Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom
ted.com
ted.com
When incentives don't work, when CEOs ignore the
long-term health of their companies in pusuit of
short-term gains that will lead to massive bonuses,
the resonse is always the same:
get smarter incentives.
The truth is that there are no incentives you can
devise that are ever going to be smart enough. Any
incentive system can be subverted by bad will.
Well worth the time to listen to the entire talk.If we remove lawsuits with large monetary penalties, leaving small penalties and, of course, criminal penalties, frivolous lawsuits will die on the vine.
Does anyone know of a movement to make this change? And if it doesn't exist yet, who's with me to start one?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/12/10/marie-gryphon-on-l...
I think getting rid of the large settlements (replaced with criminal charges) is the way other countries have it. Again, I'd be interested to see if work can be done towards this.
Not necessarily. Some "loser pays" systems allow the plaintiff's lawyers (or an insurance company) to take the risk of paying the defendant's costs if the lawsuit is unsuccessful. (The key is that those systems allow such folks to get paid for taking that risk.)
In the US, when a contingency lawyer loses a case, s\he is typically out his time and occasionally expenses as well. Loser-pays "just" doubles the hit from a loss.
I'm not saying that loser-pays is a good idea, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily exclude poor folks.
I've been writing an essay on this topic for a while which really reminds me of this video, and one of the main thrusts is that you can't just learn rules, and it targets the question of how do you develop the wisdom to program. It's not all that great and it's not done (mostly unposted). It's not stuff that would necessarily be news to anybody here, but it's been interesting writing it all out.
There's no substitute for trusting programmer judgment, and that bothers people. Programming isn't unique that way, either, it's just the field I know.
One of the good trends in software (IMO) is that in rejecting rule-driven ways of running projects (like waterfall, RUP, etc.), people across the industry have basically agreed that the right way to build software is to make it a human endeavor again, thus Agile, XP, etc. The bad trend I see is that some people are trying to create rule-driven systems out of Agile and XP (e.g. 99% unit test coverage required, or you must pair program every line of code in the system). This makes my head hurt, since it is so against the spirit of the Agile manifesto.