SMART CITY FANATIC

  ANSWER: It is whatever YOU make it! In the context of a city? It is possible to think of it, thus: 1: In PLANNING: Avoid urban sprawl. At ALL COSTS. 2: In ENERGY:   Be efficient with what we do have (fossil fuels; rising costs; even this government are trying, today, to handle that). Equally, be proactive with what we are yet to harness to the max.  That means alternative fuel sources from nuclear to wind/solar/et al. And think about whether you NEED to make that car / rail/bus journey. If you can work from home/ conduct a meeting, wirelessly? DO IT!  3: In BUSINESS :  Are your employees REALLY giving YOU value for money? And if not, why not? Think about how you can start a conversation with them. Be firm yet flexible.  Manage goals and targets, with in built review and negotiation. Make their welfare and development part of, rather than divorced from, the process of constructive criticism.  That way, pastoral care and professional growth coincide with the larger development of your

Cars are BACK on roads. Well, they have been, for quite some time, in fact.  But: did you notice, when the pandemics and lockdowns were on? That it just felt a tad easier to simply walk down a street? There was quiet. You could actually hear the birdsong. And yes, above all? One could BREATHE, unfettered. Now, I do not wish to be some gloom merchant, stressing an end of the world forecast here. One gets enough of that, c/o imminent war predictions, worldwide financial meltdown prophecies and so on.  But what is, unavoidable,  alas, is that there is no escaping the fact, that it is indeed, harder to simply BREATHE, on roads. Why is that? Some of it might be psychosomatic. You are back in a crowded traffic jam. Stuck in an enclosed space, in a car? There are endless cyclists and now SCOOTERS using paths, instead of ROADS.  JOGGERS brush past with you, exuding a whiff of sanctimonious entitlement as they sniff their brand of bespoke, healthier air. And so on. I get it. Sympathise with yo

Ok. Yes. Deliberately gloomy, click bait friendly headline there. But I make NO apologies for that. Because in effect, THE GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND just did the same thing.  He used the term 'apocalyptic'. That is: 1: DEEPLY irresponsible. His job is to ensure calm, clinical, creative management of an independent financial system in the UK. He just did the very opposite; stoking the very panic he is entrusted to curtail and prevent.  2:  AND HE IS WRONG! Because 'apocalypse' is NOT the same as 'Armageddon'. For whatever reason? Those terms have become conflated and confused in recent linguistic idiom. Apocalypse = revelation. Now, that COULD, in theory, spell some world ending chaotic catastrophe. But it need not do so.   Revelations can be good, healthy, helpful. They can even enable GROWTH and PROGRESS, albeit, painfully so? So, in a way.. 3: Governor is also..RIGHT?!  As in, though he does not intend to be that, he is the bringer of necessary, tough bu

  Ok, yes, that is a leading headline. It is what GOOGLE thinks you want to hear, right?  But what if I told you that travel apps are already facing extinction? Yes, they will always exist in some iteration. But the paradigm is shifting. Incrementally yet dramatically. Implicitly yet definitely. Here's why: 1: Tech changes, frequently.  The moment a new application launches? It has a thousand counterpart competitors, waiting in the wings. What you must ask yourself, therefore, is whether you, as a user want to invest time and perhaps 'fremium' monies, in a tool whose redundancy is all but inbuilt?  2: There are STILL things that apps cannot, or at least do not, as yet 'do'!  Sure, things have improved. An app can tell me at each stage of a journey, which direction / route/method to deploy. Yes, there is indeed, up to the minute updating available when delays or cancellations occur. But why stop there?  When was the last time an app gave you a PRECISE read out of ALL

  Notice. I did not provide a question mark there. Did not even finish the sentence. I know: how rebellious! Truth is, more mundane than any specific grammatical experiment or bid to stand out in the saturated blog-o-sphere. My point is that, the MOMENT I keyed in 'why is my train' on Google, I was greeted neither with philosophical propositions on existence, nor vocal praise posts about 'why is my train so GREAT?'. The majority? ALL. TERRIBLE! As in everything short of 'why is my train so sh#t?!'.  That speaks volumes on the current state of affairs with rail transportation. Seriously. Algorithms do not lie. Facts are never post truth. And the simple fact here is that, statistically, the majority of queries surely are about why train and rail services are failing to satisfy travellers.  Does that mean all train routes are bad? That every carriage is awful? NO! And for the sake of socio-economic sanity? PLEASE STOP this NONSENSE about 'yeah they are gonna re