foolrush

How about not viewing every human interaction as a market transaction?

You are predicating your entire premise on merit already existing. The surge in articles recently dig a little deeper.

What is merit? Is it merit if, because someone is of faith, they donate food to those without? That person who is receiving the food has more than they did prior, the person who had the food has less.

Merit is a metric, and in contemporary culture, it is one used to reinforce ownership and capital. Yet in the above overly-simplistic example, we can see that not all human interactions are, nor should, be overfit into the idea of “merit” nor “ownership of capital or goods.” In the above scenario, “merit” conveniently tries to avoid disclosing its ethical structure.

It’s a fallacy. More folks are waking up to this fact[1].

[1] Avoiding the whataboutisms discussing “talent” or “skills” and other bogus terms.

>because right now it looks like they cut some corners, the FAA let them, and families are mourning. Pilot error isn’t really the issue, it’s engineering, process, and training.

That doesn’t seem like engineering, process, nor training.

That looks like something connected to large scale corporate profit.

How did Boeing manage to gain self reporting to the FAA?

Never trust an article that can’t even pick stock photography of a proper chessboard orientation as the details in the article will hold about as much weight as the stock photography.

Oh you are going down the historically inaccurate “S” in Nazisim?

In fairness to the humanities, there has been a good deal of research and knowledge via sociology for a long while.

“The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess.”

— Brave New World Revisited, Huxley, 1958

In law, the term “negligence” usually plays an important role. “What ifs” have already been played out historically, which is case law.

Entirely misread in a blind fit of rage.

You realize that late binding means supplying the CMYK based on a conversion from RGB? Good.

> (color space? doesn't matter! Pick any CMYK!)

You realize that “color space pick any” has an implicit connection to the actual physical inks and what colours they print? Good.

As in it is a clear beacon that you don’t understand a shred of what you are replying to. I’m sure your professional(!) print runs that you have done have taught you that, though.

Anyone that says they need CMYK doesn’t understand printing. At all.

Suggesting CMYK is holding something back is literally suggesting that the individual wants discrete control over the inks in the machine, without considering the colour of the inks, the paper colour, the saturation level of the paper, etc.

Clean plates for spot printing? Fine. CMYK painting? No.

Late binding has been the path forever, and is the only way forward. As a result, anyone suggesting they need CMYK has a debilitating grasp of how printing works.

Missing a bit of sociological historicizing here.

IQ and SATs were essentially designed to keep undesirables, notably Jewish, people out of academic circles. Eugenics and these tests marched hand in hand.

> Armed with this so-called objective methodology, 3 American eugenicists advanced a straw-man rationale for large-scale testing.14 They reasoned that society needed to identify, segregate, and sterilize the "feeble-minded,"' 5 initially defined as those with mental disabili- ties' 6 but later extended to include any "unfit" person of low intelli- gence, character, or ethnicity.17 In both Germany and the United States, persecution of the "feebleminded"'18 hastened a broader eu- genic campaign against immigration, miscegenation, and other pro- fessed threats to Nordic ascendancy.1 9

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=h...

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...

https://twitter.com/ft_variations/status/1075782671320657920...

> Perhaps one option is to remove government protection from trade secrets and intellectual property.

That isn’t necessarily “government” but a byproduct of a particular system that has spiralled into the bowl of capitalism upon capitalism; the lobbyists negotiated those laws on behalf of capitalism. Chicken egg issue that isn’t going away given how up to the neck capitalism is wired into government.

In Europe, some protections against that are enforced by government.

Title is wrong. They don’t unwittingly do it.

We can debate that we both are or aren’t, given it is a cyclical relationship of chicken egg.

The regulators are, in the USA, frequently installed lobbyists with profit-at-all-costs ideologies in place. It is clear that the USA’s concept of “oversight” is complicit in this.

Hard to shift those underlying ideologies.

Ethics, labour, and politics are intertwined. A single parent risks blacklisting and imploding a means of income, for example.

Markets regulate themselves to a profit driven “ethics” solution that reverberates.

That is somewhat of my point; the market actually dictates this abusive behaviour and endorses it.

All that matters is profit at all costs. Even if hit with fines, the entity can likely carry on existing because profit permits survival. Regulation needs to require prison for the white collars involved.

If we stop to think about what people are serving time in prison for at this moment, and comparative impact, it is shameful. The people who willingly perpetuated this in the name of profit will continue to have the right to vote, while someone in prison for marijuana may not.

Makes these stories more relevant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/business/johnson-talc-can...

Almost as if the “free market” doesn’t regulate itself and generate ethical results...

Perhaps read the authors quoted in the article, then. You will see that “science” isn’t quite what you have learned.

You failed to understand that science is built atop of epistemology. That is, there is no “post truth”, but rather that Foucault and all have long since provided massive amounts of research to indicate the shifting floors of epistemology, where science is wielded as power. More recently, Dr. Audra J Wolfe has been exploring this complex tapestry. http://audrajwolfe.com/

> There is a very large range of quality of information, it is not all the same. The amount of bias and ulterior agenda in information varies hugely.

Again, you’ve lost the thread when you are grounding yourself in an “this is information” and “this is not”. The question before your presumption is an epistemological one.

Seems like the scientism in this paper neglected to historicise the notion of “post truth”.

Sociologist and well studied scholar Nathan Jurgenson wrote a recent piece regarding our collective willingness to subscribe to this belief: https://reallifemag.com/faked-out/

> Kakutani misses how poststructural and postmodern thought has long been a response to science’s unwarranted claims of neutrality and objectivity. Yes, sometimes this work really is just a set of stylistic whims and nihilistic postures or arguments for full epistemic relativism. But the core of much of what was popular and is still taught — Foucault, Haraway, Harding, Latour, and so on — uses empirical evidence to show that objectivity is never as such. These theorists show how accepted notions of truth are deeply rooted in cultural contingencies, and that interrogating these notions helps better articulate reality than accepting false objectivism with blind faith. This work was not “post-truth,” but rather called for smaller, more local truths instead of absolute or universal claims made from a posture of neutrality.

Epistemology isn’t new, and lays below the foundation of “science”. This isn’t a new concept, but one that we are sadly being forced to face in contemporary culture.

Surprise. The free market didn’t self regulate.

Or optionally, a corporation under capitalism is a political entity with political implications?

Your pick, though, it sure seems meaningless...

Well said.

A private message would go a long way to quietly and personally telling us we have been duped.

While we like to refer to psychological wedges only working on “them”, there is a massive body of sociological / psychological research to show that we collectively are all vulnerable. Addressing it as the collective problem it is, versus an “it happens to them” phenomena, may have an impact on overall reception.

Cabs are political, see Uber. ISPs are political, see net neutrality and state providing. Facebook is political because it is a corporate entity defined in law.

But do go on...

You are still wrong, and the parent comment is correct.

The political axis may be invisible to //you// because you are privileged. A bathroom is political. Food is political. Education is political.

It's the CBC. Do your homework.

> The first thing about this video is that the laptop malfunction was at lest shady to me.

Some reporters, when trying to track down illegitimate fees for car repairs, purposefully perform a trivial forced issue, such as a bent sparkplug ground electrode. These sorts of things should be trivial to diagnose.

Even if the CBC did this, which I am skeptical given the lineage of the CBC, it would still be an entirely valid exercise.

> No, ROI is a great measure of 'success' for an institution like YC, in fact probably the best individual metric.

It makes for a broken culture. Have a look around you. Chasing profit is no indicator of cultural value. Unless you want to start discussing Beanie Babies and Tulip crazes. Or the problematic aspects of Facebook et al.

> Or it could be the opposite of that: a place where people are mostly free of ideological assumptions and discrimination.

I'd do a spit-take if I could.

You should try 100 level philosophy and perhaps investigate epistemology.

> but I disagree that making it easier for outsiders to become educated

Surely you didn't mean to type that?