Except, as I said, they *DO* disclose the information by following through with the exact course of action that they previously said they would.
I'm suggesting that if they've already announced in advance that the canary will die if they are investigated, then its death upon being investigated is nothing more or less than a covert way to disclose they are being investigated when they aren't supposed to. Covert disclosure is still disclosure, however, and therefore it seems like that should still be contempt.
They have, in effect, deliberately made a promise to do something that will ultimately be illegal if or when a particular thing happens to them. The fact that they are disclosing they are being investigated through a mechanism that is only meaningful to someone who might be actively looking for it is no different than if they had disclosed it using sign language, semaphores, or Klingon.
So they don't tell anyone about the snooping, they just stop telling that there is no snooping. The loophole is simple: Not updating the canary does not necessarily mean someone is snooping.
I understand the principle, but if they had already publicly promised that the only reason they won't continue to maintain the canary is if they are investigated, when that is exactly what they end up doing, they are still making a conscious choice that has the effect of disclosing to the public what has happened, which is what they are prohibited from doing, and any claim to the effect that they "just got tired of maintaining it" when they are being investigated would sound extremely specious.
In such a case, It seems like the evidence from the past and the present case is overwhelmingly more likely to indicate a deliberate intention on their part to covertly disclose the incidence of an investigation they are not supposed to disclose than a mere coincidence, and therefore contempt.
A warrant canary amounts to effectively the same thing as crossing your fingers when you tell a lie... it doesn't change the reality of what purpose is being served.
If they have already *explicitly* stated that they will only neglect to update the canary if they are investigated, how is the destruction of the canary when they don't update exactly the same thing as taking an existing canary down? There is proof that they stated this was their intent, so how would it be any different?
IANAL, of course, but if they explicitly announced sometime before any investigation took place that they would either take down the warrant canary notice or else cease to update it if they are investigated, and they end up getting investigated and they either take down the canary or cease updating it in the precise manner they had explicitly described (which would be part of past record and therefore provable), then that would constitute implicit disclosure, wouldn't it?
Couldn't the same order that requires that they not disclose they are being investigated also include implicit disclosure to that effect?
Warrant canaries could reasonably constitute such implicit disclosure if they took them down or altered their update policy in any way that is commensurate with any previously made announcement to that effect.
I am if you are willing to acknowledge that it was an underhanded insulting claim of sexism.
I am willing to acknowledge that is apparently how it came across, and have already apologized for that, but I genuinely did not mean it to be.
Somehow, however, I doubt you can say the same about suggesting that I did not mean to sound like a retard to not be deliberately insulting. Particularly since you continued to suggest that your assessment of what I apparently sounded like to you has any bearing whatsoever on reality.
You clearly are familiar with the ad-hominem fallacy, yet continue to employ it. I can only conclude that you want to see just how long I'll continue to reply.
Had you, in fact, been genuinely willing to move past how I may have sounded, you would not have used the claim of such a presumption of ignorance as pretense to refocus upon how the comment has been taken, nor further make a claim that itself assumes that there was still actually any malicious or insulting intent.
You should have said that instead of: "you sound sexist. It's a movie you know, right? ".
You are ascribing words to me that I did not say. I said that I was assuming that the writer was *NOT* trying to sound sexist. How people are choosing to read into things beyond what I literally wrote is invoking strawmen.
Based on your own earlier comment, you should be fired for making an untrue statement on the internet, unless you are a hypocrite?
Yes, actually. Objectively, I would am forced to admit that I would have brought such a situation upon myself for being so stupid and careless.
It's not particularly likely to happen in my case, however, since I have objectively certain guidelines on what I am not allowed to say about the company I work for or what their future direction is. "material information that might affect stock prices" is far too vague to be objectively certain about it. Honestly, I don't know if I'd even want to work for a company that put those kinds of restrictions on what I were to talk about in the first place. And Musk, with his billions, has even more freedom to do what he wants than I do.
No, the point of my comment was to address the fact that any perception of reality has no bearing on a work about superheros.
But hey, forgive me for not overlooking that a comment that literally says that one sex cannot do X as well as the other is going to have a chance of appearing to be discriminatory, even if that wasn't the intent.
And like I said, I was and still am entirely willing to look past it... I merely wanted to point it out before I made my point because while I could easily assume it was accidental, I couldn't just as easily simply ignore what it looked like to me.
It seems, however, that nobody is willing to look past the no less perfectly obvious possibility that the mere fact I raised the point wasn't directly intended to offend anybody.
I said what I thought... if that offended people I'm sorry for that, but that wasn't the intent of the comment. This is just me, and it's how I communicate.
Honestly, I can't believe how often I've had to invoke Hanlon's razor lately...
The court said "you have to have a lawyer review your tweets" (or whatever system Tesla cam up with.)
No, the conditions of the settlement were that Musk would run any statements he planned to make which might affect stock prices by Tesla. There is no evidence that he intended to manipulate stock prices with this comment, so the infraction can reasonably be taken as inadvertent. Hanlons' razor is entirely applicable.
Even assuming this, however, it is clear to me that he cannot both continue to be affiliated with Tesla and comply with the court order... this infraction should be reasonably treated as an act of ignorance to the point of incompetence and all affilliation with the company should permanently cease. His shares should be sold off for fair market value, paying a fine as a percentage of those shares for his thoughtless remarks and he should go on his way, either to retire somewhere or maybe start another company. He would be prohibited from disclosing anything that he knew about where Tesla was headed as a company before he left, but as time goes on and Tesla moves forward without him, the quantity of such information he had which did not eventually become public anyways would both shrink and become increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time. Notwithstanding the occasional thoughtless public remark like this, he's actually a pretty smart guy... he made a fortune once, he could do it again if he wanted to somewhere else.
Musk is not my hero, but sincerely I think Hanlon's razor applies here. I don't think there should be no consequences, but I do not see this as being a willful violation of a court order, but simply a guy who was happy and excited for what his company was doing.
Thoughtlessness should rightfully have its consequences though... I believe he should be forced to resign entirely and sell 100% of his shares in the company at current market value. An NDA would still reasonably apply to anything he happened to know about the insides of the company that are not yet public, but as Tesla moves forward without him, the volume of that information would either shrink as it becomes public knowledge or become increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time.
To be fair, company can lawfully require that you not disclose confidential information, effectively limiting what you are permitted to talk about.
However, it gets kind of fuzzy when you say that a person isn't allowed to talk about *anything* on social media that *might* impact stock prices without clearing it through Tesla's board first. This is arguably overbroad, since there is no clearly defined objective metric.
This tweet illustrates this perfectly. It comes across to me as a guy who is excited and happy for the direction that the company he is part of is heading, and then he gets all shat on for saying stuff that might affect their stock prices without clearing it through the board.
Musk is clearly not capable of continuing to be affiliated with Tesla and still abide by the court order, so I think that Musk should be removed from Tesla entirely, his shares sold for the current market value, and they should distance themselves from eachother as far away as fucking possible. It would be best for Musk, best for Tesla, best for everyone.
Why? There's no evidence that this was done with any thought or deliberate intent to violate the court order... it's simply a guy who was happy and excited about the direction the company was going.
Yes, he should have cleared this before saying it, but I don't think he intended to violate the court order, so I don't think this should be treated the same as contempt.
Reasonably, I think that the consequences for this should be that he not be involved with Tesla in *any* capacity, ever again. His shares should be sold at current market value, he pays a percentage of that as a penalty for his careless tweet, and is allowed to go on his way. He still would be under NDA to not disclose anything he knew about where Tesla was heading, but as Tesla moves forward without him, such knowledge would become either public knowledge or increasingly irrelevant with time.
Exactly why I think he should be discharged from Tesla entirely, and as time goes on, anything he might have known about the future of Tesla will become increasingly irrelevant. The guy clearly cannot be corporately affiliated with that company because he has shown abundantly that he is unfit to operate in that capacity.
You think getting fired isn't a consequence? Because that's what I think should happen here.
Hanlon's razor applies: Never attribute to malice what can be explained through ignorance.
Can you be held in contempt of court for simply being excited about what you do for a living? That is all that has happened here, and telling someone what they are and are not allowed to even FEEL is something I would most definitely call oppressive.
Consequences certainly, but to treat it as if it's deliberate when it's very obvious how it wasn't is just being a vindictive dick.
It's better for everyone, Musk, Tesla, and investors, if Musk gets as far the hell away from Tesla as he can as soon as fucking as possible..
Understood... but what they are not allowed to talk about is a closed set of things, not being allowed to say anything on social media that might affect stock prices is an unbounded set.
For chrissake, this post wasn't Musk trying to manipulate stocks or trying to disregard a court order, it comes across entirely as a guy being happy and excited about the direction he saw the company going.
If the guy can't even publicly talk about *that* without being called out for supposedly affecting stock prices, then he shouldn't be working there at all. It's probably better for everyone. Musk, Tesla, and investors.
My takeaway from this is that Musk cannot competently be part of Tesla, and should be discharged from the company as soon as fucking possible, for everyone's sake.
And what's your point, exactly? If you're going to assume that and move forward from that point, why did you stop there? Or do you just like taking opportunities to paraphrase Hanlon's razor?
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately explained by ignorance".
I saw the tweet, and it is not at all evident to me that he was *trying* to manipulate stock prices, it just comes across as someone who is excited and happy about the direction his company is going.
Now granted, you could argue that such ignorance is tantamount to incompetent negligence, but I don't think anyone can make a fair case that it was deliberate or intentional. Can you be held in contempt of court for accidentally violating a court order? Consequences certainly, but contempt?
Honestly, it seems to me like the best course of action for everyone, Tesla included, is for Musk to never have anything to do with Tesla ever again. His shares should be sold, and he should be free to do whatever the heck he wants, whether that's start another company or retire on some tropical island somewhere. He would still be barred from talking about any knowledge that he acquired while there that isn't already public, but Tesla would then move foward as a company without him, and the scope of what he can't actually talk about will become increasingly limited as times goes on.
Like I said... a gag order that effectively prohibits him from talking about anything on social media.
I'd sell off 100% my shares to the highest bidder and be done with Tesla forever if I were him. It is obvious from this that his ongoing affiliation with them is going to continue to cause harm to the company, and is unreasonably oppressive to his right to express any his own thoughts publicly, since any of them could adversely impact the price of Tesla stock, even if they are entirely true. The simple fact that *HE* said it might carry more weight than something that anyone who did a bit of research could have also found out.
What argument had I supposedly lost here? You've asserted that I'm wrong without actually showing that I was. I did not refute the factual example from history the article gave about how curing a disease ended up creating a situation where it was no longer profitably sustainable to provide that cure. I simply refuted the notion that this example should somehow generalize to cures in general. I even described the exact mechanisms by which this should happen, as in conditions whose incidence does not actually diminish as patients are cured, and this was arbitrarily labeled as an exception to a rule without basis. It was *YOU*, and not I, who suggested that conditions whose incidence would not be reduced by a cure was somehow a particularly small set, and suggested I was moving the goalposts of the discussion by bringing such an supposedly obviously exceptional situation under consideration.
Your so-called "proof" that I am wrong ultimately amounts to a strawman argument, by taking a position that I never said in the first place, ascribing it to me, saying it is false, and therefore concluding that I am wrong.
Yes, this conversation has diverted somewhat from the original premise... but my point has always been that as long as you don't run out of people to cure, there is no reason to think that cures cannot, even in general, be profitably sustainable. A singular example from history where this didn't happen to be the case only proves that it is possible that it is possible for a cure to *NOT* be profitably sustainable, but does not, by itself, say anything about the feasibility of cures that might be.
It was obvious to me from the outset that the conditions of the settlement effectively place a gag order on Musk that forbids him from mentioning virtually anything about Tesla, since almost anything he might publicly say could affect stock prices.
If I were him, I'd quit. Sell off his shares of the company to the highest bidder and get as far the hell away as possible from such a blatantly oppressive work environment that only seems to want to ruin the guy. He made his fortune once.... he's a smart guy, he can do it again somewhere else.
34. Success Immunity, or "They must be doing something right!"
We often hear this when a successful individual or organization is justly criticized for unethical habits, routines, tendencies or policies, and defenders recoil at the suggestion that a successful formula might be altered in any way. Thus have cruel hazing traditions by winning football coaches received official passes from greedy university presidents, and careless and risky management practices been ignored by voters, as long as an elected leader's policies haven't imploded yet. Success immunity is related to #10, the King's Pass, but it is even more illogical: it assumes that the wrongful and irresponsible aspects of an individual's or organization's conduct must somehow be part of a magic recipe for success, rather than a serious flaw in that recipe that can and should be removed. "The chef puts a roach in his soup? Well, it's delicious! He must be doing something right!" I'm sure he is, but that something isn't the roach. This rationalization embodies the popular and over-used conservative mantra, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problems with that cliche are 1) things that aren't broken can still be improved, 2) things that are broken will often keep working until they fall apart and someone is hurt, and 3) "not broken" is a long way from "the best it can be." "They must be doing something right!" carries this illogic to the point of absurdity by asserting that what clearly is broken should still not be fixed, because the individual or organization continues to be successful in spite of it, on the Bizarro World theory that the perceived success could somehow be a result of it. Like many rationalizations on this list, Success Immunity twists common sense to avoid admitting that obviously unethical conduct is what it is: wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If they publicly make untrue statements that impacts that company, then definitely.
Except, as I said, they *DO* disclose the information by following through with the exact course of action that they previously said they would.
I'm suggesting that if they've already announced in advance that the canary will die if they are investigated, then its death upon being investigated is nothing more or less than a covert way to disclose they are being investigated when they aren't supposed to. Covert disclosure is still disclosure, however, and therefore it seems like that should still be contempt.
They have, in effect, deliberately made a promise to do something that will ultimately be illegal if or when a particular thing happens to them. The fact that they are disclosing they are being investigated through a mechanism that is only meaningful to someone who might be actively looking for it is no different than if they had disclosed it using sign language, semaphores, or Klingon.
I understand the principle, but if they had already publicly promised that the only reason they won't continue to maintain the canary is if they are investigated, when that is exactly what they end up doing, they are still making a conscious choice that has the effect of disclosing to the public what has happened, which is what they are prohibited from doing, and any claim to the effect that they "just got tired of maintaining it" when they are being investigated would sound extremely specious.
In such a case, It seems like the evidence from the past and the present case is overwhelmingly more likely to indicate a deliberate intention on their part to covertly disclose the incidence of an investigation they are not supposed to disclose than a mere coincidence, and therefore contempt.
A warrant canary amounts to effectively the same thing as crossing your fingers when you tell a lie... it doesn't change the reality of what purpose is being served.
If they have already *explicitly* stated that they will only neglect to update the canary if they are investigated, how is the destruction of the canary when they don't update exactly the same thing as taking an existing canary down? There is proof that they stated this was their intent, so how would it be any different?
IANAL, of course, but if they explicitly announced sometime before any investigation took place that they would either take down the warrant canary notice or else cease to update it if they are investigated, and they end up getting investigated and they either take down the canary or cease updating it in the precise manner they had explicitly described (which would be part of past record and therefore provable), then that would constitute implicit disclosure, wouldn't it?
Couldn't the same order that requires that they not disclose they are being investigated also include implicit disclosure to that effect?
Warrant canaries could reasonably constitute such implicit disclosure if they took them down or altered their update policy in any way that is commensurate with any previously made announcement to that effect.
I am willing to acknowledge that is apparently how it came across, and have already apologized for that, but I genuinely did not mean it to be.
Somehow, however, I doubt you can say the same about suggesting that I did not mean to sound like a retard to not be deliberately insulting. Particularly since you continued to suggest that your assessment of what I apparently sounded like to you has any bearing whatsoever on reality.
You clearly are familiar with the ad-hominem fallacy, yet continue to employ it. I can only conclude that you want to see just how long I'll continue to reply.
Had you, in fact, been genuinely willing to move past how I may have sounded, you would not have used the claim of such a presumption of ignorance as pretense to refocus upon how the comment has been taken, nor further make a claim that itself assumes that there was still actually any malicious or insulting intent.
You are ascribing words to me that I did not say. I said that I was assuming that the writer was *NOT* trying to sound sexist. How people are choosing to read into things beyond what I literally wrote is invoking strawmen.
Yes, actually. Objectively, I would am forced to admit that I would have brought such a situation upon myself for being so stupid and careless.
It's not particularly likely to happen in my case, however, since I have objectively certain guidelines on what I am not allowed to say about the company I work for or what their future direction is. "material information that might affect stock prices" is far too vague to be objectively certain about it. Honestly, I don't know if I'd even want to work for a company that put those kinds of restrictions on what I were to talk about in the first place. And Musk, with his billions, has even more freedom to do what he wants than I do.
No, the point of my comment was to address the fact that any perception of reality has no bearing on a work about superheros.
But hey, forgive me for not overlooking that a comment that literally says that one sex cannot do X as well as the other is going to have a chance of appearing to be discriminatory, even if that wasn't the intent.
And like I said, I was and still am entirely willing to look past it... I merely wanted to point it out before I made my point because while I could easily assume it was accidental, I couldn't just as easily simply ignore what it looked like to me.
It seems, however, that nobody is willing to look past the no less perfectly obvious possibility that the mere fact I raised the point wasn't directly intended to offend anybody.
I said what I thought... if that offended people I'm sorry for that, but that wasn't the intent of the comment. This is just me, and it's how I communicate.
Honestly, I can't believe how often I've had to invoke Hanlon's razor lately...
Unproven.
No, the conditions of the settlement were that Musk would run any statements he planned to make which might affect stock prices by Tesla. There is no evidence that he intended to manipulate stock prices with this comment, so the infraction can reasonably be taken as inadvertent. Hanlons' razor is entirely applicable.
Even assuming this, however, it is clear to me that he cannot both continue to be affiliated with Tesla and comply with the court order... this infraction should be reasonably treated as an act of ignorance to the point of incompetence and all affilliation with the company should permanently cease. His shares should be sold off for fair market value, paying a fine as a percentage of those shares for his thoughtless remarks and he should go on his way, either to retire somewhere or maybe start another company. He would be prohibited from disclosing anything that he knew about where Tesla was headed as a company before he left, but as time goes on and Tesla moves forward without him, the quantity of such information he had which did not eventually become public anyways would both shrink and become increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time. Notwithstanding the occasional thoughtless public remark like this, he's actually a pretty smart guy... he made a fortune once, he could do it again if he wanted to somewhere else.
Musk is not my hero, but sincerely I think Hanlon's razor applies here. I don't think there should be no consequences, but I do not see this as being a willful violation of a court order, but simply a guy who was happy and excited for what his company was doing.
Thoughtlessness should rightfully have its consequences though... I believe he should be forced to resign entirely and sell 100% of his shares in the company at current market value. An NDA would still reasonably apply to anything he happened to know about the insides of the company that are not yet public, but as Tesla moves forward without him, the volume of that information would either shrink as it becomes public knowledge or become increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time.
To be fair, company can lawfully require that you not disclose confidential information, effectively limiting what you are permitted to talk about.
However, it gets kind of fuzzy when you say that a person isn't allowed to talk about *anything* on social media that *might* impact stock prices without clearing it through Tesla's board first. This is arguably overbroad, since there is no clearly defined objective metric.
This tweet illustrates this perfectly. It comes across to me as a guy who is excited and happy for the direction that the company he is part of is heading, and then he gets all shat on for saying stuff that might affect their stock prices without clearing it through the board.
Musk is clearly not capable of continuing to be affiliated with Tesla and still abide by the court order, so I think that Musk should be removed from Tesla entirely, his shares sold for the current market value, and they should distance themselves from eachother as far away as fucking possible. It would be best for Musk, best for Tesla, best for everyone.
Why? There's no evidence that this was done with any thought or deliberate intent to violate the court order... it's simply a guy who was happy and excited about the direction the company was going.
Yes, he should have cleared this before saying it, but I don't think he intended to violate the court order, so I don't think this should be treated the same as contempt.
Reasonably, I think that the consequences for this should be that he not be involved with Tesla in *any* capacity, ever again. His shares should be sold at current market value, he pays a percentage of that as a penalty for his careless tweet, and is allowed to go on his way. He still would be under NDA to not disclose anything he knew about where Tesla was heading, but as Tesla moves forward without him, such knowledge would become either public knowledge or increasingly irrelevant with time.
Exactly why I think he should be discharged from Tesla entirely, and as time goes on, anything he might have known about the future of Tesla will become increasingly irrelevant. The guy clearly cannot be corporately affiliated with that company because he has shown abundantly that he is unfit to operate in that capacity.
You think getting fired isn't a consequence? Because that's what I think should happen here.
Hanlon's razor applies: Never attribute to malice what can be explained through ignorance.
Can you be held in contempt of court for simply being excited about what you do for a living? That is all that has happened here, and telling someone what they are and are not allowed to even FEEL is something I would most definitely call oppressive.
Consequences certainly, but to treat it as if it's deliberate when it's very obvious how it wasn't is just being a vindictive dick.
It's better for everyone, Musk, Tesla, and investors, if Musk gets as far the hell away from Tesla as he can as soon as fucking as possible..
Understood... but what they are not allowed to talk about is a closed set of things, not being allowed to say anything on social media that might affect stock prices is an unbounded set.
For chrissake, this post wasn't Musk trying to manipulate stocks or trying to disregard a court order, it comes across entirely as a guy being happy and excited about the direction he saw the company going.
If the guy can't even publicly talk about *that* without being called out for supposedly affecting stock prices, then he shouldn't be working there at all. It's probably better for everyone. Musk, Tesla, and investors.
My takeaway from this is that Musk cannot competently be part of Tesla, and should be discharged from the company as soon as fucking possible, for everyone's sake.
And what's your point, exactly? If you're going to assume that and move forward from that point, why did you stop there? Or do you just like taking opportunities to paraphrase Hanlon's razor?
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately explained by ignorance".
I saw the tweet, and it is not at all evident to me that he was *trying* to manipulate stock prices, it just comes across as someone who is excited and happy about the direction his company is going.
Now granted, you could argue that such ignorance is tantamount to incompetent negligence, but I don't think anyone can make a fair case that it was deliberate or intentional. Can you be held in contempt of court for accidentally violating a court order? Consequences certainly, but contempt?
Honestly, it seems to me like the best course of action for everyone, Tesla included, is for Musk to never have anything to do with Tesla ever again. His shares should be sold, and he should be free to do whatever the heck he wants, whether that's start another company or retire on some tropical island somewhere. He would still be barred from talking about any knowledge that he acquired while there that isn't already public, but Tesla would then move foward as a company without him, and the scope of what he can't actually talk about will become increasingly limited as times goes on.
Like I said... a gag order that effectively prohibits him from talking about anything on social media.
I'd sell off 100% my shares to the highest bidder and be done with Tesla forever if I were him. It is obvious from this that his ongoing affiliation with them is going to continue to cause harm to the company, and is unreasonably oppressive to his right to express any his own thoughts publicly, since any of them could adversely impact the price of Tesla stock, even if they are entirely true. The simple fact that *HE* said it might carry more weight than something that anyone who did a bit of research could have also found out.
Your so-called "proof" that I am wrong ultimately amounts to a strawman argument, by taking a position that I never said in the first place, ascribing it to me, saying it is false, and therefore concluding that I am wrong.
Yes, this conversation has diverted somewhat from the original premise... but my point has always been that as long as you don't run out of people to cure, there is no reason to think that cures cannot, even in general, be profitably sustainable. A singular example from history where this didn't happen to be the case only proves that it is possible that it is possible for a cure to *NOT* be profitably sustainable, but does not, by itself, say anything about the feasibility of cures that might be.
It was obvious to me from the outset that the conditions of the settlement effectively place a gag order on Musk that forbids him from mentioning virtually anything about Tesla, since almost anything he might publicly say could affect stock prices.
If I were him, I'd quit. Sell off his shares of the company to the highest bidder and get as far the hell away as possible from such a blatantly oppressive work environment that only seems to want to ruin the guy. He made his fortune once.... he's a smart guy, he can do it again somewhere else.