Hindsight: Difference between revisions

Hindsight (view source)

Revision as of 12:09, 2 February 2021

2,018 bytes added , 2 February 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,022

edits

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 And herein lies the tension and profound dilemma of the received approach to modern legal practice. For we commercial lawyers are charged with anticipating the future and provided with a methodology drawn exclusively from the past. Just occasionally this dissonance rears up and hits us: the financial controller who must charge capital to provide for shortcomings in a contract documenting a transaction that has now matured: the formal imperatives of [[legibility]] taking priority over the logic of practical common sense.
-It is a persistent frame: by the time I'm we get around to analysing the catastrophe and how it played out all circumstances are known all all options crystallised all discretions hardened. The employee who, with imperfect information and in the fog of war, tacked port when hindsight revealed a safe port to starboard is short a very ugly option. Those with executive responsibility for his performance will be mightily tempted to exercise it. This is the lesson of {{fieldguide}}.
+It is a persistent frame: by the time we get around to analysing the catastrophe and how it played out, all circumstances are known, all options have crystallised and all discretions have hardened. The employee who, with imperfect information and in the fog of war, tacked port when hindsight revealed a safe port to starboard is short a very ugly option. Those with executive responsibility for his performance will be mightily tempted to exercise it. This is the lesson of {{fieldguide}}.
+What's the catastrophe forms comma informs, and reforms the narrative colon everything about meadows investment strategy now is obviously bogus. There can be only one explanation colon someone was asleep at the switch someone further down the chain. This is where the historian’s perspective is more useful than the [[thought leader]]’s. We know Madoff’s regulators will not asleep at the switch, because we have Harry markopolos testimony of the number of times he told them about exactly the anomalies they should, in hindsight, have been alarmed by.
+it wasn't that the operators were asleep, that is to say, but that their switch was not fit for purpose. But a maladroit switch is the responsibility of the executive not the worker.
+as of January 2021 we have another opportunity to see this distance before it to ossifies into wise hindsight, with the GameStop phenomenon. here the lack of attention to data is far less plausible than usual, because the putative victims of this situation had more data and more data processing capability at their disposal and possibly anyone in history. the opponent's, and aggregated bunch of retail investors coalescing around Reddit had the advantage of the network effect and the wisdom of crowds but nothing like the processing capacity or institutional support of the hedge funds whom they took down. a failure to crunch data was not the problem here. The problem was a failure of the narrative. Part of that narrative is, of course, the primacy of data. [[In God we trust, all others must bring data]].
+It is interesting to that when executives appeal for change, for Revolution, for a new way of working they focus not upon on the revealed failings of their own narrative — it's got them where they are after all so it can't be all bad — but is upon the in constant performance of those at the switch. To these people the idea that the switch isn't working, and the hierarchy supporting that's which is not fit for purpose, somehow fails to occur.
 {{sa}}
 {{ref}}