Iβm not really sure what to do here. How do you review a book that has a glaring omission, but also its author has written an essay called Hereβs Why I Like Glaring Omissions And Think Everyone Should Have Them? Is it dishonest? Some sort of special super-meta-honesty? How many stars do you take off? Nothing in my previous history of book-reviewing has prepared me for this question.Of course he's unprepared for reality, being a "rationalist/bayesian". They deny the implications of the Frame problem, which is their core error. I should write a blog post about this; it's why racism and all the concerns discussed are straight-up spooks. You might be able to walk a mile in another mans shoes, but you can't walk with his feet.
An absolutely fascinating defense. "Someone else might not be able to commit this crime, so we should be allowed to do it" is one of the weirdest defences I have ever heard.Hey, it worked for the TBTF banks...
"At bottom, [the Internet Archiveβs] fair use defense rests on the notion that lawfully acquiring a copyrighted print book entitles the recipient to make an unauthorized copy and distribute it in place of the print book, so long as it does not simultaneously lend the print book. But no case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points the other direction."Oops, guess your local library needs to burn their microfiche collection! Also, emulator enthusiasts up against the wall.
In other words, you donβt have to shout slurs β if you criticize an employeeβs performance, and the investigator thinks your criticism is unfair and that you are some flavor of bigot, thatβs enough to justify a shakedown.This is why only glad-handing empty suits can get promoted at 100+ person firms, by the way. Frank criticism and Fuhren unter Der Hand (without which a firm can't function) cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. As such the modern firm limps along as a cripple.
This means that virtually any interpersonal conflict in the workplace might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of litigation β and employees in protected categories have massive incentives to generate or fabricate such conflicts.
This risk is existential for small and medium-sized businesses, which is one reason that labor-intensive businesses are dominated by massive conglomerates. You have to pay to play.
Conservative commentators love to characterize HR and DEI as βdead weightβ patronage jobs, as if they were the product of bureaucratic bloat or laziness β but DEI mandarins arenβt lying when they say they perform a business-critical function.
If you are identified as a thought-criminal with respect to any legally-protected category, and your employer fails to discipline or terminate you, then any gender creature at the office can decide that you make them Feel Unsafe, and start building a case to put their hand in the companyβs pocket.
Corporations donβt hire sprawling HR and DEI departments out of inertia, or because theyβre afraid of popular pressure: they do it because they need an internal constituency that is as crazy as their craziest employee β that can keep the organization up to date with the latest progressive moral panic, and punish dissenting employees long before they generate a lawsuit. A DEI department is as practically necessary to the modern American corporation as Legal or Accounting.
Itβs a brilliant workaround β it would, of course, be unconstitutional for the regular police to monitor your private communications and punish you for ideological crimes β but the EEOC built a $30B network of internal informants and political officers (twice the size and 3X the budget of the KGB at its peak) who are not accountable to the Constitution, and got your boss to pay for it.
This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances.How people don't think this is happening out in the wide world of sports when attenuation through a medium is readily observable escapes me.