The chosen dependency on Russian gas has less to do with the Energiewende than with geopolitics. There has actually been a reduction in Russian gas supplies since the end of the Cold War. Germany is dependent on gas imports from Russia but less so than many other East European countries. Not to say that there aren't worrying signals, though. Russia has delivered far less gas to Germany this year, while depleting the gas stocked in their gas storage facilities in Germany.
Except, the AfD is not ascendant. Polls show their support has been rather stagnant at about 10-11% for quite some time now. In the last election, they got 12.6% so they have actually lost some support since then.
There is also hardly anyone doubting that Russia would conduct such an operation. It's their modus operandi. Sympathy towards Russia also does not really rely upon sympathy towards the current government but on historical links.
I don't know about FDD in particular. They certainly have their own agenda. Wikipedia suggests neoconservative thought and proponents of hawkish US foreign policy [1]. So it's not surprising them supporting the publication.
FDD may be the landing page but the authors were the actual reason I thought this could be interesting to other people. I've read some of their publications before, skimmed through the report itself and realized that they aggregated a set of issues they have previously discussed in more than one paper. There are actually not many new facts if you read Sinocism [2], Axios China [3] or Sinoskop [4] from time to time.
Generally interested, what standards need to be fulfilled that you think a source provides 'trustworthy analysis'?
Background information and overview on the problem of illicit financial flows [1,2,3,4,5] - one of the key related issues. Deficient enforcement by public agencies in industrialized countries and lack of ethical behavior by intermediaries like banks enable theft, organized crime and worse. You can always complain about the use of exaggeration in media articles but the issues and consequences for many people are very real and not to be trifled with.
The Hippocratic Oath is not for assigning blame or providing accountability towards society's rules - at least not in the first place. It is a reminder of basic ethical and professional standards and contributes to the common understanding of a physician's role.
This may seem ridiculous considering the responsibilities of medical professionals but it works as a baseline independent of the legal and moral standards of the particular society they live in.
So to answer your question:
Yes, the software engineer could be held accountable - yet, that would arguably be up to him- or herself in many cases [1]. There were physicians in history who have done horrible things [2] and - if not by the legal system - they were at least judged by their peers for their actions.
From my perspective, the most valuable aspect of having an oath (and that I regard for professions in general) seems to be the opportunity it offers for reflection, identity and future aspirations.
Well, let me give you my view from the sidelines. It seems there are three main issues that are worthy to discuss.
1. FEDs intervening in Portland - legitimate + legal or not? Honestly, don't know. It seems a bit shady to me with regard to extending actions beyond federal buildings for which there is a mandate but I leave that decision to people who actually know about it.
2. FEDs without identification - necessary precaution or authoritarian overreach? Police accountability is key for peaceful coexistence in a democratic society. There are options between "no identification" and "full transparency". If you want it as a government, you can do it.
3. FEDs approach to the protests - necessary use of force or escalating violence? It seems like an overreach to me. From what I've known to be the standard, there are protocols officers are obliged to follow, established practices on how to deal with protests and most importantly, the deployed forces are trained and equipped properly as well - of course I'm assimng the best of all situations here. It's gross neglient deploying officers that lack experience with these kind of situations and assume everything will be just getting fine. Not excusing anything or anyone but protests are particularly stressful for the police as well and even under the best circumstances the use of force does not always meet the standards.
That said, I agree with you that the NYT video does not cover the whole story if the story is sending federal forces to Portland. If the story is the lack of transparency and the way federal forces deal with the protests then it's fine. Public officials have to be held to a higher standard than violent and/or rioting civilians - in particular, if violent protesters are not the majority of the people participating what seems to be the case here.
Well, I guess they theorize that in stable relationships, men are more likely to have sex. If forming relationships gets more difficult, the majority of men have less sex. I'm not sure if the argument is actually valid but from a historical perspective I can understand the thought process.
First of all, thanks for your post! It was an interesting read and I've subscribed to get updates.
Yeah, that was really helpful. I think the argument you make about 'fractionated pools of expertise' is actually the most important. I'm still a bit confused about the differences between "practice" and "decision-making" and their relationship to knowledge (either codified or tacit) but I guess that will now be part of my list of things I want to learn more about.
In general, I agree with the notion that tacit knowledge is often more important than explicit knowledge - and that it may actually be the very essence of human expertise. However, it seems the author mixes some things up.
First of all, deliberate practice rests to a high degree on a) pre-existing knowledge on the structure of acquiring a skill and b) an established feedback standard that allows to evaluate your performance. These are obviously crucial aspects. If you don't know what characterizes expertise and if you don't know why you're not doing well - then it's difficult to make actual measurable progress. That said, it doesn't mean you can't become an expert at all in a field that does not have those elements currently available. It may just be that you need to put more effort into doing it, seek a mentor known for relevant skills or develop feedback mechanisms to evaluate your performance [1].
Thus, I don't think the distinction made between tacit knowledge and deliberate practice is really helpful. From my understanding, the concepts of "tacit knowledge" and of "deliberative practice" operate on two different levels. Tacit knowledge (or originally tacit knowing) refers to the implicit character of some knowledge. Its counterpart is explicit aka codified knowledge. Conflating deliberative practice with (the acquisition of) explicit knowledge seems counterproductive to me. It seems to me that the author wants to argue that deliberative practice only contributes to explicit knowledge.
I get that explicit knowledge may be needed to create learning environments (and gained before through codification of tacit knowledge) that respond well to the principles of deliberate practice. From my reading of Ericsson that does not mean, however, that deliberate practice only works to build up codified knowledge. Tacit knowledge is in itself a vague concept that is hard to grasp. I wouldn't be confident to assert that building up tacit knowledge happens without building up codified knowledge. Maybe someone knows more about that?
Another aspect of the article that concerns me represents the part about the acquisition of knowledge and expert systems. There seems to be another conflation of concepts. It is referred to Klein who (in reference to humans) warns about the overreliance on fixed procedures for decision-making. I agree with that but nevertheless I'm having a hard time with the argument in the article's context. For me this seems to be more of an argument about having a human making a decision than about the superiority of tacit knowledge over deliberative practice or even codified knowledge applied by a human. I get it, humans can build up tacit knowledge and therefore have an advantage over expert systems in previously unknown situations ... I just don't get the relevance for human acquisition of knowledge here which the article wants to be about.
A similar issue I have with the argument about the scope of deliberative practice and NDM as better alternative. Now I have to say I heard about the term NDM for the first time today (and I'm glad I got introduced, thanks!) but from what's written down in the article, it doesn't really seem to be in conflict with - or even that much qualitatively different compared to - deliberative practice: "you find a master, you work under them for a few years, and you learn the ropes through emulation, feedback, and osmosis". This seems to be possible under the concept of deliberate practice as well.
To get a better understanding, I've read another article from the same author [2] but I'm a bit confused. In the end, NDM just seems to offer more concrete procedures to acquire effective and adaptable mental models (in terms of deliberative practice) that help you to make better decisions. But that can't be the catch of NDM, is it?
[1] I'm currently reading Ericsson's book "Peak" and he mentions the Top Gun academy of the US Air Force as an example for the possibility to develop a "deliberative practice"-like environment.The program was designed to enhance figher pilots' performance by having those pilots surviving the initial air fights in Vietnam to become teachers to new pilots. Establishment of good practices took place through the constant exposure of the teachers to new recruits and constant training on usual fight situations.
From an outside perspective, 'degressive proportionality' seems to be the term to think about more thoroughly [1]. It's valid that you neither want a minority dictating the terms for the majority nor a majority dominating a minority to such a degree that leaves the minority's voices unheard.
Well, one can certainly debate that. There are discussions among historians about "the long 19th century" (1789-1914) [1] and the "short 20th century" (1914-1991) [2]. Maybe in the far future, people will talk about our times as part of a "short" or a "long" century as well.
Does it really matter in the end though? I would just take these statements with a grain of salt. It's symbolism to create a feeling of urgency, a common spirit to take action or just a way to form identity.
I wondered why nobody has mentioned 'deliberative practice' yet when the article emphasizes some of its basic elements such as the importance of cognitive effort for learning.