In deference to your wit, I shall take you seriously.
Firstly, bullets are closer to 50c, hence the rapper. Secondly, the weight of a person's life is greater than a cocked hammer, so killing her with a gun will cost way more than any of the aforementioned options.
Also when was the last time someone sued for sexual harrassment successfully after being arrested the usual way?
If the odds of a lawsuit, given arrest of a woman, are greater than 1:3986, still worth it. But don't worry about quibbling over these numbers, since you weren't being serious at all.
Cost of ziptying her hands behind her back, and princess carrying her to the security office: A dime, plus a donut.
Sexual harassment lawsuit from doing the same thing: $100,000
Tasing her: $350 for unit, $25 per shot
The police did the most economical thing, given the forces at play. If there was no risk of litigation, the situation could've been resolved more cheaply. While the police attempted a Persuasion check, her Bluff was too strong and they resorted to more direct means of taking her out of the area.
A corporation's modern purpose for existence is to serve its shareholders and employees. Money unites them when heterogeneous visions of society do not. If it is fulfilling its purpose, then it can die happy.
An internal compass is the property of the individual, not a group. This becomes more obvious when you work and live with people different than yourself.
That being said, a man who manages to enchant a corporation and grant it a moral compass (by virtue of being its CEO and guiding it with his own) deserves kudos for his high feat. It is a difficult form of sorcery. Then again, look at Chick-Fil-A. Clearly your mileage may vary!
After blinking my eyes at your post, I realized that you made a good example, but one which runs counter to your point. You see, just as their detractors worry about the consequences after this paper, I focused on the factors leading up to your example.
Why are men more greedy, more warlike, more competitive and hierarchical? Certainly, genes could be part of it, but the current discussion points to nurture being a strong component. So let's rephrase that: what compels men to acquire resources and climb over his fellow men? The answer is women. A man would be happy living in a hut, if he had a loving wife. Acquiring said wife, however, has required everything you denounced.
I will not deny the statistics you claim, but leaving the discussion at just that would be disingenuous.
"Treat like shit? I don't think that phrase means what you think it means..."
For a given person, their interests have several layers: operational, tactical, strategic. The Casanova is giving her what she wants in the first, but probably screwing her over in the second and third sense. Naturally we'd like him to make her a better woman in all senses...but if this is the only thing he knows to do, at least he should do it well.
It is the lady's job to manage this whole process, and avoid short-term tradeoffs like the Casanova, just as we would expect her to put down that pint of dark chocolate ice cream when she's on a diet.
It'd be like me satisfying my short-term interest by sleeping around, then inevitably catching an STD; I should've known better, and should've had the courage to push that shit aside. If a man or woman is 18, they have full agency with all the rights and obligations that entails. Otherwise, what does it really meant to be an adult?
What else do you want, a +1 modifier to saving throws for every extra 10 IQ points?
I like your approach. Stripped of the details that would determine Us and Other, you are forced to judge the situation on its own merits, in a vacuum sans tribalism and defensiveness.
At the same time, that very sterility will have you catch flak in conversation. Without those details, a sense of Us and Other cannot be determined, and would feel like an incomplete argument for those inclined. But again, this accusation is from an asexual POV. Far more likely, it will be pointed at you under the guise of "You can't apply logic to emotion."
I disagree with that. While there are crude ways to apply logic and emotion, totally refusing to apply logic to emotion will cause all sorts of heartache.
Given:
P(Qualifies as rape | Just had sex)
P(She liked it | Just had sex)
Find:
P(Qualifies as rape | Just had sex and she liked it)
If this last conditional probability is nonzero, please fix that, because it's really confusing!
If I had mod points, I'd use them all. Rather than a moral frame, you take an economic frame. I think everyone understands the concept of "pain in the ass."
To miss means I did not see it. I did not miss it so much as reject its premise.
A child who throws a PB&J sandwich on the carpet, and doesn't realize why they're going to timeout, has a lesson to learn. However, while we recognize the need to educate the child, how does one duplicate results to adults that do the same exact thing? Their reaction of "friends of our enemies" is driven by emotion, and it's frustrating...because they surely would not accept that argument if posited by their enemies.
And of course, their enemies won't accept that argument from their mouths either.
But then we get into Fair vs. Just: while the fair solution would be to prohibit both sides from using said rhetorical weapons, whoever sees themselves as weaker will see this as disarming lambs before wolves. To disarm, I'd try to shame them. Would A want B to use that argument? No. Would B want A to use that argument? No. Thus, neither of them can use it, full stop.
At this point, the slicker members will realize they just agreed to publicly disarm themselves of very useful weapons. Either they accept it, or say that this line of inquiry does not apply to such delicate situations, and requires a more (nebulous) nuanced approach. The shape of this nuanced object, by the way, is left up in the air.
Alas, there's a reason why an Appeal to Nuance is such an effective ploy: I have yet to find a way to counter it like Zerglings to Immortals in Starcraft 2...
HR term of the day: Disparate impact.
Fortunately we're not in an HR department, so we can mull over it. Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle. To argue otherwise is to lengthen the chain of causality, to say that poor nutrition -> poor childhood -> poor impulse control -> helplessly indulge in violence.
This would be followed by an admonishment to the developed world about not correcting poor nutrition.
Tracing causality should be capped at two links max.
All this governance of one's users is a hassle. Why not simply pull a Mailinator and not pay attention?
"We'd like to have all records pertaining to your users browsing for Widgets"
"Bah! We don't keep those records and don't care about them. Pay us to implement it if you want it that bad."
At least in Anaheim, they're not giving the A students better supplies to help them get even more A's. Virtuous and vicious cycles are coexistent: when there's one, there is the other.
The answer is: Train A. Distance from Manhattan to LA is 2800 miles by driving, which means the first train would reach Manhattan 16 hours before the first train rolled out of bed.
Good thing this wasn't on a billboard, or I would've been nerd-sniped.
The ideal tax code cannot be gamed, yet something ungameable has inscrutable logic. Something so unreasonable can only be passed by Nature, not Congress.
Excellent idea! Perfectly anchoring taxes to Benefit/Cost would result in a just society! For units of measure, let's use leisure time and dollars for cost.
Thus, the corporation with the greatest benefit is that which offers the greatest increase in leisure time for the lowest cost, improving our quality of life! But...how do we differentiate between playing video games all day, and a more varied basket of goods?
Oh dear. This is more trouble than I thought. Back to Netflix!
It's called soft paternalism, or "nudging." It's the same reason I don't have junk food in my apartment, even though I like eating them; this forces me to either make an omelet. Hunger vs. Fear of Cooking: Hunger wins. For obesity, mileage may vary. You may need to move away from every convenience store within convenient distance to counter their pull.
This has the same computational complexity as the Turing test, except instead of distinguishing between AI and Real I, you're trying to separate Real Real I from Fake Real I.
First put your pants on, THEN you can leave the house.
The same could be said of any profession and their peers, yet no exception is made for them. To make an exception for "technical" professions vs. the rest, you must define tech. How about Moore's Law: any industry that suffers fast depreciation of its assets is allowed to have a jury of only peers.
IT, certainly.
Doctors? Maybe. The human body hardware hasn't changed for a thousand years, but our knowledge of it does.
Lawyers, politicians, managers? Lawyers still use Black's Law Dictionary after a century, and human concepts of fearmongering and cults are still valid after thousands of years. However, a politician could argue with a straight face that the circumstances, within which he uses these tried-and-true methods, change every second.
Net Neutrality's 'points' are as numerous as the stars in the sky, yet any elevator speech on it will only name three of them. This setup guarantees that you can never fully deliver, and that people will scrutinize your choice of stars (the brightest? The closest? The most suitable for Earth life?) The only guarantee of one's veracity is either 1. When they're dying or 2. When they actively take positions that seem contrary to their interests.
But what if their professed interests are actually decoys too, and that by actively taking positions against the decoys they actually serve their true interests? (Second-order strategy). I get the feeling that Rush Limbaugh is not as stupid as he looks, but that his listeners ARE as stupid as they look.
And it's not just a matter of getting lower profits from the same demand. Algorithmically calculating your bill like that would actually REDUCE the demand function! There's a reason why people don't like getting "nickeled and dimed" : having to be cognizant of the marginal cost of an extra YouTube video is exhausting. People would be conservative with their browsing, and thus Verizon would be out of even more money.
Slashdot Mirror
In deference to your wit, I shall take you seriously.
Firstly, bullets are closer to 50c, hence the rapper. Secondly, the weight of a person's life is greater than a cocked hammer, so killing her with a gun will cost way more than any of the aforementioned options.
Also when was the last time someone sued for sexual harrassment successfully after being arrested the usual way?
If the odds of a lawsuit, given arrest of a woman, are greater than 1:3986, still worth it. But don't worry about quibbling over these numbers, since you weren't being serious at all.
Sexual harassment lawsuit from doing the same thing: $100,000
Tasing her: $350 for unit, $25 per shot
The police did the most economical thing, given the forces at play. If there was no risk of litigation, the situation could've been resolved more cheaply. While the police attempted a Persuasion check, her Bluff was too strong and they resorted to more direct means of taking her out of the area.
A corporation's modern purpose for existence is to serve its shareholders and employees. Money unites them when heterogeneous visions of society do not. If it is fulfilling its purpose, then it can die happy.
An internal compass is the property of the individual, not a group. This becomes more obvious when you work and live with people different than yourself.
That being said, a man who manages to enchant a corporation and grant it a moral compass (by virtue of being its CEO and guiding it with his own) deserves kudos for his high feat. It is a difficult form of sorcery. Then again, look at Chick-Fil-A. Clearly your mileage may vary!
After blinking my eyes at your post, I realized that you made a good example, but one which runs counter to your point. You see, just as their detractors worry about the consequences after this paper, I focused on the factors leading up to your example.
Why are men more greedy, more warlike, more competitive and hierarchical? Certainly, genes could be part of it, but the current discussion points to nurture being a strong component. So let's rephrase that: what compels men to acquire resources and climb over his fellow men? The answer is women. A man would be happy living in a hut, if he had a loving wife. Acquiring said wife, however, has required everything you denounced.
I will not deny the statistics you claim, but leaving the discussion at just that would be disingenuous.
For a given person, their interests have several layers: operational, tactical, strategic. The Casanova is giving her what she wants in the first, but probably screwing her over in the second and third sense. Naturally we'd like him to make her a better woman in all senses...but if this is the only thing he knows to do, at least he should do it well.
It is the lady's job to manage this whole process, and avoid short-term tradeoffs like the Casanova, just as we would expect her to put down that pint of dark chocolate ice cream when she's on a diet.
It'd be like me satisfying my short-term interest by sleeping around, then inevitably catching an STD; I should've known better, and should've had the courage to push that shit aside. If a man or woman is 18, they have full agency with all the rights and obligations that entails. Otherwise, what does it really meant to be an adult?
What else do you want, a +1 modifier to saving throws for every extra 10 IQ points?
I like your approach. Stripped of the details that would determine Us and Other, you are forced to judge the situation on its own merits, in a vacuum sans tribalism and defensiveness.
At the same time, that very sterility will have you catch flak in conversation. Without those details, a sense of Us and Other cannot be determined, and would feel like an incomplete argument for those inclined. But again, this accusation is from an asexual POV. Far more likely, it will be pointed at you under the guise of "You can't apply logic to emotion."
I disagree with that. While there are crude ways to apply logic and emotion, totally refusing to apply logic to emotion will cause all sorts of heartache.
Given: P(Qualifies as rape | Just had sex) P(She liked it | Just had sex) Find: P(Qualifies as rape | Just had sex and she liked it) If this last conditional probability is nonzero, please fix that, because it's really confusing!
If I had mod points, I'd use them all. Rather than a moral frame, you take an economic frame. I think everyone understands the concept of "pain in the ass."
To miss means I did not see it. I did not miss it so much as reject its premise.
A child who throws a PB&J sandwich on the carpet, and doesn't realize why they're going to timeout, has a lesson to learn. However, while we recognize the need to educate the child, how does one duplicate results to adults that do the same exact thing? Their reaction of "friends of our enemies" is driven by emotion, and it's frustrating...because they surely would not accept that argument if posited by their enemies.
And of course, their enemies won't accept that argument from their mouths either.
But then we get into Fair vs. Just: while the fair solution would be to prohibit both sides from using said rhetorical weapons, whoever sees themselves as weaker will see this as disarming lambs before wolves. To disarm, I'd try to shame them. Would A want B to use that argument? No. Would B want A to use that argument? No. Thus, neither of them can use it, full stop.
At this point, the slicker members will realize they just agreed to publicly disarm themselves of very useful weapons. Either they accept it, or say that this line of inquiry does not apply to such delicate situations, and requires a more (nebulous) nuanced approach. The shape of this nuanced object, by the way, is left up in the air.
Alas, there's a reason why an Appeal to Nuance is such an effective ploy: I have yet to find a way to counter it like Zerglings to Immortals in Starcraft 2...
HR term of the day: Disparate impact. Fortunately we're not in an HR department, so we can mull over it. Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle. To argue otherwise is to lengthen the chain of causality, to say that poor nutrition -> poor childhood -> poor impulse control -> helplessly indulge in violence. This would be followed by an admonishment to the developed world about not correcting poor nutrition. Tracing causality should be capped at two links max.
All this governance of one's users is a hassle. Why not simply pull a Mailinator and not pay attention? "We'd like to have all records pertaining to your users browsing for Widgets" "Bah! We don't keep those records and don't care about them. Pay us to implement it if you want it that bad."
So it's kind of like Karsus totally breaking magic, forcing the next Goddess of Magi, Mystra, to nerf everything?
At least in Anaheim, they're not giving the A students better supplies to help them get even more A's. Virtuous and vicious cycles are coexistent: when there's one, there is the other.
The answer is: Train A. Distance from Manhattan to LA is 2800 miles by driving, which means the first train would reach Manhattan 16 hours before the first train rolled out of bed. Good thing this wasn't on a billboard, or I would've been nerd-sniped.
The ideal tax code cannot be gamed, yet something ungameable has inscrutable logic. Something so unreasonable can only be passed by Nature, not Congress.
Excellent idea! Perfectly anchoring taxes to Benefit/Cost would result in a just society! For units of measure, let's use leisure time and dollars for cost.
Thus, the corporation with the greatest benefit is that which offers the greatest increase in leisure time for the lowest cost, improving our quality of life! But...how do we differentiate between playing video games all day, and a more varied basket of goods?
Oh dear. This is more trouble than I thought. Back to Netflix!
In concrete terms, visual proof would be a religious book made of black hole matter and gilded with cosmic string. I'm still waiting.
It's called soft paternalism, or "nudging." It's the same reason I don't have junk food in my apartment, even though I like eating them; this forces me to either make an omelet. Hunger vs. Fear of Cooking: Hunger wins. For obesity, mileage may vary. You may need to move away from every convenience store within convenient distance to counter their pull.
This has the same computational complexity as the Turing test, except instead of distinguishing between AI and Real I, you're trying to separate Real Real I from Fake Real I.
First put your pants on, THEN you can leave the house.
They're not thinking big enough. I could pay off that whole Limewire suit with a single 100 trillion Zimbabwe bill.
The same could be said of any profession and their peers, yet no exception is made for them. To make an exception for "technical" professions vs. the rest, you must define tech. How about Moore's Law: any industry that suffers fast depreciation of its assets is allowed to have a jury of only peers.
IT, certainly.
Doctors? Maybe. The human body hardware hasn't changed for a thousand years, but our knowledge of it does.
Lawyers, politicians, managers? Lawyers still use Black's Law Dictionary after a century, and human concepts of fearmongering and cults are still valid after thousands of years. However, a politician could argue with a straight face that the circumstances, within which he uses these tried-and-true methods, change every second.
Net Neutrality's 'points' are as numerous as the stars in the sky, yet any elevator speech on it will only name three of them. This setup guarantees that you can never fully deliver, and that people will scrutinize your choice of stars (the brightest? The closest? The most suitable for Earth life?) The only guarantee of one's veracity is either 1. When they're dying or 2. When they actively take positions that seem contrary to their interests.
But what if their professed interests are actually decoys too, and that by actively taking positions against the decoys they actually serve their true interests? (Second-order strategy). I get the feeling that Rush Limbaugh is not as stupid as he looks, but that his listeners ARE as stupid as they look.
Pardon me officer, but I would like to skip the scanner and go straight to the pat-down. For the lucky agent, I'll pick...her!
This thing shoots from kilometers away. Invest in Radar Transparency.
And it's not just a matter of getting lower profits from the same demand. Algorithmically calculating your bill like that would actually REDUCE the demand function! There's a reason why people don't like getting "nickeled and dimed" : having to be cognizant of the marginal cost of an extra YouTube video is exhausting. People would be conservative with their browsing, and thus Verizon would be out of even more money.