This is pretty much my experience. Based on the 'working from orbit' article I bought a Quest 2, but just couldn't find a way of working. I have a 1920x1200 in the centre now, and to each side a 19" 1600x1200 (same pixel density, vertical height, gives a level of wraparoudn with 3 monitors).
The main thing was I couldn't make the virtual screen be as good as the physical ones, and being able to see to type - I'm not at the complete touch type level - especially without reference points.
The difference is I haven't sold mine, it is still here to try some VR gaming, which I also haven't got roudn to get.
My summary is I was impressed with what the technology can do, but it's not a replacement if you have a well set up desk.
Free tiers are an essential; when settling on a service I will try many, in parallel with our current system. If I'm happy it is better I will switch,. when either immediately, or after a short period results in us being paid at a mid tier. If I have to pay to try, and find out if it is any good and works for our specific cases, I'll try it after competitors - so probably won't get round to it - as something else probably meets our needs first.
I'm with you here. Did I change my approach totally? No. But it did force me to be more explicit about the time/money tradeoff, and accept that I might at times be better spending on things that would make me more productive, or take away pain points.
Likewise his podcast is generally excellent. I now have to be more judicious in which guests I listen to, but he has amazing people, and really does get in to detail, not just glib highlights.
Potentially; infrastructure is quite a broad term, and some sectors of the economy are pretty maxed out. Spend it on telecomms, and how much would flow overseas?
I'm in the UK and we're increasing spending on 5G, but lots just goes elsewhere. Our constrution sector has limited capacity, and has less now we have EU staff leaving (and not arriving), so any extra spending will just lead to price inflation (and wages for already well paid people). Actually getting new people (and companies) in to these sectors is hard, not as sexy, and as a result doesn't seem to happen.
The US may be different, but there are few really easy answers in economics. Almost everything has second order effects that you might not like! That said, having been to the US a lot, there is a lot of infrastructure that does need attention...
So I've a degree and masters in economics, before heading down the more statistical route. I can't say I found it compelling, and some of the issues waved away were too alarming for my liking.
The asset price inflation that's happening, and as a result the crazy investments (Softbank style) in search of some return are worrying. These are storing up problems for the future. I don't find the 'return to gold and it'll all be fine' any more compelling. I don't much care for the politics side, and advocating for no vs tons of spending seems to gloss over the very real problems with each approach.
In something so long and meandering, that's not a surprise. I also stopped readng before it got any further; to be compelling it needs to be a lot shorter - there is not that much content in it!
I can't say I'm surprised. The incentives are for them to provide a mostly trustworthy service, and certainly one that looks like it, but to monetise it there are compromises. Nothing overtly bad, but certainly... selective. I mean companies could also flag positive reviews they feel are fake, right? But it just so happens that they will likely flag negative ones - that isn't Trustpilot’s fault, right? Ultimately it means that any score is biased upwards.
Depressingly is also means the most shady companies that will abuse systems like this, will also seem to have a sparkling reputation - actually harming customers if they rely on these sites.
Companies that pay can flag negative reviews, when they get taken down, and to get it back up you have to provide all sorts of proof of your custom, and complaint. Companies can also then reply without you getting to add.
Much like amazon reviews they absolutely cannot be trusted to be a representation of the truth
Not the same, but I'm sure some (10?) years ago I saw something about University of Buckingham doign straight through the summer learning, so you completed in 2 years. So it isn't unheard of for everything not to be the standard 3...
I did mine based far from the University (a very good one) but travelling down every few months to meet with my supervisors. I learnt tons, and it has helped my career. It also meant a lot of work over 6 years (part time). Time well spent! I effectively swapped TV and movies for statistics, and have no regrets. Over the period we had 2 kids.
You could probably do it faster / easier with a pro forma type place, but it would be a debasement of standards - it might tick a box but you probably wouldn't learn the skills. What I really like about the author's post is that they are detailing it all, and it is about getting a formal qualification to recognise the knowledge they have.
It is not a trivial process, and these are ferrociously complex. Safety, Quality and Efficacy - each are hard to check. From how people are categorised in trials, how missing data rules are implemented, to how it is manufactured and the stability data. It doesn't take a year for no good reason. Yes this has been sped up massively, but steps have been abbreviated - let's not kid ourselves.
If interested, the FDA release all documentation - search for Drugs@FDA and find a recent medicine, and see just how much review it gets. You'll be surprised!
So in the UK we have a really good set of expert bodies that put forward reccomendations on these things, the JCVI being the vaccines body. They are every bit as good as the current government are terrible.
The interesting analogy Ross Tucker (https://sportsscientists.com/who-are-we/) uses is adding vitamins and mineral is like adding a wheel to a car. If you onyl have 3, then adding the 4th is really going to make a massive difference. If you already have enough however, it's like adding a 5th wheel, which will essentially do nothing, and could be harmful.
It works well as an explanation, as people do seem to try and reduce complex functions to simple rules, and extrapolate from specific populatiosn to create general rules (not helped by studies that are minimally generalisable)
The main thing was I couldn't make the virtual screen be as good as the physical ones, and being able to see to type - I'm not at the complete touch type level - especially without reference points.
The difference is I haven't sold mine, it is still here to try some VR gaming, which I also haven't got roudn to get.
My summary is I was impressed with what the technology can do, but it's not a replacement if you have a well set up desk.