> No it does mean the overhead is 280% if defined the same way as the university (overhead is calculated as percentage of non-overhead costs, not overall costs).
But he said:
> That is my billing rate to the government is 2.8 times my hourly rate as determined by my salary.
Doesn't that mean that the government pays a total of 2.8x his salary, so overhead would be 180% (+100% salary = 280% total)? Or what mistake did I make here?
Yeah, I don't know exactly what is called "overhead" if it's the full 2.8 or 1.8 above my costs. All I know is the accountants told me to write down 2.8 and that the bill that we send the government is 2.8x what I make "hourly" for the hours work on that contract.
I love Sir Patrick, but - that sort of thing was exemplary of how the anti-Brexit campaign did not understand who they had to talk to, and how. Political campaigns like this one need to use the propaganda equivalent of heavy hammers, so that they can squash simple opinions like ripe melons. Instead they showed up with fancy decorative swords that could barely cut through butter. The decorative-sword community loved it, but nobody else took it seriously.
Possibly it was because a referendum campaign is fought in very different terms from a first-past-the-post campaign, which UK operatives are used to. In FPTP, you want to fire up your base, preach to the choir, strenghten your core support, so they'll actually show up on polling day and maybe bring a friend. You can do that by leveraging precise characteristics of this or that group, you can rely on a bedrock of shared beliefs to build your messages, and you can even plan on multi-election strategies.
In a one-off referendum you just need a massive amount of votes. There is no precision, there is little space for subtlety. You need to build bridges with very simple messages that can resonate with the largest possible demographics in the fastest possible way. Preaching to the choir is pointless - anyone who feels strongly about the specific issue, will show up no matter what. You need to persuade the dubious to show up for you. A Monty-Pythonesque sketch will not do that; a lot of people won't even get it, or will get it wrong. A funny guy going around promising unicorns and rainbows will do nicely, though.
> If a word begins with an unquoted `=' and the EQUALS option is set, the remainder of the word is taken as the name of a command. If a command exists by that name, the word is replaced by the full pathname of the command.
> > Boys are just predisposed for technology by nature
>
> This is true. There is scientific evidence that shows men
> prefer things, women prefer people. This is not to say
> women can’t succeed in tech or are not as good at tech,
> but the fact that women choose other fields belies this
> nature.
To me it seems the problem here is applying statistical population data to individuals. Those "differences" in interests usually are ranges of interest with big enough overlapping areas. Oversimplifying this by only thinking about means or medians is a horrible way to judge individuals.
Even if most women prefer to work with people as opposed to working on things, it does not tell you anything about the specific candidate one is considering for a job.
Regarding the quote from the article: It was used to dismiss the idea of also going to high schools instead of just going to colleges to promote the companies opportunities. So while going into high schools to promote job opportunities in tech likely can not eliminate that general difference in interests, it can have an effect on those women who would be interested but are not convinced or aware (enough) yet.
