I assume the misspellings "agnecy" and "sutdents" are intentional, as showing perfectionism would be a sign of white supremacy.
Except the reference they give for these characteristics of white supremacy [1] says:
> Organizations that are people of color led or a majority people of color can also demonstrate many damaging characteristics of white supremacy culture.
Which is a pity because my i7 Lenovo laptop is acoustically and thermally some kind of jet turbine in a case, because I was foolish enough to believe a review, and I really wish I could undervolt it so it can make it to lunchtime on a charge.
I was actually wrong about that, it turned out to be possible on my 11th gen Intel CPU but it was definitely not as easy as it should've been.
I used https://github.com/datasone/setup_var.efi to modify the UEFI variables. The README has all the info you'd need. It turns out that both a BIOS and microcode update is required to kill off this feature, and you could just configure the BIOS to not lock it.
I'm also a pretty strong inclusionist at heart, but I can see also that if the living-person rules were relaxed, self-aggrandisement would proliferate like crazy. Even under the current, slightly deletionist, status-quo in a 10000 word article about some random academic (1), who is going to fact check all that spew and edit it down? The answer on that page is "no-one, for years"(2). And that's with lots of references, even if they are all his own papers and therefore not secondary sources.
Now what would the millions of articles about every TikTok influencer look like?
And then the same goes for products and companies. Every scam Kickstarter and onanistic startup would get a massive screed.
And then it all sits and rots forever once the academic retires, the influencer gets a real job, the Kickstarter vanishes and the startup folds, because no one else cares. But someone has to go around and fix the links and update templates and generally expend effort indefinitely.
On top of all that, while the article creator is still around, because the article is actually an advert, any attempt to edit it into a more encyclopaedic article is disproportionately likely to cause drama that burns up volunteer time and effort.
(2): Especially as many people actually good enough at collating and editing encyclopedic articles about subjects that aren't about their own media-based hobbies quickly decide Wikipedia isn't a very fun place to do that any more.
> Especially as many people actually good enough at collating and editing encyclopedic articles about subjects that aren't about their own media-based hobbies quickly decide Wikipedia isn't a very fun place to do that any more.
That cuts both ways. IMO Wikipedia has lost a lot of contributors by banning fun and disallowing the topics that people found interesting.
My comment is more of a tangent along people/products but certainly I agree in that I don't see why the wider Wikimedia group of sites including things like Wikibooks needed to completely evict "fun" content, even if I personally don't think it should be in some language's Wikipedia itself.
Not least, you can crosslink between Wikimedia sites, so you could just link to [[fans:Digimon:Whatevermon]] and have the content "nearby" in digital terms without drawing it under the same notability and sourcing guidelines as an article on benzene, say.
Which as you say would keep the (often very, perhaps to a fault) keen contributor to the fandom in the Wikimedia tent and might encourage them to contribute to Wikipedia and related sites as well.
Then again, the auxiliary Wikimedia sites are pretty neglected by the parent foundation which has more important things on its mind much of the time, mostly fundraising and finding novel ways to spend that money.
It's a shame all the cool stuff is all hidden in a white box, but I suppose it does look a bit like a Hollywood depiction of a homemade nuclear bomb so the British Transport Police would be getting a few panicked calls if it were in a perspex box.
There's also no step-free access at South Kensington or Gloucester Road, so that must be a fun struggle for a grad student!
It's a fun theory, and sounds rather plausible at first blush, but do so many of the upper management class really have so many commercial real estate investments that they're willing to break the effectiveness of their core business?
I know of at least one company with an RTO drive but leased the office, and the land owner doesn't have external shareholders. Also the company paid for quite a snack supply, so backsides in seats actively cost a relatively small but still not trivial amount of money.
there’s at least some municipalities that are essentially bribing employers with tax incentives to RTO to prop up dependent businesses like restaurants.
It could be a non metric cost vs a metric cost. They RTO and deadlines slip but they can blame that on anything. Versus losses on the balance sheet from real estate holdings. I don’t necessarily think the real estate theory is right, but I do think calculations like that happen all the time by tech execs.
There is obviously not something conspiratorial here since crossing the conspiracy would have such value for an individual company.
I think though there is a network of decision makers that when you take into account this high dimension of decision variables, there is an emergent alignment of self interest towards the office.
I work for a very small company and of course no one comes into the office. We are small enough and lack enough of those variables that we don't have to perform this office theater like bigger firms. The bigger firms don't really have a choice when you sum all the inputs.
I imagine Fujitsu did everything they could to put only loyal management on the stand.
They did call the Fujitsu chief architect, who is now under investigation for perjury for his efforts (and I also imagine Fujitsu are less going to try to throw him under the bus and more have a tungsten bus dropped on him from orbit)
I don't think the Post Office debacle features, but at the end of the Secret Barrister(1), a hypothetical example is given where the many critical systemic failings described in the book align to get an innocent person found guilty and imprisoned. It's pretty close to what actually happened to the subpostmasters (but for assault rather then fraud).
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Barrister. It's very good and all you can say after reading it is "Jesus, I just hope I stay lucky enough to never get involved in the courts". I don't think anything has improved since 2018.
That’s the thing. There’s a ton of grifters and/or idiots in the compliance space. If you talk to an actual lawyer that specializes in SOX litigation, or similar, you’ll find that many of the measures your compliance or fake-infosec people are telling you that you have to do aren’t actually required by any law or regulation.
I like this description of having major problems with GDPR as usually either being because you actually are abusing people's data, or because you've run up a huge pile of technical debt related to data handling: https://reddragdiva.dreamwidth.org/606812.html
> 12. There is never a single right solution. There are always multiple wrong ones, though.
I'm not sure simple arithmetic is really the focus there, though I suppose "2²" is a good an answer to "what is 2 + 2" as "4".
The real right answer is of course "can't say without knowing what the field is that we're operating in".
https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html