![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stop That Man
Oct. 23rd, 2008 12:32 pmSo, I was walking down Featherstone Street to Fitness First (Chocolates Later), earlier this week, when what should I see coming towards me but something more familiar to moviegoers with a penchant for films featuring Vinnie Jones. Four men were running in a line, spread out over a distance of maybe 40 feet. These people were not running in a "oh, I might get two miles in before lunch" fashion, but in a "someone is chasing someone else" fashion.
What to do? In retrospect, the thing to do is to whip out your mobile phone and take a picture. Indeed, I ought to make this second nature when interesting things happen all of a sudden. But, well, I did nothing, except carry on walking on the other side of the road.
Eventually the rear two came jogging back, having failed to apprehend the front two running away. It transpired that they had tried to steal something from a car. If only the pursuers had shouted "Stop, thief".
A few years ago I was a juror on a court case where two kids were accused of robbing a bloke. They weren't very good thieves, and the police took chase. The police description of this event was clearly based on 1920s silent movies. Apparently the two were running "side by side" and periodically "looked behind them". As was obvious to the jury at the time, people fleeing the scene of a crime don't tend to act that way. However, it was necessary for the police to say that the two were running side by side so that they could maintain the case that the pair were acting in concert.
++++++++++++++
This morning another CEO showed that he still does't get it. Jay Fishman of Travelers said with a straight face that "the world is a riskier place than it was a year ago".
Er, no, Jay, it isn't. The world is precisely as risky now as it was 12 months ago. What has changed is your (and your company's) perception of risk has changed. Companies spent several years blind to all of this risk floating about, happily pocketing bonuses on "profits" on investments that were really (see Taleb) minus EV in the long term. Once the minus EV comes home to roost, that doesn't turn a good investment decision into a bad one. The investment decision was always bad, was always minus EV.
++++++++++++++
It seems to be a day for "Well, Duh", announcements. The Evening Standard today reports that (a) government borrowing will rise as tax receipts fall, (b) that the police under-record some crimes and (c) that De Menezes was not carrying a gun.
But all of these pale besides the announcement from Google at the bottom of its search results (it may have been there for some time, but I have only just noticed it). "These resutls are generated automatically by a computer program", it says.
Well, knock me down with a floppy fish and call me a Sunday. I thought there was a little man at Google offices compiling the damn stories. "O mi god, he wants 30 results a page. And he wants them sorted by relevance! Hurry hurry hurry!".
________________________
What to do? In retrospect, the thing to do is to whip out your mobile phone and take a picture. Indeed, I ought to make this second nature when interesting things happen all of a sudden. But, well, I did nothing, except carry on walking on the other side of the road.
Eventually the rear two came jogging back, having failed to apprehend the front two running away. It transpired that they had tried to steal something from a car. If only the pursuers had shouted "Stop, thief".
A few years ago I was a juror on a court case where two kids were accused of robbing a bloke. They weren't very good thieves, and the police took chase. The police description of this event was clearly based on 1920s silent movies. Apparently the two were running "side by side" and periodically "looked behind them". As was obvious to the jury at the time, people fleeing the scene of a crime don't tend to act that way. However, it was necessary for the police to say that the two were running side by side so that they could maintain the case that the pair were acting in concert.
++++++++++++++
This morning another CEO showed that he still does't get it. Jay Fishman of Travelers said with a straight face that "the world is a riskier place than it was a year ago".
Er, no, Jay, it isn't. The world is precisely as risky now as it was 12 months ago. What has changed is your (and your company's) perception of risk has changed. Companies spent several years blind to all of this risk floating about, happily pocketing bonuses on "profits" on investments that were really (see Taleb) minus EV in the long term. Once the minus EV comes home to roost, that doesn't turn a good investment decision into a bad one. The investment decision was always bad, was always minus EV.
++++++++++++++
It seems to be a day for "Well, Duh", announcements. The Evening Standard today reports that (a) government borrowing will rise as tax receipts fall, (b) that the police under-record some crimes and (c) that De Menezes was not carrying a gun.
But all of these pale besides the announcement from Google at the bottom of its search results (it may have been there for some time, but I have only just noticed it). "These resutls are generated automatically by a computer program", it says.
Well, knock me down with a floppy fish and call me a Sunday. I thought there was a little man at Google offices compiling the damn stories. "O mi god, he wants 30 results a page. And he wants them sorted by relevance! Hurry hurry hurry!".
________________________
