here is one, so you know what you are looking at:
Everyone agrees the trains are bad and nobody agrees about why.
Nationalised for forty years and they were not better. Ownership is not the variable.
Depends which line. Some of it is ownership, most of it is that track and trains are run by different people.
Every decision is made on a shorter timescale than the thing it affects. Defer the maintenance, leave before the bill lands.
no likes, no ranking, nothing to win.
create an account or sign in to crib.
Every organisation says it wants honest feedback and has exactly one person who gives it, and that person is always halfway out the door.
Open-plan offices are the clearest case I know of an entire industry adopting something because it was cheaper and inventing the reason afterwards.
Cities that solved housing did it by building an unremarkable amount of unremarkable housing for a very long time, which is why nobody can point to a dramatic example. The absence of a dramatic case is the finding, and it is also the politics: a policy whose costs are immediate and local and whose payoff is twenty years out is the hardest thing an elected person can attempt.
Sport is the only place left where we are collectively fine with someone being obviously, measurably better than everyone else, and I find it interesting that we cannot tolerate that anywhere else.
Polarisation gets the blame, but the lasting damage from social media might be flattening — every subject arrives at the same size, in the same box, with the same three reactions available, whether it is a war or a sandwich.
F1 drivers are athletes in exactly the same sense footballers are, and the people who scoff have never held their neck steady at 4g for two hours in fifty degree heat.
Term limits, everywhere, no exceptions. Nobody should be able to build a forty-year career out of a job that was meant to be temporary.
Lending money to family, and why I have stopped. I have done it four times. Twice it came back, twice it did not, and the two that did not are the ones that changed things — not because of the money, which I could afford, but because every subsequent conversation had it sitting in the room. The advice everyone gives is "only lend what you can afford to give away", and I think that is right about the money and wrong about the relationship. What you cannot afford is the asymmetry. They know. You know they know. There is no amount small enough to be invisible once it has not come back. What I do now is give a smaller amount and say it is a gift, out loud, once. It has cost me less and I have not lost anyone over it. It also feels slightly dishonest, because I am managing the relationship rather than helping, and I have not worked out whether that matters.
I have started saying no to things eleven months in advance and it turns out absolutely nothing happens.
Most political arguments look like disagreements about facts and are really disagreements about what matters. The first kind can be settled. Nobody in history has settled the second by producing a better statistic.
Being the person in the group who organises things is a thankless job and it is always the same person, and that person is usually tired.
Tipping culture has completely lost the plot and I'm saying that as someone who used to wait tables.
Nobody budgets for the thing that actually ruins a month, because the thing that ruins a month is never in the categories.
Watching your team lose is a better test of whether you like the sport than watching them win.
A genuine question for anyone who did science at school more recently than me: how much of what I was taught has quietly been revised? Nobody sends an update.
I've come round to thinking most productivity advice is just a way of feeling organised for about a week.
Saying the uncomfortable thing is usually the kind option, and almost nobody does it, because the discomfort arrives immediately and the kindness turns up months later.
Every messaging app eventually turns into a bad email client. Threads, then search, then folders, then somebody adds a rules engine and we are right back where we started.
The best thing about a newspaper was that it ended. You got to the back page and you were done and nobody suggested anything else.
Most people would be happier with fewer options. Ask anyone who has spent forty minutes scrolling and then rewatched something they had already seen twice.
We should be spending vastly more on stopping the next pandemic, and we will not, because prevention has no photograph attached to it.
We built an entire economy on the idea that people will keep buying things they already have, and then act surprised when the things are designed to stop working.
We treat mental health at work like it is about resilience training when it is mostly about workload and whether your manager is a decent person.
There is no book everyone ought to have read, and the list is always suspiciously full of whatever the person making it was assigned at nineteen.
Splitting the bill evenly is a tax on whoever ordered the salad, and everyone knows it, and everyone does it anyway because saying so costs more than the difference.
something you reckon. a gripe, a hunch, a hill you will die on. serious or not.
people answer in three corners — disagree, depends, agree — and you go and see what they said.
anyone can join with an email address. it is used to send you a code and nothing else.
what all this does to your head, and what to do about it.