I do not believe that consumers are the main beneficiaries of recent trends in the centralisation and industrialisation of food production. Convenient, perhaps, but safe and affordable? At what price?
Podcasts are not radio shows. Or at least, they didn't used to be. Now, judging by how almost all awards lump them together, there is no meaningful distinction. Except that, in our hearts, we know that there is.
The big problem with the “all food is processed” and “everything is a chemical” arguments is that they fail to speak the same language as the people for whom “processed” and “chemical” have other meanings. I prefer to ask who benefits from the processing and the chemicals.
Galileo and failure. Tim Harford, are you listening?
Tim Harford certainly belaboured the point that safety systems may make things more prone to failure, what with the Oscars fiasco (two systems bad; three systems worse). Wheeling out Galileo was a masterstroke. Little could he have anticipated that someone who actually knew about statics would be listening..
Dr. Drang kindly shared his expertise.
I think we can forgive Galileo this lapse. He was creating new knowledge and, given his trouble with the Vatican, was desperate to get it published. Editing was of secondary concern at best.
I’m less forgiving of Tim Harford. Anyone who’s taken a statics class could have told him that the story on which he was basing “Galileo’s Principle” didn’t demonstrate that principle.
I wonder whether Tim Harford will even see that. Probably not; comments are closed.
