Ninth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Amwelladmin moved page Anal paradox to Ninth law of worker entropy)
No edit summary
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}{{a|negotiation|}}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]] — a numerical challenge since it well predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them. {{ninth law of worker entropy}}
{{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.


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, taking you with it, and precipitating the [[boredom heat death]] of the universe.
{{ninth law of worker entropy}}
 
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.
It almost happened in [[2008 ISDA Master Agreement|2008]], so don’t joke about it.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Laws of worker entropy]]
*[[Adding value]]
*[[Adding value]]
*[[Schwarzschild radius]]
*[[Schwarzschild radius]]
{{plainenglish}}
{{c2|Cosmology|Astrophysics}} {{c|Paradox}}
{{c2|Egg|Astrophysics}} {{c|Paradox}}
{{ref}}
{{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