Me : For a 1500 - 3000 person online event? Back of envelope calculation ... about £50k to make it happen. LEF has kindly sponsored it for the last few years but we now need to stand it up on its own two feet.
X : When is #mapcamp happening this year?
Me : Wed, Oct 13th.
X : What's the plan?
Me : Right now? Find some funding.
Me : For a 1500 - 3000 person online event? Back of envelope calculation ... about £50k to make it happen. LEF has kindly sponsored it for the last few years but we now need to stand it up on its own two feet.
Me : Like all events, it's a risk profile. So, today the chance of #mapcamp happening is 0%, as we raise some funds, identify costs and find ways of reducing costs etc then that chance increases to a point that we can say ... yep, we can do this.
Me : Nothing can ever be guaranteed, so you have to position it to the point that if everything goes wrong the liability is acceptable. Ask me in a month then I'll have a better idea.
Me : For the same reason we speak at events. We love the subject. If you didn't then you'd be mad.
Me : Yep, we use that once we're close to get us over the line then anything else that is made is spent on improving the event. By the end, it's all spent.
Me : Everything is, from the speakers to the organising committee to the chairs etc. We borrow, beg and steal each year. Did I not say you've had to be mad to put on an event about a subject you didn't love?
Me : Talk about doom and gloom. If we don't raise then I'll have a private zoom session with friends.
X : A public webinnar?
Me : £400+ ... I do love mapping but when push comes to shove, I'd rather spend my time and money on family.
More from Simon Wardley
"Fifty-nine percent of those polled said they believed China will become more powerful than the U.S. within 10 years" - https://t.co/3vN4I1TjwP ... I hate to break it to you but it already is in many areas.
When I published this work (originally from 2015) - https://t.co/GYOItA3StZ - I did tend to get a lot of pushback from US folk when presenting it.
Six years later, less so.
I expect China to start to tackle inequality this year. It's the Achilles heel of the West. We have no response, nor Governments with the required skill, strategy or practice to respond.
We will ultimately face a more advanced, more wealthy and more equal society ...
... as that example of what "is possible" / "good looks like" shift to the East, we will face a painful shift as we question our own values including our kind of democracy. But in reality, the problem is not with our values but our shockingly poor standards of leadership.
X : Is this because of Trump?
Me : No, this has been going on since the 1990s. There has been no effective counterplay to the long game that Deng Xiaoping started. Just hubris, arrogance and exceptionalism with annual Economist articles on "How China will fall".
When I published this work (originally from 2015) - https://t.co/GYOItA3StZ - I did tend to get a lot of pushback from US folk when presenting it.
Six years later, less so.
Though advantage does not immediately translate to leadership, I suspect many underestimate China in the cloud - pic.twitter.com/TXIPk9TE5u
— Simon Wardley (@swardley) January 22, 2016
I expect China to start to tackle inequality this year. It's the Achilles heel of the West. We have no response, nor Governments with the required skill, strategy or practice to respond.
We will ultimately face a more advanced, more wealthy and more equal society ...
... as that example of what "is possible" / "good looks like" shift to the East, we will face a painful shift as we question our own values including our kind of democracy. But in reality, the problem is not with our values but our shockingly poor standards of leadership.
X : Is this because of Trump?
Me : No, this has been going on since the 1990s. There has been no effective counterplay to the long game that Deng Xiaoping started. Just hubris, arrogance and exceptionalism with annual Economist articles on "How China will fall".
More from Society
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
You May Also Like
First update to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL since the challenge ended – Medium links!! Go add your Medium profile now 👀📝 (thanks @diannamallen for the suggestion 😁)
Just added Telegram links to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)
Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L
Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨
💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
Just added Telegram links to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)
Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L
Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨
💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘