82,891
edits
Something for the weekend, sir?: Difference between revisions
Something for the weekend, sir? (view source)
Revision as of 17:13, 22 December 2023
, 22 December 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|{{catbox|newsletter draft}}}}Newsletter crib-notes | {{a|devil|{{catbox|newsletter draft}}}}Newsletter crib-notes | ||
===[[ | ====In progress==== | ||
=== | *[[Reasons to hope we are in a post truth world]] | ||
===[[ | *[[Contract and tort as finite and infinite games]] | ||
*[[VAR as a metaphor for litigation]] | |||
*[[Working from home]] | |||
*[[The domestication of law]] | |||
*[[Data modernism]] | |||
*[[ABS field guide]] | |||
*[[System redundancy]] | |||
*[[Legal evolution]] | |||
*[[Party A and Party B]] | |||
*[[A swap as a loan]] | |||
*[[When variation margin attacks]] | |||
====More on averagarianism and customer surveys==== | |||
Customer surveys are a kind of self-serving averagarianism. To ask online subscribers "how satisfied are you with the quality of the Times’ journalism” on a five point scale from “extremely satisfied” to “extremely dissatisfied” asks the user to construct some sort of ad hoc blended average of the quality of all the writing in the paper, whereas it inevitably varies between departments, between writers, topics, articles, and even days of the week. And that average reflects the priorities and values of the individual readers, who are not the same. Some might buy the times —and therefore judge it — for its sports coverage, others for the comment, business, politics or cultural coverage, or any combination. The times, we imagine, already knows which subscribers read which articles, so it is not learning anything useful by asking an artificial question, aggregating what are, effectively, responses to different questions, which users are already answering in the affirmative, anyway, because we should presume they buy the paper for the parts they like, and they like the parts they buy the paper for. | |||
Nor is there any value in carefully framing questions to drag out specific answers which may play well when presented as a graphic in an investor presentation, but which don't really reflect the customer's real interests or opinions. | |||
===Crisis of confidence in the Western intellectual tradition=== | |||
[[Cultural appropriation]] as a backwards way of looking at memetic strength. | |||
Basic sense of shame in the western intelligentsia, when in fact western intelligentsia has (a) created the tools for all this hand-wringing, such as Marxism, critical theory, which grew directly out of the enlightenment tradition and arguably could not have emerged in any other culture (b) painstakingly documented and recorded and studied the indigenous cultures it was supposedly demolishing, giving them the tools for their present revival (c) facilitated the sharing and cultural transmission of its own intelllectual property — including, by the way, the concept of “intellectual property” enabling incredible advances in the standards of living of people all over the world. The remarkable tolerance for new ideas and acceptance of culture | |||
===Bowie, bonds and the bloodbath of banking=== | ===Bowie, bonds and the bloodbath of banking=== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 68: | ||
==Bad apples 2== | ==Bad apples 2== | ||
Particular the curious recent phenomenon of corporations transmogrify in themselves into moral guardians. | Particular the curious recent phenomenon of corporations transmogrify in themselves into moral guardians. | ||
There once was a time that corporations | There once was a time that corporations harboured no illusions that their role on the planet was the comparatively amoral one of generating returns for their shareholders. | ||
Some kind of mandate drift with slippage over the last 20 | Some kind of mandate drift with slippage over the last 20 years which is seen corporations increasingly anxious to project and signal social and political values. These things do not come from shareholders but are generated in the executive. | ||
This has created at least three kinds of dissonance | This has created at least three kinds of dissonance | ||
1 | 1 it is a kind of judgemental overreach whereby corporations feel entitled to impinge on and evaluate the behaviour of their employees outside the parameters of their professional roles. | ||
2 is an old kind of dissociation of | 2 is an old kind of dissociation of “the corporation” from the actions of its employees ''inside'' their professional roles. This is the bad apple phenomenon where the corporations manage to control themselves not as perpetrator, examples the Wells Fargo false accounting, and more recently J.P. Morgan’s studied horror at the behaviour of its former investment bank chief executive, a man who the organisation recruited, employed and promoted to its highest offices over 30 years. | ||
The third is a dissonance between | The third is a dissonance between the public musings of the organisation, particularly in the realms of social justice and ESG, and its actual historical behaviour, which may take in facilitating money laundering, financing terrorism, drugs and and chips, evading tax and assisting clients to evade tax and bracket as per above the food in its own customers on a fairly systematic scale. | ||
===2022=== | ===2022=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 87: | ||
Whole Earth Catalog | Whole Earth Catalog | ||
[[Blockchain]] and the financialisation of everything. How | [[Blockchain]] and the financialisation of everything. How blockchain commits the daycare fallacy - {{author|David Graeber}}’s debt analysis | ||
Superstition → a belief based on a fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck. Actions based on that belief can lead to ’'malign'' outcomes (e.g. ritual sacrifice) benign/neutral outcomes (touching wood, rubbing David Hume’s toe) or a method for undertaking a task you had to do anyway (putting your cricket pads on in a certain order before batting: you have to put your pads on in ''some'' order and neither is (objectively) worse than the other, so from a rationalist perspective the superstition here has no practical effect on the world at all. | Superstition → a belief based on a fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck. Actions based on that belief can lead to ’'malign'' outcomes (e.g. ritual sacrifice) benign/neutral outcomes (touching wood, rubbing David Hume’s toe) or a method for undertaking a task you had to do anyway (putting your cricket pads on in a certain order before batting: you have to put your pads on in ''some'' order and neither is (objectively) worse than the other, so from a rationalist perspective the superstition here has no practical effect on the world at all. | ||
On the other hand acting out a superstition can have unintended psychosomatic consequences (my confidence my pads went on in the lucky way may trigger for getting into system 2? - no opportunity cost ... ) | On the other hand, acting out a superstition can have unintended psychosomatic consequences (my confidence my pads went on in the lucky way may trigger for getting into system 2? - no opportunity cost ... ) | ||
CF hubris: missing the humility of acknowledging there's something bigger than all of us out there | CF hubris: missing the humility of acknowledging there's something bigger than all of us out there | ||
pascal’s wager → opportunity cost and importance of psychological safety and community consensus (believing God in | pascal’s wager → opportunity cost and importance of psychological safety and community consensus (believing God in Salt Lake City) → modern day superstition netting ESG (motivated irrationality = the livelihoods one can make from believing stupid things | ||
Paradigm = system. Explains the multiple paradigms in Kuhn's model ... They are all paradigms - interlocking systems | Paradigm = system. Explains the multiple paradigms in Kuhn's model ... They are all paradigms - interlocking systems | ||