There are different ways to do it; some are in a general format, some are in a skills test format.
When you hear something slightly different than what you experienced, it does not imply that what you heard was mistaken, only that there is some variance in the values.
You might be underestimating the ability to continually error correct to connect the missing map segments.
You should learn to program and take a "how to program a self-driving car" free online class. Regular idiots off the street are programming their own self-driving vacuum cleaners, often using just an accelerometer and a contact sensor on the front! High error rate does not automatically mean that the algorithm isn't able to predict your location accurately.
You don't seem to understand what "arranging" is, though.
You can't arrange something that doesn't exist. That would be writing.
The people covering the song are making an arrangement. They have to, because of the issues I talked about regarding some of the parts not even being written down. So they make an arrangement that sounds similar.
It doesn't occur to a lot of otherwise-intelligent people that there is a big area where you can do education about things like explosives in a responsible way that doesn't accidentally cause idiots to blow themselves up; basically like you imply, you include "mistakes" that anybody doing the rest of the required research would be able to correct, but that will keep it from actually working when copied exactly.
Instead they jump straight from "You have to exercise care when talking to the public about this subject because it is dangerous" to "Z0MG me FREEDUMS their taken my FREEDUMS don't CENSUR ME." Even when Cody takes reasonable precautions, he whines about it, and when he takes very minimal precautions, he talks up safety like he's the guru of Common Sense and an expert on accident injury statistics.
I'm actually a big fan of his content that doesn't contain rants, and I've seen most of his videos. If he just stopped being such a whiner and gave youtube full credit for it being their platform not his, he'd be twice as good as he is. He could be making videos with nearly-identical content and having less problems if he'd just stop firing up an anti-youtube newsletter every other week, and instead take personal responsibility for his own decisions and role in his relationship with youtube.
So to you, science means repeating yourself, but with an appeal to authority? LMFAO
You seem to be confusing the concept of merit with science.
That you think "Mythbusters" is science, because it is possible to describe it loosely while including the word "experiment." Weak sauce. Really really weak sauce.
By that definition, Religion is science as soon as a person prays, and then decides their prayer was answered.
That's because a mathematician is interested in a different sort of optimization:
Right, they're interested in stuff other than doing the job they're employed to do. That is exactly the problem; they should be listening to their employer to understand the sort of optimization that is needed, and understanding that the other blah-blah is personal stuff they should save for their hobby projects.
Almost all the famous and popular rocks songs on a "classic rock" station were written by the same songwriters that wrote the music on the "top 40" station.
And they were written by committee.
Even most of the songs written by the band members were written by committee, with one person starting from a theme or hook, and somebody else adding the other side of that, and then another person writing some of the parts. And then somebody else writes lyrics. Or, they start from the lyrics and they ask for changes as they figure out what fits with the music.
If there is only one songwriter listed, it often means they wrote the lyrics, chorus, and theme, and the other band members had to basically make up something to play along, but don't get credited.
It is actually maybe only in the least imaginative pop music where there is a single songwriter, outside of classical composition anyways.
If you watch a concert video of Miles Davis and pay attention to the interactions between the musicians you can see they're writing the music by committee in realtime.
Most exceptions are cases like Jonathan Richman, and the only reason it works is because he's a solo act. Sometimes with a percussionist, but they're just following. His famous early songs like Roadrunner that get covered were written for a full band, and the band members contributed a lot of the writing for the individual parts.
Look at what was actually "written" for a song that was "written" by one person; it is often something that requires 5 musicians to play, but only lyrics and rhythm guitar parts might have even been formally planned. But when another band covers the song, they're also copying much of what the other musicians played, not just what was "written." So it ends up being very misleading, and lots of bands the members sue each other over who really wrote what. That they don't agree even who wrote a song says a lot about the process, and how much of it was by committee!
This article is full of so many flawed assumptions, it's hard to know where to begin.
"The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy"
This is a steaming pile of dung.
Sorry for trying to polish a turd, but it is true in the narrow case where "merit" is believed to be an inherent personality trait rather than an achievement. Contemporary intelligent people don't picture that when they hear the word "meritocracy," but traditional philosophical concepts of merit often disagree on this point.
If "merit" hasn't been defined, "meritocracy" can mean almost anything. For example, a Confucian Meritocracy would be indistinguishable from a Hereditary Dictatorship like North Korea, because Confucian ideas of merit includes heavy helpings of inherent merit, and a belief that meritorious conduct implies inherent merit. So if you achieve something through actions, it is assumed your children will be better at doing those same things than some random person who merely spent 10 years studying why you were successful.
All the known systems of measuring merit fall into two categories: those that make testable claims and are proven to be problematic or worse, and those whose claims are not easily testable.
All knowledge I know about is new to me when I learn about it, so it is very natural mistake.
The average person probably makes the same mistake dozens of times a day, they just don't write it down. Intelligent people probably fuck this up even more than the dillweeds, too.
The stories are all clickbait bullshit. Don't click on them, don't read them.
Glance at the summary very briefly. Now discuss.
Sadly, it is the sweet spot where you've received some information about what topic is being discussed, but haven't been exposed to the garbage data and flamebait that makes up the "stories."
If a subject sounds important or interesting, still don't click, but instead seek out news reports on the topic from a reputable source, and then come back and discuss what you learned. Or even, Heaven forbid, seek out the actual source material and read that.
If you go to the hospital and get a "creative" doctor, you're now "dead." It is totally unethical to just get your own personal idea and test it out on patients!
You want a doctor to be like a great Architect, not a great Engineer; an architect recombines architectural elements to match a use case, but they never do anything new. It appears creative, but it isn't, it is just customized for an application.
Whereas an engineer calculates the strengths and sizes of all the materials; it is inherently creative. You can't just recombine elements within known parameters, you have to calculate how each element performs in the application.
If you're building an office building that is similar to other office buildings in the same regulatory area, then you don't really want an engineer, you want an architect. You don't want creativity, you want a good sense of aesthetics! Those are different things. If you're building an office building taller than all the other ones in the same regulatory regime, then you need an engineer; calculating the strengths of the parts is what gives them the creative power to design a creative building that is a different size or shape than the others!
It is the same in other fields; if you want a consistent, high quality illustrations of products for a catalog you don't want a master artist, you want an illustrator; somebody who will repeatedly recombine the same stylized elements over and over again with little variation or creativity. If you want something drawn in a different way, from a different angle, for different purposes you might actually need a real artist who has deeper understanding of focus and perspective who can give you a creative result where each element is carefully placed based on the other details of the image.
The human body is not a unique building, it is about the same as the other bodies. Creativity happens in medical research, and you don't do the creative part on humans! You do lots and lots of work on the idea until it isn't creative anymore at all before you turn it into a treatment that a doctor could apply.
If you would actually benefit from a "creative" surgeon, it means you're most likely about to die and the only Hail Mary the doctor can try is something new, or not yet properly tested.
Creativity is not automatically good, or bad, how it features depends on the type of work you're doing. It makes sense then that if we have a single unitary measurement of what "best" means in regards to a skillset, then the engineer ends up being "better" than the architect, but if that is good or bad still depends on what your goals are. If you only needed an architect, calculating all the stuff is a waste of time and the engineer has low productivity, but if you have actual new design features the architect might bungle the material strengths. If you have a diverse team with both engineers and architects, if the team works well together you might actually get the best of both worlds and a team that recombines known elements, and also can add in new elements that are properly calculated.
And thats leaving aside the fact that having a reputation of being the best is mostly based on having a personality disorder that causes you to spend a lot of time telling stories about times where you were "better" than the next guy. That's why nobody knows who the best programmer is, because people with that disorder have a hard time advancing far enough, but every town has a guy who is famous as being the "best guitar repair technician in the State," or the "best small appliance repair technician in the whole Foo Valley!"
According to the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, Jobs stole it but then Gates told Jobs, "we stole it first!" so who knows.
The reality though is less exciting of a story; researchers broadly understood for decades that the future would have graphical interfaces. People were surprised by them only because they didn't think the hardware was advanced enough yet. That caused a lot of companies to not notice their own engineers making important implementations. It gets confused as if they were discoveries, which really shows how hard it would have been for the business people to see what was happening in time to cash it out.
Shouldn't there be numerous success stories, even anecdotal, if it's really all that favorable?
I think the problem is the conflation of "diversity of skillsets" with "diversity of [sex/ethnicity/cultural background]".
Well, their neckbeards get triggered when they hear "diversity" and they take control of the host body as a defense mechanism. It doesn't matter the context, the neckbeard has no idea about the culture of the host species or even what planet they're from. They have a limited ability to learn the local words for about a half-dozen concepts, and if other words use similar sounds, they will not differentiate. Their language skills are somewhere in-between "slow dog" and "stubborn cat." That's why the host sounds intelligent one minute, capable even of understanding detailed technical issues, and then they suddenly start grunting idiocies and blathering hate. Two minds, two species, one mouth.
If you surgically remove the parasite from an adult host, the host body will lose what remnant of the host personality that remains. There will appear to be objective improvement in the short term, but the patient will experience persistent subjective feelings of "not being themselves," and other personality dysphoria that can eventually lead to borderline personality disorder, and other problems. Treatment is usually only effective when achieved before early puberty; if the patient does not gain positive experiences of romantic love prior to the completion of puberty, the chances of full recovery are very low.
Palliative support of untreatable infections is supported mainly through euthanasia. There is no need for these patients to endure endless painful suffering when treatment options remain!
If you read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" you'll find that Rand also had a really low opinion of the people who parroted her words; she wasn't declaring herself to be Totally 100% Correct About Everything because she believed people should agree, she simply believed each person should be trying to be as objective as they can and only settling for what they believe to be correct. What she's asking readers to do is to think for themselves, and then be equally as sure of it as she is! She acknowledged that she was talking about more issues than she had actually studied, and might be wrong about some of that. Her lessons, her philosophy, was about the process of forming beliefs, not about the conclusions, but then the "followers" just parrot the (mostly generalized and insignificant) conclusions.
It is like the Life of Brian, where he's telling people to stop listening to him and think for themselves, and they mindlessly quote it back to him! And then for good measure, the people who disagree with it make the same mistake and blame Brian for it. I can't tell who is stupider, the people parroting Ayn Rand as if they're succeeding at agreeing with her, or the idiots who can't tell her philosophy from "social darwinism," whose ideas Rand considered to be so idiotic that they didn't even warrant a detailed take-down!
Perhaps the majority of both "sides" failed to actually read her books, and just heard about them at a party or tavern.
If you could operate a Bell Curve, you might discover that supporting diversity of opinion will reduce the share of mediocre opinions, and increase the share of high and low quality opinions.
Affirmative action for the mediocre would require the opposite, a reduction in the diversity of opinion.
Do you wear your socks on your head, too, or does your brain only operate in reverse after being triggered by the word "diversity?"
If you has considered a more diverse selection of possible meanings for the word "diverse" in this context you might have even understood the part of it you're responding to.;)
It tells us a lot about your inner world, though. People have no idea how leaky their secrets are.
In the post-dot-com-bust years I spent six months as a production worker in a salsa factory. We were given a multiple-choice test during the interview. The skills they were testing for were mostly related to work ethics.
Most businesses I've worked for or with have a very different process; somebody in the office is given the decision about who to hire, and they squint at the resumes, conduct some interviews, and then make a totally opaque choice that they clearly would never explain because they feel like they should have learned some kind of system, but didn't learn about the details, or don't remember enough to try it. The rare person who admits their process does so boldly, absolutely certain that their ignorance leads them to "common sense" decisions, but in place of anything sensible they just used a pile of inappropriate stereotypes; eg, he hired whoever looked least like a hippie/SJW.
That's exactly the point. If they'd untwist their neckbeards they'd realize that they're just being obtuse, that's why the equally educated people in equally "hard" fields that they work with find them to be insufferably weak at basic context-sensitive logic. You give them a dilemma like "do I simplify this, or not?" and if you let them decide, they'll simplify or not consistently based on the practices taught in math classes, without even understanding why they're being asked to do the thing, or who is going to use the results, or what formulas the results need to be fed into.
So after you let a mathematician do the optimization, it takes more computer time to solve, and more human time to deal with the data. The same person with the same training doing the same job but with the title "software engineer" would be expected to produce much higher quality results. The problem isn't with math, or with math being different computer science, the problem is with the personalities that tend to choose the mathematician title. A better approach when you actually want a mathematician might be to just find somebody with a useful specialty who took an excess of math classes in college, and put them in the "math person" role on the team, but have their official title remain something more polite.
The problem with the summary is that it first overlooks something as simple as the difference in being the "best" within a category, or independent of context, and then when it finds its own mistake it passes it off as if it is an external mistake, a mistake made by other people, even a typical or institutionalized mistake.
But it isn't, it is just a really really weak summary, with nothing to say, that uses a lot of words to make it sound like there was something there.
You're right in that the most interesting things to think about on the subject, after reading the summary, are things it doesn't even go into. Since it doesn't go into anything!
The reason your analysis is so weak is that you think of the gubermint as one entity, but clearly here the City Council did something stupid without talking to the City employees, and those City Employees are not "saving face" at all; they're doing a totally different thing called "covering their own asses." If they can get the lawyers, who are a third independent group here, to say that the ordinance is illegal then they aren't permitted to enforce it. And then they're the heros who saved Detroit. From the City Council. Who looks worst in that scenario, of all the possible outcomes. So very far from "face-saving" behavior. No matter what the lawyers say, the City Council looks worse by having done the review this late in the process.
It is almost as if the City workers are punishing the City Council for passing such a transparently stupid and poorly written law!
That doesn't matter because in this case there is a grammatical error either way.
Your point would have value if by using that interpretation you were left with a sentence that was correct and has clear meaning. But since we know they made a mistake, reciting their local rule doesn't help to tell us which mistake they made.
Slashdot Mirror
There are different ways to do it; some are in a general format, some are in a skills test format.
When you hear something slightly different than what you experienced, it does not imply that what you heard was mistaken, only that there is some variance in the values.
You might be underestimating the ability to continually error correct to connect the missing map segments.
You should learn to program and take a "how to program a self-driving car" free online class. Regular idiots off the street are programming their own self-driving vacuum cleaners, often using just an accelerometer and a contact sensor on the front! High error rate does not automatically mean that the algorithm isn't able to predict your location accurately.
You don't seem to understand what "arranging" is, though.
You can't arrange something that doesn't exist. That would be writing.
The people covering the song are making an arrangement. They have to, because of the issues I talked about regarding some of the parts not even being written down. So they make an arrangement that sounds similar.
That's clearly not what I was talking about.
It doesn't occur to a lot of otherwise-intelligent people that there is a big area where you can do education about things like explosives in a responsible way that doesn't accidentally cause idiots to blow themselves up; basically like you imply, you include "mistakes" that anybody doing the rest of the required research would be able to correct, but that will keep it from actually working when copied exactly.
Instead they jump straight from "You have to exercise care when talking to the public about this subject because it is dangerous" to "Z0MG me FREEDUMS their taken my FREEDUMS don't CENSUR ME." Even when Cody takes reasonable precautions, he whines about it, and when he takes very minimal precautions, he talks up safety like he's the guru of Common Sense and an expert on accident injury statistics.
I'm actually a big fan of his content that doesn't contain rants, and I've seen most of his videos. If he just stopped being such a whiner and gave youtube full credit for it being their platform not his, he'd be twice as good as he is. He could be making videos with nearly-identical content and having less problems if he'd just stop firing up an anti-youtube newsletter every other week, and instead take personal responsibility for his own decisions and role in his relationship with youtube.
So to you, science means repeating yourself, but with an appeal to authority? LMFAO
You seem to be confusing the concept of merit with science.
That you think "Mythbusters" is science, because it is possible to describe it loosely while including the word "experiment." Weak sauce. Really really weak sauce.
By that definition, Religion is science as soon as a person prays, and then decides their prayer was answered.
That's because a mathematician is interested in a different sort of optimization:
Right, they're interested in stuff other than doing the job they're employed to do. That is exactly the problem; they should be listening to their employer to understand the sort of optimization that is needed, and understanding that the other blah-blah is personal stuff they should save for their hobby projects.
No. No they are not aware.
Any other questions?
Almost all the famous and popular rocks songs on a "classic rock" station were written by the same songwriters that wrote the music on the "top 40" station.
And they were written by committee.
Even most of the songs written by the band members were written by committee, with one person starting from a theme or hook, and somebody else adding the other side of that, and then another person writing some of the parts. And then somebody else writes lyrics. Or, they start from the lyrics and they ask for changes as they figure out what fits with the music.
If there is only one songwriter listed, it often means they wrote the lyrics, chorus, and theme, and the other band members had to basically make up something to play along, but don't get credited.
It is actually maybe only in the least imaginative pop music where there is a single songwriter, outside of classical composition anyways.
If you watch a concert video of Miles Davis and pay attention to the interactions between the musicians you can see they're writing the music by committee in realtime.
Most exceptions are cases like Jonathan Richman, and the only reason it works is because he's a solo act. Sometimes with a percussionist, but they're just following. His famous early songs like Roadrunner that get covered were written for a full band, and the band members contributed a lot of the writing for the individual parts.
Look at what was actually "written" for a song that was "written" by one person; it is often something that requires 5 musicians to play, but only lyrics and rhythm guitar parts might have even been formally planned. But when another band covers the song, they're also copying much of what the other musicians played, not just what was "written." So it ends up being very misleading, and lots of bands the members sue each other over who really wrote what. That they don't agree even who wrote a song says a lot about the process, and how much of it was by committee!
This article is full of so many flawed assumptions, it's hard to know where to begin.
"The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy"
This is a steaming pile of dung.
Sorry for trying to polish a turd, but it is true in the narrow case where "merit" is believed to be an inherent personality trait rather than an achievement. Contemporary intelligent people don't picture that when they hear the word "meritocracy," but traditional philosophical concepts of merit often disagree on this point.
If "merit" hasn't been defined, "meritocracy" can mean almost anything. For example, a Confucian Meritocracy would be indistinguishable from a Hereditary Dictatorship like North Korea, because Confucian ideas of merit includes heavy helpings of inherent merit, and a belief that meritorious conduct implies inherent merit. So if you achieve something through actions, it is assumed your children will be better at doing those same things than some random person who merely spent 10 years studying why you were successful.
All the known systems of measuring merit fall into two categories: those that make testable claims and are proven to be problematic or worse, and those whose claims are not easily testable.
All knowledge I know about is new to me when I learn about it, so it is very natural mistake.
The average person probably makes the same mistake dozens of times a day, they just don't write it down. Intelligent people probably fuck this up even more than the dillweeds, too.
OK, you're new so let me try to explain:
The stories are all clickbait bullshit. Don't click on them, don't read them.
Glance at the summary very briefly. Now discuss.
Sadly, it is the sweet spot where you've received some information about what topic is being discussed, but haven't been exposed to the garbage data and flamebait that makes up the "stories."
If a subject sounds important or interesting, still don't click, but instead seek out news reports on the topic from a reputable source, and then come back and discuss what you learned. Or even, Heaven forbid, seek out the actual source material and read that.
Like Timothy Leary said in the 80s: In the future everybody can have the pixels they want, everybody can have the pixels they deserve.
If you go to the hospital and get a "creative" doctor, you're now "dead." It is totally unethical to just get your own personal idea and test it out on patients!
You want a doctor to be like a great Architect, not a great Engineer; an architect recombines architectural elements to match a use case, but they never do anything new. It appears creative, but it isn't, it is just customized for an application.
Whereas an engineer calculates the strengths and sizes of all the materials; it is inherently creative. You can't just recombine elements within known parameters, you have to calculate how each element performs in the application.
If you're building an office building that is similar to other office buildings in the same regulatory area, then you don't really want an engineer, you want an architect. You don't want creativity, you want a good sense of aesthetics! Those are different things. If you're building an office building taller than all the other ones in the same regulatory regime, then you need an engineer; calculating the strengths of the parts is what gives them the creative power to design a creative building that is a different size or shape than the others!
It is the same in other fields; if you want a consistent, high quality illustrations of products for a catalog you don't want a master artist, you want an illustrator; somebody who will repeatedly recombine the same stylized elements over and over again with little variation or creativity. If you want something drawn in a different way, from a different angle, for different purposes you might actually need a real artist who has deeper understanding of focus and perspective who can give you a creative result where each element is carefully placed based on the other details of the image.
The human body is not a unique building, it is about the same as the other bodies. Creativity happens in medical research, and you don't do the creative part on humans! You do lots and lots of work on the idea until it isn't creative anymore at all before you turn it into a treatment that a doctor could apply.
If you would actually benefit from a "creative" surgeon, it means you're most likely about to die and the only Hail Mary the doctor can try is something new, or not yet properly tested.
Creativity is not automatically good, or bad, how it features depends on the type of work you're doing. It makes sense then that if we have a single unitary measurement of what "best" means in regards to a skillset, then the engineer ends up being "better" than the architect, but if that is good or bad still depends on what your goals are. If you only needed an architect, calculating all the stuff is a waste of time and the engineer has low productivity, but if you have actual new design features the architect might bungle the material strengths. If you have a diverse team with both engineers and architects, if the team works well together you might actually get the best of both worlds and a team that recombines known elements, and also can add in new elements that are properly calculated.
And thats leaving aside the fact that having a reputation of being the best is mostly based on having a personality disorder that causes you to spend a lot of time telling stories about times where you were "better" than the next guy. That's why nobody knows who the best programmer is, because people with that disorder have a hard time advancing far enough, but every town has a guy who is famous as being the "best guitar repair technician in the State," or the "best small appliance repair technician in the whole Foo Valley!"
According to the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, Jobs stole it but then Gates told Jobs, "we stole it first!" so who knows.
The reality though is less exciting of a story; researchers broadly understood for decades that the future would have graphical interfaces. People were surprised by them only because they didn't think the hardware was advanced enough yet. That caused a lot of companies to not notice their own engineers making important implementations. It gets confused as if they were discoveries, which really shows how hard it would have been for the business people to see what was happening in time to cash it out.
https://slashdot.org/~DoctorBonzo mused:
Well, we all want diversity, don't we?
Shouldn't there be numerous success stories, even anecdotal, if it's really all that favorable?
I think the problem is the conflation of "diversity of skillsets" with "diversity of [sex/ethnicity/cultural background]".
Well, their neckbeards get triggered when they hear "diversity" and they take control of the host body as a defense mechanism. It doesn't matter the context, the neckbeard has no idea about the culture of the host species or even what planet they're from. They have a limited ability to learn the local words for about a half-dozen concepts, and if other words use similar sounds, they will not differentiate. Their language skills are somewhere in-between "slow dog" and "stubborn cat." That's why the host sounds intelligent one minute, capable even of understanding detailed technical issues, and then they suddenly start grunting idiocies and blathering hate. Two minds, two species, one mouth.
If you surgically remove the parasite from an adult host, the host body will lose what remnant of the host personality that remains. There will appear to be objective improvement in the short term, but the patient will experience persistent subjective feelings of "not being themselves," and other personality dysphoria that can eventually lead to borderline personality disorder, and other problems. Treatment is usually only effective when achieved before early puberty; if the patient does not gain positive experiences of romantic love prior to the completion of puberty, the chances of full recovery are very low.
Palliative support of untreatable infections is supported mainly through euthanasia. There is no need for these patients to endure endless painful suffering when treatment options remain!
If you read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" you'll find that Rand also had a really low opinion of the people who parroted her words; she wasn't declaring herself to be Totally 100% Correct About Everything because she believed people should agree, she simply believed each person should be trying to be as objective as they can and only settling for what they believe to be correct. What she's asking readers to do is to think for themselves, and then be equally as sure of it as she is! She acknowledged that she was talking about more issues than she had actually studied, and might be wrong about some of that. Her lessons, her philosophy, was about the process of forming beliefs, not about the conclusions, but then the "followers" just parrot the (mostly generalized and insignificant) conclusions.
It is like the Life of Brian, where he's telling people to stop listening to him and think for themselves, and they mindlessly quote it back to him! And then for good measure, the people who disagree with it make the same mistake and blame Brian for it. I can't tell who is stupider, the people parroting Ayn Rand as if they're succeeding at agreeing with her, or the idiots who can't tell her philosophy from "social darwinism," whose ideas Rand considered to be so idiotic that they didn't even warrant a detailed take-down!
Perhaps the majority of both "sides" failed to actually read her books, and just heard about them at a party or tavern.
Uhm... surely somebody in the past has mentioned to you that etymology does not determine the meaning of a word, so what happened?
Are you trolling, or was it just too hard for you? Or worse, maybe there is "some other reason?"
If you could operate a Bell Curve, you might discover that supporting diversity of opinion will reduce the share of mediocre opinions, and increase the share of high and low quality opinions.
Affirmative action for the mediocre would require the opposite, a reduction in the diversity of opinion.
Do you wear your socks on your head, too, or does your brain only operate in reverse after being triggered by the word "diversity?"
If you has considered a more diverse selection of possible meanings for the word "diverse" in this context you might have even understood the part of it you're responding to. ;)
It tells us a lot about your inner world, though. People have no idea how leaky their secrets are.
In the post-dot-com-bust years I spent six months as a production worker in a salsa factory. We were given a multiple-choice test during the interview. The skills they were testing for were mostly related to work ethics.
Most businesses I've worked for or with have a very different process; somebody in the office is given the decision about who to hire, and they squint at the resumes, conduct some interviews, and then make a totally opaque choice that they clearly would never explain because they feel like they should have learned some kind of system, but didn't learn about the details, or don't remember enough to try it. The rare person who admits their process does so boldly, absolutely certain that their ignorance leads them to "common sense" decisions, but in place of anything sensible they just used a pile of inappropriate stereotypes; eg, he hired whoever looked least like a hippie/SJW.
I don't know, are you a schizophrenic racist with a little voice that says that shit in their ear all day?
If so, it isn't your fault, so sorry for your plight. If not, then shut up and be happy that the trailer park has free wifi.
That's exactly the point. If they'd untwist their neckbeards they'd realize that they're just being obtuse, that's why the equally educated people in equally "hard" fields that they work with find them to be insufferably weak at basic context-sensitive logic. You give them a dilemma like "do I simplify this, or not?" and if you let them decide, they'll simplify or not consistently based on the practices taught in math classes, without even understanding why they're being asked to do the thing, or who is going to use the results, or what formulas the results need to be fed into.
So after you let a mathematician do the optimization, it takes more computer time to solve, and more human time to deal with the data. The same person with the same training doing the same job but with the title "software engineer" would be expected to produce much higher quality results. The problem isn't with math, or with math being different computer science, the problem is with the personalities that tend to choose the mathematician title. A better approach when you actually want a mathematician might be to just find somebody with a useful specialty who took an excess of math classes in college, and put them in the "math person" role on the team, but have their official title remain something more polite.
The problem with the summary is that it first overlooks something as simple as the difference in being the "best" within a category, or independent of context, and then when it finds its own mistake it passes it off as if it is an external mistake, a mistake made by other people, even a typical or institutionalized mistake.
But it isn't, it is just a really really weak summary, with nothing to say, that uses a lot of words to make it sound like there was something there.
You're right in that the most interesting things to think about on the subject, after reading the summary, are things it doesn't even go into. Since it doesn't go into anything!
The reason your analysis is so weak is that you think of the gubermint as one entity, but clearly here the City Council did something stupid without talking to the City employees, and those City Employees are not "saving face" at all; they're doing a totally different thing called "covering their own asses." If they can get the lawyers, who are a third independent group here, to say that the ordinance is illegal then they aren't permitted to enforce it. And then they're the heros who saved Detroit. From the City Council. Who looks worst in that scenario, of all the possible outcomes. So very far from "face-saving" behavior. No matter what the lawyers say, the City Council looks worse by having done the review this late in the process.
It is almost as if the City workers are punishing the City Council for passing such a transparently stupid and poorly written law!
That doesn't matter because in this case there is a grammatical error either way.
Your point would have value if by using that interpretation you were left with a sentence that was correct and has clear meaning. But since we know they made a mistake, reciting their local rule doesn't help to tell us which mistake they made.