lcuff

In America, the court systems are overwhelmed. The majority of cases are plea-bargained because the court doesn't have the capacity to hear them all. "Shirking duties?" Having an AI help (and I mean 'help', not 'be solely responsible') to identify the cases that deserve attention is stepping up to it's duties, IMHO.

And ... I didn't read this as an attempt to catch the court shirking it's duties. They weren't going to report the court, they were just going to take advantage of having achieved a low profile for the case.

You can in poetry. Also in Mathematics and in adages. No argument. But I seriously doubt that's the norm with tweets, although, as previously mentioned, I'm not on twitter. Further, it's hard to believe that as conversations progress, the nuances of a complex topic can be neatly packed into a bit of iambic pentameter.

I'm a fan of Marshall McLuhan, famous for "The Medium is the Message". When Twitter first arrived, I thought "what is the message delivered by a medium that limits thoughts to 140 characters at a time?". My take: "thoughts that are dirt-simple are the most welcome." Also, "what is the message delivered by a medium that freely interrupts me at any time?" (I never investigated the options to not be interrupted.) perhaps "There's no need to worry about having my own thought train interrupted .... "

Nothing I've heard or seen about Twitter is enticing.... but I'm old and cranky. Not quite as old and cranky as Donald Knuth, who stepped away from email after 15 years, writing:

I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address. I'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime.

Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study.

Again, I think this is likely seen differently depending on which side of the political spectrum one stands, and what sources of information one attunes to. I agree that both 'racism' and 'gender' have become flash-points for discord, and that one can point to the left as trying to change the definitions. But I can think of other words that the right is equally guilty of attempting to re-define. For example, 'woke' was a term originally rooted in African American communities meaning awareness of systemic injustice, but is now used by the right as pejorative for anything they disagree with. (Including the existence of systemic injustice, sigh.)

Everybody's mileage will vary on this ... I spent a lot of time in the year after I read Paul Graham's essay on "things you can't say", searching for things that I thought matched the criteria he set out, and found a few. But it's not that the words may never cross my lips, I can say these things within some small circle of people, but would definitely not be saying them in public without being prepared for an onslaught of negative attention. Some examples of 'cancel culture' are proof of this. Donald G. McNeil comes to mind.

That said, I'm not impressed with the notion of Straussian memes and agree that way better examples are needed to give the idea some validity.

"Core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left". Or the conservative right, depending on which side of this divide one happens to stand on. And speaking of Orwell, he was pointing out the doublespeak of the Fascists, not the socialists.

Interesting. I wonder how the expansion and contraction of the rails with changes in temperature is accommodated.

I remember reading some time ago that there is a real difficulty running passenger trains and freight trains over the same rails. With freight, you can tolerate bumps at the rail-join points, and freight tends to create such bumps because the heavy loads push the rails slightly out of place. Also, freight routes should be limited to a 2% grade, whereas 4% can be tolerated for the lighter passenger cars. Have these problems been mitigated on the Koralm Railway? Anyone know how?

I agree that "the right thing" depends on point of view and narrative at hand (the context). And when I quote Drucker and point to character, I see it as the bedrock on which a good manager will stand. But people of good character still need a whole array of other tools to turn them into good managers: Being skillful politicians to navigate the organizational polity, being people who can see the big picture. Having _lots_ of people skills. Having a good grasp of the field of endeavor. An ability to laugh at themselves ...

Failing to understand the basic requirement is not, IMHO, overthinking it.

I will admit, as I reread the question and the hint just now, that I just didn't read carefully the first time through. It's actually pretty clear. Sigh.

People's minds work quite differently ... As evidenced by people that have strong reactions to particular languages (love or hate), or, as another example, people that love or hate syntax coloring in code. (Yes, it gets in the way for some). The fact that the instructions didn't make the problem clear to me is not an overthinking problem on my part. It would be better for me if the problems were expressed in different ways.

When trying to communicate, saying the same thing two different ways is a big step towards helping deal with the variance in people's minds. I wish they'd done that with some of the questions.

I thought there was too much ambiguity to several of the challenges:

I gave up after the following exercise:

On the eighth day of Shell my true love gave to me Eight elves in Santa's Workhop/ ... Hint: Try finding files named after Elves and moving them to the Workshop/ directory.

It turns out, all they want is the files in the ./Elves directory to the ./Workshop directory. But I didn't figure that out.

"It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor".

Hmmm. Different interlocutors can have different intentions. Some are going to have the intention to understand. Echoing what you believe the person said is not a 'cheap trick' when it comes to discussing ideas. I've been on both ends of conversations about singing, engineering and sailing, and one person says "what your saying is this" and the other person says: "No, that's not what I'm saying", with a correction that follows, and the chance for two-way understanding.

Yup. Weizenbaum knew about active listening.

Nope, I don't see that. As a therapist, this is a big part of our training. Using it in a business context, there's more emphasis on ideas, whereas in therapy, you do ask people how it makes them feel. Often because people don't know how they feel, and that's important in intimate relationships.

It can land as awkward, un-natural, yeah even 'fake' when it's being used by somebody who is just learning it and is practicing, though after time it will lose those qualities. If people you know are using this on you, they might need to own that they're trying something different to get you into a comfort zone before pressing on.

No kidding here.