I'm kind of this way also. My work motto was always: "Be the best worker and you'll always have a job." This was easy, because I was always curious about how things worked and didn't mind helping others. In my thirties, while training for a new position, I thanked my trainer for his help and he told me: "You seem willing to work and now I won't have to do your job for you." That simple statement changed how I thought about coworkers. Gradually, I became less helpful to the ones who thought it was a good idea for me to do their job with/for them.
<And the most successful parasites are always those which can alter their host environment to be more amenable to themselves, and if you’re a parasite taking the form of a bad idea, that means hijacking your host’s rationality.>
After reading this, I thought, damn he just described the current administration. Then I kept reading and saw:
<It all led, inexorably, to Trump.>
Yeah(!), I think I'm gonna bookmark that site and reread it a few more times.
We bought our first minivan in 1998, a Ford Windstar. It was purchased to run our teenagers to activities, but I quickly fell in love with all the other things it could do, including what you've mentioned above. We put a ton of miles on it before trading it in. Next was a 2007 Town and Country with two sliding doors! By this time we were running grandkids and it was perfect.
After deciding to replace it, we struggled to decide what kind of vehicle to upgrade to. For our lifestyle and the side projects I like to do, another minivan was the obvious choice. Now it's a 2018 Pacifica and we're retired. The quality is outstanding, with 112K miles on it, I expect to put on another 100K before seeing what's available for the next upgrade. None of these vans ever gave us any engine or transmission trouble, despite the high number of miles I was able to put on them.
And therein lies the fault, they only do "good" because they were made to do it. Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior. They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive. (I do appreciate your comment because most companies do live in a moral vacuum.)
>They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive.
Those 2 sentences don't really align well. Should they be motivated by the tenfold praise? Or should they be motivated by doing the decent thing? If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?
>Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior.
I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.
> I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.
Suppose Anon says, "I'm going to rob a bank next Monday."
Police respond, "We will be ready there next Monday, and you will be arrested."
Anon replies, "Ah, I see! Never mind, then."
We can certainly say it's good that Anon changed their mind after being met with promises of consequences. But, in my opinion, saying something like "Anon is a fine, upstanding citizen, worthy of praise, unlike those other criminals that actually went through with it! Now that Anon understands it's bad, they'll surely never think to plan something so dastardly in the future!" is leaving reality behind. Anon has done the bare minimum, and likewise deserves the bare minimum of praise. In terms of incentive, I think such a response would only teach Anon to be sneakier, now that they've earned some trust.
I'm not saying we should say the company is overall good. Just that the decision to backtrack was good.
Similarly, we wouldn't say that Anon is overall upstanding, just that the decision to not rob that bank was good.
My point is that we should treat the company better if it backtracks. And similarly we should treat Anon better if he doesn't rob the bank. It doesn't make sense to give Anon the exact same punishment whether he robs the bank or not. If we do that, he has no incentive not to rob the bank. "If I'm going to jail either way, I might as well actually rob the bank."
<If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?>
Not that most corporations care, being trashed for decisions that hurt their consumers is run of the mill these days. Companies that get praise from their customers tend to stay in business and sell lots of product.
<I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.>
Reluctantly improving means they were either going to or already screwed their customers. Companies that admit mistakes are praised. To think that a company who is called out will in the future continue to do good for consumer decisions is a little naive.
Encouragement of good decisions over bad decisions is how people tend towards making more good decisions. "You didn't inherently make the right choice, so even the right choice you made is actually bad" is just... really, really childish.
no, they were not made to do it. they listened to feedback and did the work. this is better than we get in 99% of cases. try to be nicer and meet them half way instead of living in your ideal world.
In my ideal world, corporate responsibility is a must. Making junk products or killing product updates because they can't sell you the updated version is irresponsible. They listened to feedback because they know their products are overpriced for the market, so they decided to do the right thing, but only after they were called out. That's backwards. Corporations don't know the meaning of nice, only money.
My guess, they were afraid to ruffle the feathers of their higher-ups. Yes, that's moronic, but this is the world we can find ourselves in IF the bosses are egotistical kingdom makers.
was an example of where that "empowerment" went wrong. It is usual for workers in Japanese factories to make continuous improvements in process for quality and cost and it is usually a good thing... but criticality accidents involve invisible dangers and "following procedures strictly" in that kind of work saves lives.
Notably Japan has been the world leader in nuclear accidents since the 1980s and some of that is that they kept working on things like fast reactors after many other countries quit and others that are cultural. For instance at American BWR reactors it is routine to test the isolation condenser whenever the reactor is shut down so everybody knew what it sounded like (LOUD!) when it worked but when somebody at Fukushima was asked if it was working they saw a little steam coming out the ports but had never seen it work before and didn't know what to expect.
I also want to put things in perspective: far, far more people are dying from fuckups with fossil fuels, but like "Florida man" (Florida has a law that crime reports must be published) we actually report and collect accidents involved in Nuclear production, so you can see every mistake. But you don't see mass protests because natural gas infrastructure failed in Texas and building pipes burst and people froze to death, including a young boy.
The main difference is that tiny mistakes in the nuclear industry can have massive consequences. A seemingly-trivial change can lead to continent-sized damages and permanent condemnation of city-sized areas of land.
Accidents in the fossil fuel industry are far more localized. Sure, you can blow up your own plant and kill a bunch of people, but it's not too hard to clean up the mess afterwards. Even something as horrific as the Deepwater Horizon disaster won't have much of a residual impact 10 years down the line.
> A seemingly-trivial change can lead to continent-sized damages and permanent condemnation of city-sized areas of land.
Chernobyl wasn't a "seemingly-trivial change" -- it was several successive groups all choosing to do the worse-possible thing, and it still killed and harmed fewer people than the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Let me rephrase that. People need to feel empowered to stop a potentially dangerous process. They definitely shouldn't be empowered to implement new dangerous processes without external review.
Or modify them. For instance the people at Tokaimura felt empowered to take steps to speed up the mixing, that, plus them mixing a higher enrichment blend led to disaster.
I think the author is trying to say in today's world we face a sort of moral/societal vacuum of privacy. The more we try to remain private, whether by being an open book or by some type of digital way, it's basically futile or will eventually be broken.
My spin, as a recovering perfectionist, is when you've done everything you can to be "innocent" and the political or whatever wind changes, the pit of despair is a real and devastating thing. When this happens, sometimes the decisions that are made are desperate.
<I am just the properly paranoid type in part due to a good upbringing by a properly paranoid person.>
I say you've properly got your eyes open. Anyone who thinks anything you do online is completely private is naive. IF any government wants to know what you've been up to online, nothing can stop them. Privacy is a thing of the past, we should vote only for politicians who say they want the government out of our backyards, banks and bedroom. Oops, too late!
As a city dweller, I used to use Roundup along my fence line. Then I read an article in a newspaper about spraying chemicals when there is a breeze. So I read the label on the Roundup bottle and it said absolutely do not spray in any windy conditions. Next I polled my coworkers about this and they all said they just stay upwind!
The bottle label also said Roundup is active for up to 30 days, then I thought about my dogs. I no longer use any chemical for lawn care.
As to the plight of the farmers: I wonder if most of them bothered to used proper personal protection gear when spraying? Even if they had enclosed cabs, the chemical would still coat the tractor and tank surfaces which can be rubbed against at any time.
In many parts of the country whole counties smell of pesticide for a few days every year (and pig-shit another few days, but that’s a different issue)
I’ve lived in some of them, and my mom did a lot of by-hand weed-killer spraying (big plastic refillable jug with sprayer hose & wand) along a mile-plus of fence line, for years. Her generation didn’t really do PPE, so no respirator. Died relatively young of a Parkinson’s-adjacent dementia a little while back. No history of any of that in the family. Hm.
When the stories about Roundup started floating around, I switched to 30% strength vinegar with a squirt of dish soap in it. It kills weeds and undesired plants off just as quickly and effectively as Roundup did, but obviously it does not prevent new seeds from sprouting. It is indiscriminate, whereas Roundup selectively targets broad-leafed plants, so you want to avoid getting it on grass. I use a big tarp to mask off the grass if I am using it heavily along the lawn borders. It's very effective for things like borders, gravel paths, stuff like that.
Also, instead of smelling like a chemical factory, your yard will smell like salad dressing for a day or so.
Something that is supposed to be done to legally use it properly under FIFRA. There's a reason why it says in big letters READ ENTIRE LABEL BEFORE USE.
Its nuts to me there's so many people out there buying crazy chemicals and just #yolo'ing it all over the place.
Most modern home AC systems have, as a rule of thumb, ten percent fresh air intake. This varies, depending on the home size and state and local codes. On my home the fresh air vent is high up in my attic, which should protect me from over spraying of chemicals. However, if you have a window unit or an on ground system this will affect your exposure.
In an effort to save money, some will close their fresh air vent, this is not recommended because of the lack of air trade out in the system.
reply