According to Stephen Moss in “A few months ago, I woke up to Brexit. Here’s my advice to US voters”
Our arrogance had lost us the referendum.
The neighbourhood in which I live had been festooned with Leave posters. The Leavers really wanted this and were prepared to make public their preference. In sporting parlance, they were up for it. The then Ukip leader Nigel Farage said his supporters would “crawl over broken glass” to get to polling stations to vote to leave the EU, and he was right. Leave may not have had the arguments on their side, but they had all the energy. Remain, who didn’t put up posters or show any passion for their cause, were supine in the face of their rhetoric. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” How right Yeats was.
Does all this remind you of anyone? Trump may talk nonsense a lot of the time, but there’s no denying his energy, passion and rhetorical skill. I watched several of the debates involving the Republican hopefuls, and he was incredibly bullish and entertaining. There was no denying he was box office.
According to Sean Murphy in “Three Sales Pitches That Never Really Work”
Approaching Early Customers
- Poor: “Would you like to play with this?”
- Poor: “Would you like to use this?”
- Poor: “Would you feel bad if our free product was discontinued?”
- Poor: “You would be really stupid not to try our product.”
- Better: “Do you have these symptoms? Here is the problem we think you have and here is how we can help you solve it.”
According to Robert Krulwich in “You (and Almost Everyone You Know) Owe Your Life to This Man” about Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov
The debate between the captain and Arkhipov took place in an old, diesel-powered submarine designed for Arctic travel but stuck in a climate that was close to unendurable. And yet, Arkhipov kept his cool. After their confrontation, the missile was not readied for firing.
Looking back, it all came down to Arkhipov. Everyone agrees that he’s the guy who stopped the captain. He’s the one who stood in the way.
Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous. […] the world is very, very lucky that at one critical moment, someone calm enough, careful enough, and cool enough was there to say no.
See also “USA plans to spend at least $1,000,000,000,000 on preparations for nuclear war over the next 30 years“.
According to Huw Price in “Is the cold fusion egg about to hatch?”
I proposed in my essay that science should be more tolerant of its mavericks, when so much is at stake. If I’m right, then the reputation trap itself is the thing that should be condemned and ridiculed, not the science of LENR.
Not surprisingly, some readers weren’t convinced. Some concerned commentators even worried about what the piece would do to my own reputation. So, three months later, am I having any regrets?
On the contrary, the story has become even more interesting, in my view. I want to offer some updates for readers who weren’t persuaded last time that these developments were worth following for themselves. And I want to sound a note of caution for anyone who still feels confident that they can continue to ignore the field. If LENR is on the verge of a comeback, the reputation trap will turn inside out very, very quickly. No one wants to be the last ostrich to pull its head out of the sand. You have been warned!
Tip of the hat to Frank Acland.