Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Grey Fucking Area, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
warp ten rhetoric
Unlike for example the right honourable Mr Joyce in full "I see nothing mode"
Do I like politics consisting of a bunch of kids (god I'm old) shouting their dislike of the PM, and lets just for a second do them the courtesy of considering their dislike to be genuine, in rude terms? No I think we could do better with political debate.
But National has hung it's hat on being John Key's party and make a very very big deal of him being such a nice man him all having "drug 'imself up from 'umble beginnings". Not exactly in the deep end of the intellectual political debate pool either really.
You're right we should expect more from our representatives. Perhaps National could start by bringing some serious thinking to the hustings. So far though the prize for that race has to go to The Greens whose commitment to evidence-based policy is refreshing, if not complete.
-
Hard News: Steven Joyce: Prick or Treat, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
But NZ doesn’t have grad-level jobs for people with science degrees, either. I know several people with reasonably good degrees in bioscience who have been unable to get any kind of grad-level job (often winding up in IT/teaching/overseas).
Yup. The brutal fact is that a good MSc is worth almost nothing. We pay our managers, finance and admin staff "market rates" but we pay our technicians the lowest amount we can get away with. We see people all the time make the entirely rational decision to take their talent and intelligence and use it in careers that actually will allow them to pay their mortgage. And yet our senior executives continue to get pay rises.
Part of the problem is the continued starvation of the science funding but a part of it is a management problem.
As for teaching - most of our techs can get an instant pay rise by going to teachers training college with a clear defined career path from there - sigh.
-
And more depressing comment on the NSCs
http://datascinz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/from-national-science-challenges-to.html?m=1 -
Hard News: The silence of the public square, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Yeah, because someone who (whether you like it or not) is still Prime Minister after not one but two free, fair and credible general elections is exactly like a fictional mass murderer.
While I agree name calling is silly and a waste of time*, I'd also caution against using success in elections as proof of honest and legal behaviour, such proof is best left in the courts assuming sufficient evidence exists to even bring a case.
Personally I'm pretty sure Key is not a mass murderer and also probably not fictional.
* Although sometimes genuine satire and comedic value is a reasonable excuse. -
Hard News: Steven Joyce: Prick or Treat, in reply to Carol Stewart,
In the sector I’m in there’s a high level of despondency, cynicism and anger about this new funding structure, which is widely seen as a great leap backwards and a criminal waste of time.
Oh same here. And yes it's criminal to waste taxpayers (my) money on a dumbass new funding tool. Even worse shoehorning our existing funding into the same "challenges".
But the first two years of MBIE rounds were just as hopeless. Nobody knew what the funding criteria really were. We all just guessed what MBIE really wanted from us. Even they were guessing what they wanted from us.
And to be fair I do think the NSCs appear to have all the worst features of design-by-committee.
But I still trust in the people at the bench to do their best so long as some money gets to them.
-
Hard News: Steven Joyce: Prick or Treat, in reply to Russell Brown,
What a fucking disaster.
Honestly it really isn't a disaster. Yes as a new funding tool it's a cock-up of the first water, but that's no different to most of the new funding tools introduced over the last three decades by Labour and National governments.
The notable exceptions are The Marsden Fund which has proven to be incredibly successful at funding science with high impact internationally AND that leads to patents and products of potential economic benefit to New Zealand (to coin a hated phrase). The other exception, IMO, is the long gone version of the FRST NERF fund back when it was assessed predominantly by scientists for quality.
The problem is and always has been that politicians would like science funding to produce predictable economic benefit. They want to hand over $5M and get back $25M of economic growth in specific areas, and within 3 years. It's the last bit that screws everything up.
All the analysis says that science funding improves the economy. The actual return varies from study to study but numbers around 100 fold are not unusual. But those studies all show that you cannot predict where in the economy the return will appear. That bit really pisses off politicians because they can't take any personal credit.
Over the last two governments in particular (Clark and Key) we have had science funding controlled by treasury who hate the above even more than politicians.
So we've had funding tool after funding tool designed to direct research to where the politicians believe it will do the most good - at the expense of quality.
Oh and they've all continued to reduce science funding in real dollar terms because the public don't appear to care that our science funding is being starved to death to build more roads.
But it isn't a disaster, because in spite of all that we still have really good scientists doing really good work. They have become very skilled at figuring out how to fit the work they do into the new funding tools. And life goes on. Sure we could do more science and better science if they just gave the money to The Marsden fund but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
-
Hard News: Steven Joyce: Prick or Treat, in reply to Carol Stewart,
Steven Joyce is also bullishly insisting that all is well with the National Science Challenges, despite steadily accumulating evidence that NSC are turning into a Novopay-scale trainwreck.
I've tried to stay generous and positive about the NSC, but it isn't easy. The money put into the scheme is pathetic when counted on a per year basis. The money is going into a completely new scheme with no proven record of performance. And worst of all to me the challenges have ultimately been chosen by committee with all the faults of any design by committee project. What we've ended up with have been amorphous catchall goals, instead of clearly focussed challenges.
I have no doubt that the scientists funded by the money will do great work, we always find a way to do the best work possible. But the cost in conforming to yet another funding and reporting structure and the time and money wasted in setting this up makes me very sad.
It would have been much easier and much more productive to simply double the funding for the Marsden fund. But that would not have allowed Steven Joyce to grandstand, which is a pity.
-
Feed: Food Show 2014: Not Bad, in reply to Gareth Ward,
With all these events I simply don’t get paying $30 for the right to be marketed to. Bunch of awesome stall holders etc I’m sure, but why would I pay for the right for them to then sell me stuff?
You don't have to buy much to get savings of $30. The show deals are pretty good, with some exceptions. I don't think you can argue it's bad value - unless there is nothing there that you want to buy.
-
Feed: Food Show 2014: Not Bad, in reply to Joanna,
Assuming there is enough wine there to make it worth my while, of course.
There are always a few wineries at the Ak show. Selaks had a biggish stand, we bought from West Brook and I think there maybe another 6-10 other wineries (including the one that told me "no I hadn’t tasted their wines"). But for me the problem was they were scattered all over the show, so oddly I never really felt like getting into a serious wine tasting rhythm – also, it was early.
-
Plus one for the Green Meadows beef. We hit it very early and by the time we went back to actually buy meat just before leaving they had sold out of half their stocks. It really is a credit that something as simple as minced beef tastes so great.
I also liked that Lucky tacos actually looked like they were having fun. There were other stands that could have taken a lesson from them in engaging with the public - pro-tip telling your potential customer they are wrong and "they haven't tasted their wines before" ... bad move.
Overall I felt like the show lacked the small new players. I'm not sure why, maybe the fees for the stands were too high, but there really were too many "corporate stands" and too few genuinely passionate food producers this year.
My WTF moment was the stand where they were making pizzas, in a massive open oven - but not for the patrons of the show - oh no - these pizzas were only to be tasted by the judges of some weird pizza competition. What a waste of space.
Oh and the show special at Simon Gault's stand 5 for $25 instead of $6 each. Kinda meh but cudos for seeing the man actually there talking to people and serving tastes. He does come across as genuinely passionate about food.