151–160 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you are agreeing with the comment you replied to.
It isn't enough to be an idiot, you have to be an idiot with connections to get spaffed
The first part I can manage. But how do I get connections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
like the author we're light on details beyond "the culture", "bad at sales". What does this _mean_ exactly?
It is everything. Customers too risk-averse, class boundaries still endemic (it is amazing the US tech companies went into this, Google/Facebook/etc. seem to have hired the Notting Hill set as soon as they came to London), companies too conservative about investing margin in sales, very relationship-driven sales culture (as opposed to product-driven) that is closed to "outsiders", reluctance to cold-call, etc. It is…
In EU gambling and casinos are legal almost everywhere. There's no need to go to Vegas or make high risk investments.
The talent pool shrunk... So I'm going to upend the entire thing and start again? How does that make sense? What talent do you need?
I would wager that the investment graft is drying up and thus is a play to secure funding for more US biased sources
Perhaps slapping AI all over your generic document product is dying a little as a strategy too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the Brexiters logic, but it turns out UK was not only contributing to the EU but also trading. Now it doesn't need to contribute anymore but it also lost exports, access to talent and so on.
Fine, but my point is there is no reason for Brexit to be a net negative when it comes to the funding of PhDs - if anything, it offers an opportunity to be more effective at funding. Same when it comes to the specific issue of access to talent - nothing in principle stopping the UK from making it extremely easy for talent to come to the UK.
So you get an atrophied bureaucracy for distributing research money and combine it with a reduction in applicants and you get fewer graduate students about 2-5 years after you switch.
*significantly fewer people
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't enough to be an idiot, you have to be an idiot with connections to get spaffed
>It isn't enough to be an idiot, you have to be an idiot with connections to get spaffed The first part I can manage. But how do I get connections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Despite the article author's claim, most of the startups in the generation that I joined (2018+) have focused on getting a decent business model, rather than hyper growth above all else. > They also had to do much more with significantly less. There was less VC money sloshing about compared to the west coast, so we had to be very careful in how we optimised. With supporters like this the UK is in no need of enemies.…
> It would be difficult to more pithily explain why the US is a better place to build a startup as a founder, or to explain why US startups have more money and so can pay their staff more. But it is really simple. In US they have a higher appetite for gambling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also see a lot of brain drain in Brazil. Most are from public colleges, and they go mostly to Europe.
I thought this was because lots of Brazilians are eligible for Portuguese passports
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't enough to be an idiot, you have to be an idiot with connections to get spaffed
>It isn't enough to be an idiot, you have to be an idiot with connections to get spaffed The first part I can manage. But how do I get connections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still think the whole divide over Brexit was less about the principle of it, but more about whether you are more aligned with the current EU political leanings or with those of the current UK ones (reflected in its Tory leadership). If you are more aligned with the EU political leanings, you would want them to be able to force the UK government to do what you believe is the right thing. If you are more aligned with…
> For example, if the UK wanted to have more funding for science, but the EU frowned upon that regarding it as unfair competition, or something along those lines. The UK wasn't practically constrained by EU rules on state aid or industrial policy. Most other EU countries had substantially higher levels of state aid. Rather it was the policy of successive British governments to leave it to the market. The EU was a use…
Could you provide a source for the promise to stay in the single market?
> The single market was after all in large part the creation of Margaret Thatcher.
In the context of the European Union, the 'Single Market' is a legal construct; it was created by the international treaties that underpin the union, and it grants powers to the EU that can be used in various ways, ostensibly for the purpose of regulating trade.
Thatcher was in favour of liberalising trade in Europe and was therefore in favour of a European free market in the broadest sense, but her opinion of the particular mechanisms implemented under the rubric of the 'Single Market' would depend on the details. She was in favour of the Single Market to the extent that it removed trade barriers and decreased regulation, and she was against it to the extent that it was deployed as cover (as she would see it) to bypass national parliaments and introduce new economic regulations at the supranational level. Here is a quote from a speech she gave in Bruges in 1988 to the College of Europe [1], which is probably the most famous statement of her views on the subject:
'The aim of a Europe open to enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market in 1992. By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.
And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention.
Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade.
Britain has been in the lead in opening its markets to others [...]
Of course, we want to make it easier for goods to pass through frontiers.
Of course, we must make it easier for people to travel throughout the Community.
But it is a matter of plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants [...]
And before I leave the subject of a single market, may I say that we certainly do not need new regulations which raise the cost of employment and make Europe's labour market less flexible and less competitive with overseas suppliers.'