82,891
edits
Vitamins and painkillers: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Where patients have baffling conditions either they are a freak, or you are a bozo. By definition, freaks are the exception, so — yeah. | Where patients have baffling conditions either they are a freak, or you are a bozo. By definition, freaks are the exception, so — yeah. | ||
So this is the JC’s main beef with the legal operations world: the whole thing presumes that you can solve deep-seated, difficult problems, with generic technology and cheap labour. If this were true | So this is the JC’s main beef with the legal operations world: the whole thing presumes that you can solve deep-seated, difficult problems, with generic technology and cheap labour. If this were true ''law would not be such a persistently lucrative profession''. | ||
The cynical view — | The cynical view — one, by the way, the JC largely shares — is that most sticky legal problems ''aren’t'' all that difficult, addressing not real-world risks, but the interests of legal nest-feathering. Lawyers tell their clients ghost stories and then charge them for formulating outcomes should their phantasmagoric contingencies come about. | ||
But this being so, the challenge is not “optimising how one caters for absurd outcomes” — any bozo can do that — but demythologising, untangling knotted organisational threads, sorting wheat for chaff, and delivering simple advice that clearly allocates risk and keeps the lawyers out of the picture. | But this being so, the challenge is not “optimising how one caters for absurd outcomes” — any bozo can do that — but demythologising, untangling knotted organisational threads, sorting wheat for chaff, and delivering simple advice that clearly allocates risk and keeps the lawyers out of the picture. | ||