I'm going to try alternating posts, partly to save time, partly to make the whole process better. First, we're going back and giving posts numbers. Even number posts will talk about the meta-aspects of predicting, odd number posts will feature an actual prediction and "deep-dive" into the topic. That convention is just a by-product of the fact that this is week #5.
At the end of last week, I concluded that my prediction timeline for offshore wind seemed totally unrealistic, but I added that I was "glad to have learned what I did".
Why?
I know more about off-shore wind than I did a week ago, and I know a lot more about how the technology is shaping up in Canada. But I don't work in wind energy, and nobody who works in wind energy is reading this blog. Part of the idea is that they could read the blog, or that investors contemplating such projects could read the blog. Much better would be if those working in wind energy would contribute their own predictions to a prediction market, which would help policy makers to make decisions. Again, though, none of those people are reading the blog.
A big part of being an infophile is trusting that even the dumb trivia will come in useful somewhere. I learn the flags of the world, and every now and then I can use it to gain someone's trust, or to signal intelligence. These predictions can be more useful than that, but only just. If I understand Canada's nuclear waste options, that might impress a potential employer, or it might help me to progress through basic conversations about utilities in a future workplace.
If nothing else, learn new things for Trivia Night
Nevertheless, it would be useful to direct some of this extracurricular searching on things that could be directly useful to me (or to someone). I research batteries, at least for now. Why can't I do a deep dive on a battery topic more often. A few thoughts:
Narrow focus. Cobalt-free cathodes seems like a reasonable balance, but I can't choose a topic that feels like a review article.
Finding reliable sources. Any prediction needs a reliable way to resolve itself. If I base a prediction on the price / Wh of sodium ion batteries, that would be a great topic, but I need to make sure there is a reliable source for that number, and a reliable source in X years.
Proximity. If I choose a topic too close to my research, it might be harder to stay unbiased. I'm currently working for a battery startup, and 100% honest predictions in such situations isn't normalized right now. This is a major roadblock for the acceptance of prediction markets generally.
Time. The more I know about a subject, the more I can write about it. There are only so many updates I can reasonably give on a question of Perovskite solar. With batteries, there's always another paper I can read.
In the end, however, I DO want to be reading more research for this blog, as the learning process was one of the main drivers behind creating it in the first place. A month in, there are three main goals I want to gain from the practice.
a. Research to understand my own work better.
b. Shallow dives to sound smart on a variety of topics.
c. Improving my writing with a reasonable time commitment.
I'm going to achieve 'c' partly by following the biweekly schedule with meta posts about the predictions. As for 'a' and 'b', I'll recommit to focusing more on battery topics with my prediction posts, while allowing myself to branch out. I may also seek suggestions where I can.
In the meantime, next week's post may be delayed because of Easter. TBD.
Photo: Tangle Ridge, Jasper National Park