Ninth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
(30 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The anal paradox is a theory of negotiation. It proposes that as the number of people involved in negotiating a contract increases the contract’s brevity, and comprehensibility and utility ''decreases''. The [[anal paradox]] predicts that the longer a negotiation continues, the more complicated the agreement will become, even though its meaningful content will stay constant or, more likely, decline.  
{{a|work|[[File:Waterfall.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[security waterfall]] yesterday]]
}}Once known as the “[[anal paradox]]”, [[Otto Büchstein]]’s theory of {{tag|negotiation}} has since become recognised as the [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]] — numerically challenging since, by some distance, it predates the [[Laws of worker entropy|first eight]], and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them. The month law of worker entropy explains why the [[tedium quotient]] of any legal agreement tends to infinity.


Briefly stated, however anal it may be to add qualifications, clarifications, [[for the avoidance of doubt]]s, [[without limitation]]s and other forensic {{f|celery}} and {{tag|flannel}}, once these additions have been added, it is even ''more'' anal to request their removal again, seeing as, [[Q.E.D.]], it would make no difference to the legal or economic substance of the agreement if you did. So, inevitably, one doesn’t [[I’m not going to die in a ditch about it|die in a ditch about it]], however appealing by comparison that might, to a [[prose stylist]], seem.
{{ninth law of worker entropy}}


There is a threshold (the [[Schwarzschild radius of document comprehension]]”) beyond which the {{tag|contract}} passes irreversibly into a kind of [[heat death]] of ennui and unintelligibility. An [[Mediocre lawyer|Earth-bound lawyer]] crossing that threshold passes a point of no return: {{Sex|she}} will be unable to resist the fascination of trying to understand the contract, will hold out hope of rescuing it from semantic oblivion, and will eventually be consumed by the colossal forces of gravitational tedium, eventually being regurgitated into a parallel universe as an [[exchange-traded derivatives]] specialist.  
Hiring a dredger is expensive, and since the operating assumption of all [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] is that {{maxim|no-one ever got sued for writing an unintelligible agreement}},<ref>“[[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with|What the eye don’t understand, the chef gets away with]].</ref> you leave it (perhaps tossing in a [[disclaimer]] for good measure) until one day your {{tag|contract}} nears the [[event horizon]] of intelligibility, beyond which it risks collapsing in on itself, by which the idea is that you will be well clear, having moved on to some other unsuspecting host. If you have not there is the risk of it taking you with it, and precipitating the [[boredom heat death]] of the universe.


 
It almost happened in [[2008 ISDA Master Agreement|2008]], so don’t joke about it.
 
{{sa}}
{{plainenglish}}
*[[Laws of worker entropy]]
*[[Adding value]]
*[[Schwarzschild radius]]
{{c2|Cosmology|Astrophysics}} {{c|Paradox}}
{{ref}}
{{c|tedium}}

Revision as of 12:26, 16 February 2021

Office anthropology™
A security waterfall yesterday


The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Once known as the “anal paradox”, Otto Büchstein’s theory of negotiation has since become recognised as the JC’s ninth law of worker entropy — numerically challenging since, by some distance, it predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them. The month law of worker entropy explains why the tedium quotient of any legal agreement tends to infinity.

The JC’s ninth law of worker entropy: As the number of people involved in negotiating a contract goes up, its brevity, comprehensibility and utility goes down. The longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious, and tedious, will be its“fruits” — the verbiage, in the vernacular — even as its meaningful commercial content stay constants (or, more likely, declines to vanishing point).

Hiring a dredger is expensive, and since the operating assumption of all lawyers is that no-one ever got sued for writing an unintelligible agreement,[1] you leave it (perhaps tossing in a disclaimer for good measure) until one day your contract nears the event horizon of intelligibility, beyond which it risks collapsing in on itself, by which the idea is that you will be well clear, having moved on to some other unsuspecting host. If you have not there is the risk of it taking you with it, and precipitating the boredom heat death of the universe.

It almost happened in 2008, so don’t joke about it.

See also

References