Ben Schneider

It’s been 80 years and leading British politicians still don’t understand the limitations of a middle power.

This is so cute!

Unsure how to reconcile these two pieces of information

One of the best time sinks: www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/...

Also “aspects of my job are pointless busywork” ≠ “my job as a whole is meaningless”

Pretty well every empirical test of his claim has shown it isn’t true 🤷🏻‍♂️

Signs of spring: the bandy rink is melting and kids are playing football on it again

It’s a clever ploy to undermine political strategists: if the “best” of them can take a party from 34% to 18% in just under two years, they’re all clearly worse than useless.

John Maynard Keynes was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in the 1920s for writing “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”. Yet, despite being highly ranked by the advisor of the Nobel Committee and placed on the shortlist, he did not win. This column brings out previously unused archival material from the Nobel Committee in Oslo to explore why. The Committee tended to withhold the Prize when circumstances were too politically sensitive. Keynes, though praised and admired internationally, was likely politically too controversial to be chosen.

Lars Jonung examines archival material from the Nobel Committee in Oslo to understand why, despite being nominated three times in the 1920s, John Maynard Keynes did not win the Nobel Peace Prize for writing “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”.
cepr.org/voxeu/column...
#EconSky

This seems correct to me, but relies on the listener/third party also being able to distinguish between the two (and caring that there is a difference!)

There’s a mutual misunderstanding between the fields that don’t think in aggregates (history) and those that almost only do (economics). On one hand, compensation effects are real; on the other, someone else getting a new job doesn’t help an unemployed worker.

There are people on this website who think increases in labor productivity are necessarily bad for society 🤨

That…does not seem like a study that would sail through an IRB.

I’ve been a 🏈 fan since I was a kid, but at the start of every season, after ~7 months of not seeing it, my reaction is now invariably “this is incredibly dangerous and should not exist”.

I mentioned repeated subconcussive effects from heading elsewhere in this thread—the research on this isn’t as clear as for 🥊 and 🏈 , so far as I have seen.

Why would we expect the social/societal benefits of sports with high levels of head injuries ( 🏉, 🏈, 🥊) to be higher than others?

Baseball, much safer than boxing

“We need to find the positive effects of [behavior]” is not a compelling approach, I would say.

Concussive head impacts are damaging, the questions for action are: (1) can contact sports be suitably modified? (2) how dangerous are sub-concussive impacts (e.g. heading in ⚽️)?

Uh, there is quite a lot of evidence for this, even though effect sizes vary in the literature

I mean….

Not an epidemiologist, but I would think factors like the end of leaded gasoline would dominate changes in the rate of impact sport participation.

Crime is not monocausal?

Ayatollah Nepo Baby

🤨 @espncricinfo.com 🇦🇹?

It’s true, Starmer didn’t support Edward VIII or the Gallipoli invasion, and he didn’t oppose Indian independence.

I assume your rule of thumb is for the UK only?

Can we not take counsel with chatbots as we once did?

Signs of spring: the unforgettable smell of klister 🥲

They’re calling it The Art of the Deal