One of the properties of social media that explains <waves hands> is that refraining from things has no effect. There is no means to notice all those who are silent on a subject, all those choosing not to engage with a topic.

Clearly I've messed up, struggling to both express well and to understand - I'll leave you be.

But it's haaaard Tom, because the technology is so shiny!!!

I do think the fundamental problem for most orgs and people working in them is that their only real training and development comes from their vendors who have strong drivers to reverse that order.

Only you see the abuse you receive (as a whole), and if my silly comment was taken as minimising that then I'm sorry, wasn't the intent.

As Napoleon said: to defend everything is to defend everything.

I read this and it was like a logic bomb hitting my brain. I literally can't imagine who those people are or what that scenario would be like, or how anyone could survive the process of making a film about it.

I'm sure Ed Norton would be good for a cameo though.

"Ahh yes, it's maximum security on that memo. Only myself and the rest of the English speaking world is to know."

This is just brilliant. Incredibly funny, a total evisceration. 👏👏👏

Interesting. Hierarchy as a convening function, vs hierarchy as a top-down decision-making function is one thing I was mulling. I've been wondering if importing 20thC corporate attitudes towards hierarchy means there's a danger of veering into the latter.

I am currently mulling if it *is* hierarchical...although the first question is what we mean by that.

Me to my kids if they suggest stuff like this:

"Wow! It's like having a plug socket, and a sofa, only more expensive! And when one breaks you have to replace both!"

Perhaps you're misreading: For those of us forced to watch Threads at secondary school, the 'quick death in a nuclear war' thing is very much a happy discussion.

In theory Stephen is much too young for that, but he seems to me to be good at channeling his inner Gen X when he wants to.

When I was four, in 1979, we had a winter of discontent, after which we decided that wasn't a good idea and so resolved to be more cheerful in future.

As I write, the thought occurs I may not have fully grasped the right end of the stick on that one.

What you say is right of course. Isn't there a degree, however, to which sentiment in the bond markets will be driven by shared assumptions / beliefs about economic performance that are arguably political? Reason I ask is not to make a point, but because I don't know the answer 🙂

It's possible to think inheritance tax is the wrong solution, and also think that people whining about inheriting >£1M need to have a word with themselves.

Surely the problem is that financial markets are obviously irrational, self-interested and dangerous. We only have them because they're designed to broadly cope with being irrational, self-interested and dangerous, and thus better than any system relying on humans being both clever and nice.

What you definitely can't do is ignore it or just declare it can work differently. I don't think any of us on this thread think those in the Bond market are the ones who should determine social policy, or have any real answers. They just have their hands on the levers that fund HMG. Right?

It is one of the hardest (IMO) issues to engage with, because finance is about the intertwining of hard-edged realities and (to a shocking degree) sentiment. Which is which, I'm not sure! I'm educated, able to engage in issues like this, but I don't claim to understand it.