growupkids

Perhaps I'm missing something. How would you know if someone is an excellent censor (I.e. They only censor "bad" speech, and not "good" speech) if then intent is to shield you from the "bad" speech. Wouldn't you then not know what they censored?

Specifically, it seems to me that if you're shielded from seeing that they censored, then they could also be censoring "good" speech too. So the only way it seems you could ensure they weren't do this poorly or deliberately would be to allow everyone access to what they've censored. Which inversely seems to defeat the purpose of having a good censor. Now essentially nothing in censored.

Again, perhaps I'm missing something but if I'm not then I don't understand how you resolve this conundrum.

Edit: Unless you're referring to ex post facto censorship, where everyone sees the "bad" speech, and the speaker is banned for violating "community standards" To pre-emptively ban future speech. But this too still allows "bad" speech, and I suppose you also have the problem of deleting the bad speech. If it's gone, then what substantiates the ban/censorship? Because again, what if the action was either done in error, or maliciously to ban "good" but unpopular speech/speakers how would you know?

I think you're missing the point, and would mind if we all went through your financial, medical and personal records. These records are made available to OPM under what are supposed to be strict privacy controls, because it's very very personal information. Everything from divorces, psychological counseling, drug history, you name it. You open up every secret in your life to scrutiny to demonstrate that despite all that you can be trusted. None of that is anyone's business, and it supposed to be protected and only available to a small number of people for a period of time to determine if you can be trusted.

Everyone has things in their lives they'd rather not have made public because it's nobodies business, and this compromise just betrayed the trust all those people put in the US government.

With FISMA no one builds even remotely secure systems, nothing anyone here would even want their name associated with. And this is because under FISMA government executives can "except risk", and they don't have to justify why.

So when your agency needs an application to do X, and you will face consequences if it doesn't get spun up, and to do so requires you cut a lot of security corners, but you won't face any consequences for doing so, you're going to cut those corners. Especially if not cutting those concerns means delays in rolling out that system, or spending a ton of money to fix all those security problems. The state of information security in the government is atrocious for this reason. It's not that complicated. There is no real incentive to secure systems, and very real insentives to not do so. You just issue the ATO and accept the risk. It's up an running and everyone is happy. If it's not and running people are pissed. It gets owned, people shrug and say "well nothing is totally secure".

Until this changes, compromises will continue.

Indeed. This is what's led to the skyrocketing costs of college degrees, the irrational belief that without one you're financially doomed. So any degree is presumed to be better than not having a degree, which is pure bunk. So everyone "knows" you have to get a degree, no matter what.

Meanwhile kids aren't told about other options or what the reality is about degrees. Trades pay very well, different degrees have a much higher likelihood of getting you a job or a better paying job, and of course only having a degree is no guarantee of even getting a job at all.

We need to reset expectations so kids don't get sucked in by the marketing machine that is today's higher education. Your masters degree in foreign languages does not guarantee you a job. Do your research and understand, really brutally understand the field you are trying to get work in. Don't listen to the hype, ask normal people in that field how they got that job and be skeptical. Find out how many people get degrees in that field annually, and how many new hits exist in that field. You might be surprised to find out it's a small field that simply doesn't support all the graduates produced, or that a degree alone won't get you that dream job.

Then no one will issue loans to those students, who have a very high likelihood of never paying it back. You're right back to cheap schools and only issuing loans for degrees that will pay a very high salary. The whole point is to make it possible for people who can't get loans otherwise to get them, the inverse is that they have to pay them back. It's a fair trade, you want to borrow 100k for something that isn't tangible. You have no income, and a very high likelihood of defaulting, and the thing that was purchased can't be resold by the lender. That's a pretty awful deal for any lender. So if you make it possible to default then you won't see those loans being made anymore. Why issue the loan?

If you don't want a loan you have to pay back, then don't get a student loan get a personal loan which you can default on. Sure it won't be as much, but that's all you can get when you have a low likelihood of paying it back. Or enlist in the military and earn the money to pay for school. Or get a job and pay your way through school. Or go to a cheaper school, and get a more practical degree.

There are other options.

In reality bad culture hires stick around because most people are polite and assume it's just them, and They give difficult people second chances, they put up with them for a long time because they're not used to being around people that are that "off".

So you can't assume just because someone isn't dismissed quickly that they automatically were a good hire. I've seen plenty of bad hires kept around because people were unable to grok why this person was difficult. They give them lots of second chances and it took time before everyone finally gave up. I'm not saying that's what happened here, what I am saying is you can't jump to a conclusion that because someone wasn't fired that means they were a good fit.

As Elvis Presely used to day: these aren't drugs, these are pills see I've got a 'script from my doctor. Psychology is everything, prescriptions aren't drugs, pills are safe, needles are scary.

Simple, diesel costs more per gallon, it's not as widely sold compared to gasoline (not every station may have it), and there are less car models availavle with diesel as an option. Therefore, even if you just look at it statistically there will be less diesel cars on the road in the USA.

The first startup I worked for, after taxes, made me over 1m and I was employee 42.

Which is why I'm always puzzled as to why job applications ask for information that has no bearing on the process of qualifying an applicant, such as age, gender, nationality, race and so on. Unless you are specifically looking for someone of particular age, gender, nationality and race why ask for this information?

Your on to some thing here. In some resort communities, with high housing costs and large "seasonal" residents, you'll find rent controlled properties for just the reason you mention: local labor. For example, aspen colorado has a "lottery" for these rent controlled properties, and has duplex housing right outside of town for local workers. An average home in town is in the millions, which is clearly outside the price range for a service or municipal worker, so they have some rent controlled properties. I've seen this in other sky towns as well.

I don't follow, privately owned housing is a normal good. It's a Textbook case, as average living standards rise, the total demand for housing expands, as does the demand for more expensive properties as people look to move "up market".

I am misunderstanding your point?

Edit: I think I understand, my degrees in economics so I assumed you were using the term as its used in economics. Apparently you were not.

I'll probably get down voted for this, so be it. I worked in the Clinton whitehouse in the mid-90s. Every time you sent an email, which was on a cluster of VAX servers, you got a full screen notification about the presidential records act, and you had to agree affirmatively if something was, or was not an official record. If you said no, it still got archived, it just got flagged so a FoIA might not be valid against your email. We simply backed everything up to tape, and sent it to NARA. My first week there we got subpeoneDed. I remember being asked to volunteer to go up to greenbelt Maryland to help restore tapes for records requests.

There is absolutely no way she or anyone else that worked woth here didnt know your needed to archive emails. Subpoenas happened regularly, and everyone knew Emails = record. Years later after I left I landed a contract with a government contractor to recover thse tapes, against federal lawsuits, emails are records and the courts want them. Par for the course. I'd argue the Clinton whitehouse was the first administration to truly face electronic records retention effects with the courts. Nixon maybe being the first with audio tapes, the clintons got email Subpeonas.

So when I hear she was running her own email server and staying outside federal records retention requirements, I both nodded knowingly that I would expect nothing less from the wife of a man that learned first hand: keep no records, and then shook my head ruefully knowingly why she did it:

Keep no records.

When public leaders avoid record keeping requirements, this prevents public scrutiny, and that means they no longer work for you because they aren't accountable to you. Maybe you agree with her, but you'll never know what she did in your name. Hillary knew what she was doing. I have no doubt of this, as I said I would expect nothing less. I would be shocked if she didn't do this. Stunned really. I'm still paranoid about what I put in written form (text, email, etc.) to this day.

This was calculated, to keep her unaccountable and off the record.