have the process modelled for them. Staff need to understand the why behind IC, not just what it is. Worth talking through research on teacher's habitual practice from @mikehobbiss and @DrSamSims.