Every time I change a shitty diaper I turn into Joseph Jostar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-3GOo_nWoc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-3GOo_nWoc
Look here, you: We burned your whitehouse down once and we'll do it again.
...
Actually, that sounds like a good idea in general. You in (in minecraft)?
...
Actually, that sounds like a good idea in general. You in (in minecraft)?
I think you're right. We have so many people at desks when what we really need is boots on the ground doing stuff.
Really annoying when you have a whole chain of command above one guy who actually does the work.
Really annoying when you have a whole chain of command above one guy who actually does the work.
What if I told you that aerospace engineering and physics were two majors with the worst unemployment rates?
According to data from the New York federal reserve it's true, making them the 8th and 4th worst majors for getting a job.
It's important not to just yell "STEM! STEM! STEM!" because there's more to career success than just doing a science.
What matters isn't the designation of the field, it's whether you can use the education to find a job in a place you're willing to work and at a wage you're willing to accept.
According to data from the New York federal reserve it's true, making them the 8th and 4th worst majors for getting a job.
It's important not to just yell "STEM! STEM! STEM!" because there's more to career success than just doing a science.
What matters isn't the designation of the field, it's whether you can use the education to find a job in a place you're willing to work and at a wage you're willing to accept.
Yeah, just the fact that we exist is irrational in a supposedly perfectly ordered universe.
This post started out as something completely different, and I found this inside of it.
In some ways, rationality is the perfect friend of postmodernism, because once you start questioning the irrational grand narratives, you have to ask about the grandest narrative for an individual: "Why live at all?" and hear back "Why indeed?" -- In this postmodern era, many people are choosing to very rationally end it. To live is irrational.
Ultimately the sun will use up its hydrogen and enter a helium cycle, and when that happens it shall stop being a yellow dwarf and will change into a red giant, swallowing our little ball of dirt and everything our little ape race has ever loved. The universe is hyperrational. It has rules that it follows, has followed, will follow, and it won't bend them for anyone. That's part of the problem of trying to be rational, the universe is so rational the answers it gives are without value, meaning, or sense.
Except.
The dark night on a clear lake, Northern Lights dancing on sky and sea, and the same doomed sky fills you with awe, and that's irrational. I will remember this forever.
The warm sun and breathe the sweet forest air, that same doomed sun makes you feel serene joy, and that's irrational. I will enjoy this all day.
The newborn's happy smile, that same doomed future blinds you it's so bright, and that's irrational. I will protect this smile.
It's the only way to live.
You can't logically derive your way to a good life. I need to listen to my heart and my gut.
How can something so beautiful make you cry? How can something so tragic make me laugh? Quit trying to understand it.
We're nuts. Have a little irrational faith.
Don't get me wrong -- irrationality is where you can find the deep meaning of life, but rationality is where you make the decisions to be able to get out there and enjoy it. Sit at home eating cake and playing video games all day because it feels good, and you're embracing your irrational desires, but you do need to plan for the future. You rational self is the one that keeps your irrational self from jumping off of buildings "because maybe I can fly today?", and makes sure there's grain for next season. To achieve what your irrational heart desires, you need to do what your rational brain demands at times.
We can't live on bread alone.
Ultimately the sun will use up its hydrogen and enter a helium cycle, and when that happens it shall stop being a yellow dwarf and will change into a red giant, swallowing our little ball of dirt and everything our little ape race has ever loved. The universe is hyperrational. It has rules that it follows, has followed, will follow, and it won't bend them for anyone. That's part of the problem of trying to be rational, the universe is so rational the answers it gives are without value, meaning, or sense.
Except.
The dark night on a clear lake, Northern Lights dancing on sky and sea, and the same doomed sky fills you with awe, and that's irrational. I will remember this forever.
The warm sun and breathe the sweet forest air, that same doomed sun makes you feel serene joy, and that's irrational. I will enjoy this all day.
The newborn's happy smile, that same doomed future blinds you it's so bright, and that's irrational. I will protect this smile.
It's the only way to live.
You can't logically derive your way to a good life. I need to listen to my heart and my gut.
How can something so beautiful make you cry? How can something so tragic make me laugh? Quit trying to understand it.
We're nuts. Have a little irrational faith.
Don't get me wrong -- irrationality is where you can find the deep meaning of life, but rationality is where you make the decisions to be able to get out there and enjoy it. Sit at home eating cake and playing video games all day because it feels good, and you're embracing your irrational desires, but you do need to plan for the future. You rational self is the one that keeps your irrational self from jumping off of buildings "because maybe I can fly today?", and makes sure there's grain for next season. To achieve what your irrational heart desires, you need to do what your rational brain demands at times.
We can't live on bread alone.
Regulations, and particularly the codes and standards incorporated into regulations, aren't treated the same as laws often, you can't see them without spending a lot of money. It's one of the things postmodern bureaucracy did that breaks democracy. Doesn't matter who you vote for if the MPs or congressmen aren't making the bulk of the rules.
In many jurisdictions, you need to be compliant with certain standards that aren't government regulations to be compliant with the laws and regulations. That could be the ISO or IEC in Europe, and it appears that the BSI and IET in England are responsible for electrical codes, the NFPA in the US, or CSA in Canada. These organizations typically are not government organizations. Their codes and standards are incorporated by reference into regulations, rather than directly stated as rules directly.
As an example, if you think the Canadian Electrical Code is too draconian, there is no party you can vote for in parliament that will ever change the Canadian Electrical Code, because parliament doesn't write the Canadian Electrical Code, the CSA does.
Although the law out of congress or parliaments are always public, the regulations of specific government departments may or may not be public(but usually is available), and the code or standards those regulations incorporate aren't public (in the sense that you must purchase a licensed copy), and the specifics of how the regulation is applied by a certain bureaucrat exists only in that bureaucrat's head.
It's also important to realize that often, the codes and standards that are private and copyrighted make up a substantial bulk of the actual regulation. A regulation incorporating a few CSA standards may be a few dozen pages, but the referenced CSA standards may be cumulatively hundreds or thousands of pages long, meaning that most of the law effectively isn't the law itself, or even the regulation itself, but the hidden part.
Since the majority of the rules are not produced by the government, and the government has no way of changing those parts of the rules, voting can't affect the majority of the rules in government, and it's even challenging for the courts since the courts mainly have jurisdiction in rules written by parts of the government.
Codes and Standards can have the force of law behind them when they are adopted by regulators, meaning they effectively are the law, but they aren't laws because they aren't created like laws or treated like laws. A non-government body uses whatever methods it likes to create the codes, and it isn't anything like what we'd consider government.
Typically, while regulations directly created by a regulatory agency will be subject to some form of review (at least internal review, if not public review), codes and standards are the creation and the property of the non-profit that creates it, and typically won't be up for debate per se.
You can't sue the body that created the codes because you don't like the code in the same way you can challenge unjust laws directly, I suspect there'd be a problem with standing where they don't owe you anything since they're "just" the creators of codes and standards that are treated as law, but which are not law themselves. The lawsuits you found consisted of the private not for profit protecting its copyright and someone suing the CSA because of an employment dispute. Peripheral issues such as these are not relelvant to the discussion of the nature of codes and standards in the context of their use as regulations. That's the reason I brought up the ampacity of a wire, because that's an example of an actual code or standard, and something aimed at the CSA challenging a regulation like that would be highly relevant to the discussion.
The nature of a bureaucratic process is such that an order from a bureaucrat isn't like a charge in court, there's typically no lawyer involved, you just get the demand and typically you're expected to comply, and that's the expected process. Get a different bureaucrat on a different day, and you'll get a different order, or the opposite order, or no order at all.
Besides the regulations that are written down, there's the stuff the regulator will just tell you to do without really having any basis for it but if you don't do what they tell you you're gonna get in trouble, and with one sentence written on a piece of paper (more likely send as a pdf file these days) they can cost you millions. -- This is just a reality of dealing with a bureaucracy. Its a separate issue from the codes, but can be related in that the code which was created in a sort of arbitrary way is then interpreted by the local agent of the regulator who is just an employee. You can have the regulator tell you to do all kinds of things, and often it isn't really feasible to go "I need a lawyer!" because there isn't really anything to sue over -- Although of the three countries only the US has Chevron deference that gives wide latitude to regulators, typically a regulator acting within their mandate is going to be given some level of deference in all three countries. That why I said "That's not how this works. This isn't a courtroom, you've got a regulatory order in front of you, sit down shut up and do what we tell you."
If you are charged with something in court and they say "we're going to prove you are in violation of X and then mandate you to fix it" there is a process that is due to you to question whether they're right (and that standard can be different in a civil or criminal context, but there is a standard, be it 51% or 90%). If you're given an order by an inspector, you could use different processes to appeal and ultimately even sue, but it's a much different process and arguing isn't built into the process in the same way. Even for a multinational corporation, they'll follow the order, even if it's a relatively big deal to do so. Either way, it's not likely you'll be able to argue your way out of following a code or standard that's been adopted in a certain way even if it's a little unreasonable, or if the code or standard isn't really clear whereas in a courtroom you at least have stare decisis and so once a decision has been made that's the rule.
So the world is not a courtroom, and a lawyer isn't going to often be very effective in situations where it's unlikely for any disagreements to make it as far as litigation.
For more examples of how bureaucrats can poke their fingers into things and recourse is challenging and likely not even going to come up even with respect to mega-corps, look at all the government actors that we now know had their fingers in twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. They made their request, and it was somewhat extra-legal, and it was definitely unlawful under the US constitution, but they did it anyway and they got their way and the company didn't even try to fight any of it because the world isn't a courtroom.
The opaque nature of this whole system means a few things. First, it's largely opaque to the democratic republican or parliamentary forms of government because the majority of the rules are not created by any government actor. Second, because it's opaque, it isn't managed or controlled by anyone in charge. Third, because of the nature of bureaucratic rule making, it tends to grow and become stricter and larger over time as more reasons to add more rules show up. Finally, because it tends to get stricter and larger in an uncontrolled manner, you end up with situations where entire industries are in some degree of regulatory gridlock, such as the housing industry, which has led to housing costing insane amounts around the developed world.
There's 2 options, I think. Some bureaucracies ultimately topple themselves over and take their empires with them. Other times, another force with equal appeal is able to help curb the bureaucrats. They can do some good work and have brought about good times in many eras, but left to their own devices they are quite conservative (not necessarily politically, but practically) and institutional conservatism can end an institution.
I think it's safe to blame the end of the Chinese empire on bureaucracy to an extent. It obviously wasn't a direct factor, but the intense conservatism led them to turn away the English who had technology centuries ahead of anything China had, and if they were more interested in the outside world then they may not have been so badly humbled by the outside world they neglected.
Hopefully, political reforms come in the future to release the stranglehold the bureaucratic state has on our civilization. Otherwise our kids may not be the same stuff as we are, as another civilization wins culturally.
In many jurisdictions, you need to be compliant with certain standards that aren't government regulations to be compliant with the laws and regulations. That could be the ISO or IEC in Europe, and it appears that the BSI and IET in England are responsible for electrical codes, the NFPA in the US, or CSA in Canada. These organizations typically are not government organizations. Their codes and standards are incorporated by reference into regulations, rather than directly stated as rules directly.
As an example, if you think the Canadian Electrical Code is too draconian, there is no party you can vote for in parliament that will ever change the Canadian Electrical Code, because parliament doesn't write the Canadian Electrical Code, the CSA does.
Although the law out of congress or parliaments are always public, the regulations of specific government departments may or may not be public(but usually is available), and the code or standards those regulations incorporate aren't public (in the sense that you must purchase a licensed copy), and the specifics of how the regulation is applied by a certain bureaucrat exists only in that bureaucrat's head.
It's also important to realize that often, the codes and standards that are private and copyrighted make up a substantial bulk of the actual regulation. A regulation incorporating a few CSA standards may be a few dozen pages, but the referenced CSA standards may be cumulatively hundreds or thousands of pages long, meaning that most of the law effectively isn't the law itself, or even the regulation itself, but the hidden part.
Since the majority of the rules are not produced by the government, and the government has no way of changing those parts of the rules, voting can't affect the majority of the rules in government, and it's even challenging for the courts since the courts mainly have jurisdiction in rules written by parts of the government.
Codes and Standards can have the force of law behind them when they are adopted by regulators, meaning they effectively are the law, but they aren't laws because they aren't created like laws or treated like laws. A non-government body uses whatever methods it likes to create the codes, and it isn't anything like what we'd consider government.
Typically, while regulations directly created by a regulatory agency will be subject to some form of review (at least internal review, if not public review), codes and standards are the creation and the property of the non-profit that creates it, and typically won't be up for debate per se.
You can't sue the body that created the codes because you don't like the code in the same way you can challenge unjust laws directly, I suspect there'd be a problem with standing where they don't owe you anything since they're "just" the creators of codes and standards that are treated as law, but which are not law themselves. The lawsuits you found consisted of the private not for profit protecting its copyright and someone suing the CSA because of an employment dispute. Peripheral issues such as these are not relelvant to the discussion of the nature of codes and standards in the context of their use as regulations. That's the reason I brought up the ampacity of a wire, because that's an example of an actual code or standard, and something aimed at the CSA challenging a regulation like that would be highly relevant to the discussion.
The nature of a bureaucratic process is such that an order from a bureaucrat isn't like a charge in court, there's typically no lawyer involved, you just get the demand and typically you're expected to comply, and that's the expected process. Get a different bureaucrat on a different day, and you'll get a different order, or the opposite order, or no order at all.
Besides the regulations that are written down, there's the stuff the regulator will just tell you to do without really having any basis for it but if you don't do what they tell you you're gonna get in trouble, and with one sentence written on a piece of paper (more likely send as a pdf file these days) they can cost you millions. -- This is just a reality of dealing with a bureaucracy. Its a separate issue from the codes, but can be related in that the code which was created in a sort of arbitrary way is then interpreted by the local agent of the regulator who is just an employee. You can have the regulator tell you to do all kinds of things, and often it isn't really feasible to go "I need a lawyer!" because there isn't really anything to sue over -- Although of the three countries only the US has Chevron deference that gives wide latitude to regulators, typically a regulator acting within their mandate is going to be given some level of deference in all three countries. That why I said "That's not how this works. This isn't a courtroom, you've got a regulatory order in front of you, sit down shut up and do what we tell you."
If you are charged with something in court and they say "we're going to prove you are in violation of X and then mandate you to fix it" there is a process that is due to you to question whether they're right (and that standard can be different in a civil or criminal context, but there is a standard, be it 51% or 90%). If you're given an order by an inspector, you could use different processes to appeal and ultimately even sue, but it's a much different process and arguing isn't built into the process in the same way. Even for a multinational corporation, they'll follow the order, even if it's a relatively big deal to do so. Either way, it's not likely you'll be able to argue your way out of following a code or standard that's been adopted in a certain way even if it's a little unreasonable, or if the code or standard isn't really clear whereas in a courtroom you at least have stare decisis and so once a decision has been made that's the rule.
So the world is not a courtroom, and a lawyer isn't going to often be very effective in situations where it's unlikely for any disagreements to make it as far as litigation.
For more examples of how bureaucrats can poke their fingers into things and recourse is challenging and likely not even going to come up even with respect to mega-corps, look at all the government actors that we now know had their fingers in twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. They made their request, and it was somewhat extra-legal, and it was definitely unlawful under the US constitution, but they did it anyway and they got their way and the company didn't even try to fight any of it because the world isn't a courtroom.
The opaque nature of this whole system means a few things. First, it's largely opaque to the democratic republican or parliamentary forms of government because the majority of the rules are not created by any government actor. Second, because it's opaque, it isn't managed or controlled by anyone in charge. Third, because of the nature of bureaucratic rule making, it tends to grow and become stricter and larger over time as more reasons to add more rules show up. Finally, because it tends to get stricter and larger in an uncontrolled manner, you end up with situations where entire industries are in some degree of regulatory gridlock, such as the housing industry, which has led to housing costing insane amounts around the developed world.
There's 2 options, I think. Some bureaucracies ultimately topple themselves over and take their empires with them. Other times, another force with equal appeal is able to help curb the bureaucrats. They can do some good work and have brought about good times in many eras, but left to their own devices they are quite conservative (not necessarily politically, but practically) and institutional conservatism can end an institution.
I think it's safe to blame the end of the Chinese empire on bureaucracy to an extent. It obviously wasn't a direct factor, but the intense conservatism led them to turn away the English who had technology centuries ahead of anything China had, and if they were more interested in the outside world then they may not have been so badly humbled by the outside world they neglected.
Hopefully, political reforms come in the future to release the stranglehold the bureaucratic state has on our civilization. Otherwise our kids may not be the same stuff as we are, as another civilization wins culturally.
Oh cool, it's this season again.
Maybe WaPo writers should consider some Canadian healthcare? It's fantastic and carbon negative!
Maybe WaPo writers should consider some Canadian healthcare? It's fantastic and carbon negative!
No kidding. "I have two degrees and a certificate" great, but this isn't Pokemon, you don't gotta catch em all.
It occurred to me yesterday near the end of the day that it was April 1st, and I basically avoided dumb April fools posts all day.
11/10 best April 1st in a while.
11/10 best April 1st in a while.
Sometimes I think about the fact that some fediverse servers don't support reacts.
It's like... Why even live if you can't see my smiley react?
It's like... Why even live if you can't see my smiley react?
No chin and mma experience vs. chin and fediverse experience.
I'm winning the having a chin fight, but I'm taking one on the chin in a real fight.
I know my strengths and weaknesses.
I'm winning the having a chin fight, but I'm taking one on the chin in a real fight.
I know my strengths and weaknesses.
Every time I see Andrew Tate, I think "you can kick my ass, there's no doubt. But afterwards I will still have a chin, and you still won't."
SSS-Class suicide hunter sounds like a meme, but reading through it, it's actually a great use of the regressor mechanic. It's a story about the people, not the powers.