It's also possible that cash transfer programs, especially one's like GiveDirectly's, "geographically saturate" an area in a way that has spillover effects which, notably, could make control groups catch up to cash transfer recipients over time (making the program seem worse than it actually is).In general, there isn't enough understanding of when one program is better than another, and these things do vary a lot.if it's more expensive to pay local residents to run the program). Similar programs in other places may fail because the local markets are too unstable, there aren't easily identifiable appropriate groups of people to work with on this, or the programs themselves are too expensive (e.g. But it's possible that the potential of the programs is over-stated because the existing trials were with some of the people who were easiest to help in such a way, so this approach is harder to generalize.The evidence on graduation programs is very good, even after 10 years (other programs will sometimes seem very promising for the first few years, but less promising after a while, in part because control groups catch up).I'm jotting down some takeaways, with the caveats that I threw this link-post together really fast, so this could easily contain errors or misunderstandings (I'd appreciate corrections in the comments!), and that I haven't checked the cited studies myself - I'm just summarizing some parts of the Vox article. For example, you can offer people livestock plus training on how to make money off that livestock plus a bit of cash to sustain them while they get things up and running. The idea that offering a combo of assets and training and cash - instead of just, say, cash - can trigger a virtuous cycle that ultimately helps ultra-poor people escape poverty. The article discusses evidence for the effectiveness of cash transfer programs and how that compares to " ultra-poor graduation programs," where How is VOX intercom supposed to work? (Yes, both my friend and I have VOX intercom enabled)įinally, it seems that VOX phone and VOX intercom can be enabled at the same time.Sigal Samuel from Vox's Future Perfect recently published an article I really appreciated, both because I learned some new things and because it seriously discusses important questions and overcomes the lack of newsworthiness of long-running studies: " What’s the best way to help extremely poor people? After 20 years, the evidence is in." (Subtitle: Is it really useful to “teach a person to fish” or should you just give them the damn fish already?) But it doesn't seem that the connection ever went fully quiet during the "nothing to say" moments. I can barely hear my friend's engine and wind noise, and, using side tone, I'm sure I'm equally noise-free when not speaking. On a recent 300+ mile ride, we chatted as usual, and also rode for a while without talking. At least that how I expect VOX intercom to work. When the talking stops, the intercom should go quiet. With VOX intercom, I expect the pair with another rider as usual and when one of us speaks, the intercom goes hot and I hear my friend and vice versa. Talking into the mic doesn't get a response from my phone. If I'm riding on my own, I enable vox phone and disable vox intercom. What I don't understand is how VOX Phone and VOX Intercom work. I understand the idea behind VOX: speak and something happens without pushing buttons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |