Why tactical voting is a terrible idea

In lieu of my own post on the subject, here’s a blog post about tactical voting.

whats all this phd nonsense anyway?

In a departure from my usual focus on my PhD in astrophysics, I wanted to write down my thoughts on tactical voting. Please note that I’m not a political commentator, nor was I ever trained in politics. This is my opinion, based on my new and strong engagement in politics over the last few years. My arguments focus on Green supporters voting tactically for Labour, but could just as easily apply to similar situations across the political spectrum.

Part of my political awakening was my involvement in the fossil fuel divestment movement. Part of my political awakening was my involvement in the fossil fuel divestment movement.

Anyone I’ve ever spoken to about tactical voting agrees that it’s a shame that people feel the need to vote tactically. This, I think, transcribes into a relatively uniform agreement that our current electoral system in the UK is not fit for purpose. A system that sees some parties gain 5 times less seats than they win votes (e.g. Greens)…

View original post 1,705 more words


Pixar Co-Founder Mulls Meaning of Success


No layers of management and oversight, just a group of trusted directors who exchange ideas:

“In contrast to the standard studio model, in which multiple levels of oversight exist above a director, Catmull [Pixar’s co-founder] described Pixar’s “brain trust,” a group of trusted directors who meet to exchange ideas on projects, which exists only to provide suggestions for how a project can be improved. The director of the project ultimately has final say.”

Create teams of people who work well together:

“Our development team doesn’t look for stories,” Catmull said. “Their job is to create teams of people that work well together.”

Be creative, take risks:

“Fail early, fail often and learn fast,” Catmull said.

“We realized that having lower standards for something is bad for your soul.”