X : Thoughts on students going back to University?
Me : Daft. Should go all online.
X : But what about a hybrid approach - some online, some F2F?
Me : Dafter. That's like hybrid cloud. Nothing to do with sense, everything to do with pre-existing assets and inertia from the past.

X : But what about hands on things like medicine?
Me : Think. Is the future physical interaction or interaction through an intermediary whether a screen or a robot?
X : Well, after covid ...
Me : Forget covid, think long term. Covid is just an accelerant for pre-existing changes.

X : I don't get you.
Me : We were already heading towards space becoming a utility i.e. virtual. We were already heading towards remote working including in medicine. COVID has just ramped this change up hence the all fired mad dash by some companies to being digital to catch up.

X : Catch up? Don't you mean progress.
Me : What do you call "doing stuff that other companies did over a decade ago"?
X : Our industry is different.
Me : See cloud. That was one of the most common excuses to not progress ... "we're special". No you're not.

X : But after covid ....
Me : ... things will go back to the way they were?
X : Yes
Me : Lol. You really don't get evolution do you? There is no going back. This is a punctuated equilibrium and the Red Queen in action. Our system has changed.

X : You're arguing that there is no need for physical space?
Me : No but physical space is going to have to find needs to meet. The old needs including "collaboration", "learning" and "communication" have been replaced. They were always going to be replaced.

X : Hence students online?
Me : Yes. The desire to get students into buildings is because we're not prepared for online, we value the assets i.e. the buildings and we haven't adapted power structures to the online world - people living in ivory towers like their ivory towers.

Me : ... so expect endless articles on why physical spaces are better for teaching. It's not different to the endless articles on why building a private cloud is better than public cloud written by people and organisations that owned huge data centres.

Me : ... as they lose that battle, they will shout "Hybrid" which is a short word meaning "I know we have to change but I really like the old stuff because I've spent lots of money here and I can't be wrong hence the the new world must be less new and more new plus old".

X : What about Labs?
Me : There are two responses. One is "Oh no, what about labs? We need to adapt" the other response is "What about labs. Well, we can't obviously change". One of these is wrong.

X : What about social aspects of leaving home?
Me : Well, that's a need. Have you not noticed how I've been banging on about having to recreate social aspects in a virtual world i.e. events, corridor conversations etc. This can be done.

... or did you not notice that pre Covid record numbers of children were living at home and this was accelerating. You weren't hoping that your children would leave home were you?

Leaving home is increasingly becoming a privilege for those children whose parents can afford to buy them a new home to move to.

Anyway, this is only becoming a problem now that the middle classes are left with children that won't leave. Society didn't care when it was just poor children.

X : Many children don't have a space to work at from home.
Me : Hell, if we're going to talk inequality then let us talk broadband. We, as a society, are going to have to radically change the balance of 'we' vs 'me' in society but we're not even having that conversation.

X : I don't get you?
Me : Throughout history, the major killer of collectives is not pandemics or war or climate but inequality.

X : How do you fix inequality?
Me : You can't but you can mitigate.
X : How?
Me : You won't like it.
X : Go on.
Me : You really won't like it.

... 10 years national service covering politics, military, law, medicine etc. Education covered in service.
X : How does that tackle inequality?
Me : Ah, the bit you won't like. All roles and leadership positions in the first five years chosen by sortition i.e. random selection.

X : Leaving home?
Me : National service provides accomodation. Oh, but here's another bit you won't like.
X : What?
Me : In 25 years, only persons who have completed or are undertaking national service can buy or inherit property. Others can rent.

... then in 100 years only persons who have completed national service can own a property.
X : I'll put it in a trust fund.
Me : Will the trust fund or corporation have completed national service? If not it can only rent.

X : 100 years?
Me : That's about how long it will take to mitigate inequality and create a more stable system with that sense of belonging. No quick fixes.

X : Do you think this could happen in the UK?
Me : What? My suggestion on national service with sortition?
X : Yes.
Me : Not a hope. The people who benefit from inequality are unlikely to give it up freely.
X : So why the tweet storm?
Me : It's worth having the conversation.

X : Aren't you woried about manipulation of politics online?
Me : Of course but that's an issue of values. To maintain power your choices are "Do good and educate" or "Manipulate voters". Today the energy cost of manipulating is vastly lower than doing good and educating ...

... but that only holds where values are aspirational and focused on the individual rather than pragmatic collectivism. i.e. the US is all aspirations e.g. "All are born equal" and so with modern systems it's easy to manipulate with false hope. Ditto UK. Less so in China.

X : Post truth?
Me : That's just a reflection of the state of the system and that manipulation of behaviour is less costly than doing good and educating.
X : You mean it's permanent?
Me : Yes. Why do you think that fact checking is having no impact? Welcome to the new world.

X : How do you fix that?
Me : Values but in a pragmatic sense for the entire collective but that requires us to have this whole "Me" vs "We" discussion.
X : Are we doing that?
Me : No. The problem is you can't have the conversation without talking about inequality.

X : So, we're not having the discussion needed to even think about how to change the system in an environment which is changing?
Me : Roughly.
X : Any way out?
Me : You won't like it.
X : Try me.

... pick a day,15th Sept and on that day, you need to sit down with your kids and apologise to them for your failure as guardian of their future from the systems we've created to climate change. Get enough people doing that and you'll create the will necessary to change things.

X : I disagree
Me : Disagreement is an essential part of progress. I thank you for your disagreement. I do not pretend that I am right and everytime I think I'm right, I just pull out that "graph" and I realise that I'm missing a whole bunch of things I don't understand.

X : Is this thread just simply to get people to discuss the issues?
Me : As always. Someone out there will have the answer, we just have to find them. Chances are they live on a council estate, come from a poor family and no-one listens to them but they know how to solve this.

X : Your national service with random selection (sortition) ... what about meritocracy?
Me : The first 5 years are random selection. The next 5 years can be more meritocratic.
X : But doesn't that give a huge advantage to those chosen in the first five years?
Me : Hence random.

... it's also why the accomodation has to be state provided in national service. You mix up the population, from all backgrounds, regardless of privilege and use five years of random selection to balance out some of the existing inherent inequality.

X : But this is easy for you to say because you won't go through it.
Me : Fair except I would have preferred to have gone through such a system. Today, I would point to family committment but then ... that's just inertia talking. Yes, the system should be for all.

X : Wouldn't that be a waste of your talent?
Me : What talent? I know people living on council estates with no job that despite all that stress are vastly more intellligent than I am. It's the talent argument that is used to perpetuate inequality which in turn diminishes us all.

X : I couldn't give up ten years of my life.
Me : For a better society? Oh you could but I doubt that's your real concern.
X : What is?
Me : The possibiliy that after going through such a system that you might end up not enjoying the privileges you do today? Loss aversion.

... you need to appreciate that those of us with privilege wrap ourselves in a blanket of meritocracy and somehow believe that we obtained our privilege through our inherent "talent" and hard work. It's mostly self delusion to cover up for the inequalities in the system.