Small correction, but there are actually four states (CA being one of them) where you can avoid law school by what is called “reading the law”. It entails more or less doing an apprenticeship with a practicing attorney or judge and meeting certain requirements.
The bar needs to be broken out into separate tests that credential different aspects of practicing law. There's no reason a criminal attorney needs expertise on securities law unless they practice in that field.
Do any other nations do that? Much of the UK splits barristers (trial law) and solicitors (non-trial law) but I’m pretty sure that’s a historical relic not a designed split to make each easier to learn and practice.
Unrelated, but another interesting one is any non-admin contributors being able to add (and I believe update) secrets in a private repo for use in GH actions. It can’t be done via the UI, but can be done via the API or VSCode extension.
When I looked into it a while back, apparently it is intended behavior, which just seems odd.
You're saying there's a github API that takes as an argument a secret, and creates a git commit containing that secret? I'm very surprised. Can you provide a reference to the API call?
To clarify, it doesn’t create a commit and is only usable within actions. I have always used the GH action VSCode extension for it, but I believe from the API, you would call the below endpoint using a classic/non-fine grained PAT that has the “repo” grant.
I don’t think correlation = causation in your anecdote. Care to provide some examples of people who were “cured” of Crohns through diet alone?
I have had Crohns for nearly four years with it in remission for the last two years. Diet and other lifestyle changes did slightly improve symptoms, but the only things that have yielded profound change were Inflectra and prednisone.
I think for those who have Crohns bad enough where they’re facing surgeries or being on a biologic for quite some time, diet alone isn’t going to fix the damage inflammation has already done.
Curing with diet is very difficult because if your gut microbiome goes too far out of wack then it can be impossible to get it back in balance even with nasty antibiotics.
However, there should be more focus on prevention and healthy eating.
You hit the nail on the head, but think aside from information being more accessible to analyze/share when it isn’t classified/there isn’t a need to protect sensitive sources and methods, is the benefit vis-a-vis translations.
Finding native speakers of languages like Chinese, Russian, Farsi, etc. who are also eligible/want to have a clearance is a challenge (it’s expensive and self-limiting, since US citizenship is a requirement).
Training people already cleared in those languages takes a ton of time, expensive, and yields linguists with mixed-usefulness (think understanding formal Spanish taught in highschool versus Spanish actually spoken amongst peers/friends). There’s slang, intonations, etc. that non-native speakers have to spend time learning/may misunderstand.
In other words, OSINT has a much larger talent pool that yield arguably/presumably better translations.
Funny enough, BBSs were the way many of the players on WoW servers pre-cross realm would communicate/flame each other outside the actual game.
When I started online gaming with an old multiplayer tank game called Tanarus, we used Usenet. With EverQuest we used EZBoard, then with WoW it was many times the server’s board on the official WoW forums.
While I’m sure there’s a bit of nostalgia shading the memories, I made a lot of friends and great memories!
I think we lost something with demise of BBSs that the Internet was never able to replace. It's one of those things where one technology is better in almost every way, but something gets permanently lost in the transition. One analogy would be the upgrade from vinyl to CD/Digital music.
Disney Animation Studios (not Pixar) has made three movies in the last ten years that are among the highest grossing movies of all time (Frozen, Zootopia, and Frozen II).
In terms of quality, anecdotally two of my personal favorite Disney movies ever were done by them within that timespan as well (Moana and Encanto).
My impression has been that the gap between Disney Animation Studios and Pixar has drastically narrowed.
Sorry I wasn't super clear. I was replying to "the gap between Disney Animation Studios and Pixar has drastically narrowed", and commenting that the reason this happened is because from 2006 it was Pixar management in charge of Disney animation. Ed Catmull and John Lasseter brought over the lessons and management style that they had learned at Pixar and thus changed how Disney animation was run. So for instance they created a Disney "Story Trust" to provide feedback to directors in the same vein as the Pixar "Brain Trust". They also removed an oversight committee at Disney that was charged with keeping all film projects on budget, but in their view was holding back the film-making. i.e. the two studios are not as distinct and independent as it appears people are suggesting.
Having had worked in DC much of my career, more specifically within the IC, I think more likely they believe in a general utilitarian philosophy that “the ends justify the means”.
It is a common Western world view to begin with, but my personal observation is it is especially common in the grayer professions of the world.
Took me personally reaching a point in life and asking the big question “do they really?” or in my case, “doesn’t it matter how you get to those ends, too?” before my own worldview/choice of profession began to shift.
The impact on public morale when your “necessary” actions are discovered is an outcome too.
I find people who say “the ends justify the means” tend to ignore outcomes of their actions which don’t support their desired bad behavior — and generally completely ignore higher-order effects, such as the corruption of the US IC undermining the US rule of law in a way no foreign adversary ever could.
I don’t think US IC members have the wisdom to know what ends come from their means — they just shut their eyes, utter the catechism, and commit illegal acts that undermine the US.
Imho, A Few Good Men is a great movie because, especially for 1992, it spoke directly to those gray areas.
About ten years later, after 9/11, the US established Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where in 2023 there are still people (32?) held outside of normal legal processes.
I would expect that the 32 remaining, out of almost 800 total, are a clear threat to the United States.
But is it right to keep them there? What are the moral implications of the rest of America looking away while ugly work is done with their authority and in their name?
Colonel Jessep isn't 100% wrong (Santiago's death may have saved lives, but his death shouldn't have happened), and Lt Kaffee isn't 100% right (Jessep broke the law, but people are not owed unvarnished truth without earning it).
Everyone's who's worked for a large corporation, even outside the IC, knows that many things are done in that grey area, with the expectation bosses would deny asking someone to do it. See the recent news about Union Pacific train wheel bearing inspections being pressured to pass.
To me, the balance of any system is accepting an optimal level of corruption/abuse, in order to permit efficient functioning. Grease lets things slip, yet also decreases friction.
It's ugly, sad, and terrible... but also necessary. A perfectly enforced code of laws would rapidly implode any country in the world, because it wouldn't leave room for interpretation and exceptions.
Sure — but that’s already substantially back-pedaling from “the ends justify the means” as a general policy.
And by that same argument, arbitrarily lynching some of the corrupt actors — despite knowing that everyone is operating in such gray areas and such things are necessary — is the counterbalancing force to that necessary corruption. The tension and friction which makes it work. You define the gray area through those prosecutions at the edges.
Each foray into the gray zone becomes a risk — and so only the necessary ones are made, rather than normalizing a culture of corruption.
Without that, you have all slip and no stick, so the machine falls apart. Which is what we see in the US IC (and businesses): too much lubricating corruption; not enough punishment. Taken too far “out of tolerance”, the machine becomes broken or even dangerous to keep operating — and so must be replaced entirely.
If you want to tell me you have the wisdom to operate in such gray areas, then you should be aware of that necessary reality too.
Similar background, and I think it goes beyond an explicit "ends justify the means" analysis. Most of them think they are the Avengers, and anything they do is definitionally Good and Patriotic because they are the one doing it.
And in most cases, the good they are doing is quite tangible while the downsides (especially around due process, privacy, and other non-tangibles) are often quite abstract.
Certainly a fair point on mindset and I’m sure it will vary depending on where you work. I generally agree with you, but wonder if the viewpoints we each described are not mutually exclusive.
The viewpoint you are describing sounds along the lines of “good vs. bad”, “us vs. them”, “black vs. white”. I guess the viewpoint I mentioned is more describing how one consciously or unconsciously reconciles/reaches congruence between their actions and value system.
In other words, one part answers the “why” we do what we do and the other answers the “how do we feel ok with what we did”.
At least from my background, there were no illusions that many things we did would be considered of questionable morality or destructive in just about any other circumstances.
That then brings about the philosophical question I think your perspective ultimately answers, which is “this is wrong, but…sometimes doing wrong things can also be right or less wrong than the alternatives”.
Just to add, I especially agree regarding downsides. Aside from being abstract, the relationship between cause and effect may be murky or seemingly non-existent.
I am not sure that I agree life is quite as black and white to where that maxim can always hold true.
I think we can agree that intent/means used to achieve an outcome certainly do matter (more deonotological/Kantian philosophical worldview), but I do believe that consequences/outcomes of action and/or inaction certainly matter as well.
All sorts of mental gymnastics we could go through as to my reasoning, but I try to be cautious in accepting strict maxims as absolute truths.
Otherwise known as lying. IMO, lying crosses the line to “gaslighting” when the intent is to make the person feel as though their perception is wrong or they’re going crazy.
Think people have gotten a bit silly with their overuse of the term. Most people lie out of self-preservation or as a defense mechanism, not to intentionally harm the other person (although it may still have that effect),
Why can’t they? Sure, they can’t just call up the FBI or other US law enforcement agencies and refer the matter.
However, they can absolutely use the threat of disclosure of sensitive information to blackmail or otherwise coerce someone. The threat (real or perceived) many times is worse than the reality.
I’d say they each have the capability to cause harm, but the incentives/motivations/safeguards that might drive (or inhibit) them to do so are drastically different.
It is not "just as much a problem in the US". China's treatment of dissidents is far, far worse than the US's. It's not even close. Every reputable political ranking organization, from Freedom House to The Economist, confirms this.
Are you planning to be equivalent in notoriety/influence as Martin Luther King Jr? If not, the motivation/incentives for domestic law enforcement to target you aren’t really there. It would be a waste of their time and finite resources.
The PRC has a bit different motivations/incentives and theirs are not aligned with a perceived U.S. national security interest.
Whether you and I agree with the US national security apparatus's mission, in my opinion, it is at least more oriented towards safeguarding/promoting the US’ self-interest.
That’s not to say I agree with all of its actions, just trying to explain what I mean when I say there is difference in motivations and incentives.
There is a bit more to the requirement than the company being owned by a woman, namely the requirements for women to be in control of the day to day operations of the business.
It is a similar requirement for veteran owned small businesses and I imagine “gaming” this would be tantamount to fraud.
About as far as I’ve seen be acceptable for “gaming” things is to use a joint venture that is 51% owned/controlled by whatever interest group (e.g., veteran, women, disadvantaged, all of the above, etc.).
Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s not a common occurrence from my experience (15+ years active duty, as government employee, and working for a contractor on the actual contract/BD side).
Yeah, see my other comment here, but you make a good point about the definition of "owned" - it can't just be a name, it has to be a legally binding level of control over the operation s and finances. Unfortunately there's not really any standard metric for that which is enforceable.
Claiming a preference can be fraud, and is often abused, but... in reality, nobody's really checking unless there's a justifiable reason to. Not that I'm endorsing such fraud, and you're right, 51% is usually the safe way to go, but many LLC type setups don't have any easy way to help determine that. It's really quite time consuming and intrusive to determine "control" as the person writing or signing the contract. It's very much based on the assumption of honesty, unless there's some clear indication otherwise (and yes, due diligence is performed and documented, at least to some extent - it isn't just a Google search for "companies that sell widgets near me").
For an extreme example, I won't know that a company is a sweatshop using undocumented drug addicted children if their representations and warranties documentation says they don't.
Of course, and you are right on many/most accounts.
However, it is worth mentioning that it is definitely a dangerous game to play, even if the government doesn’t do anything.
Government contracting world is pretty cut throat and all it takes is a competitor, a partner, or an employee catching wind of the foul play and you make your company pretty vulnerable to a few things:
1) extortion for work share (e.g., a partner company threatening to out you to the contracting officer if they don’t give more work share % or some other form of monetary compensation)
2) A competitor contesting the contract award due to the awarded company not meeting the set aside requirements. This can be very costly and lead to the government being forced to look into things more thoroughly. It’s also public record and could seriously damage a company’s reputation in perpetuity.
3) A company employee filing a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act. This can lead to at best, a costly settlement, and at worse, repaying the government even after the work has already been performed.
Oh yeah, if someone else catches wind and argues, you're screwed as a contractor unless you can back it all up well. This is the dark side, the crab bucket, which often results in "the big guys" getting the contract in the end.
One simple example is a time I was trying to by doors. Simple doors, no special requirements, just doors, materials and installation, with knobs requiring a keyed access. The chosen provider bid properly, gave their description of key control and associated maintenance ("who has keys and what happens if we lose the keys"). Small business, local, etc. won the award. Competitor had a fit and submitted (after award) significant proof that the winning bidder was falsifying their minority owned status and had changed their business name several times to avoid previous poor past performance marks. TLDR the complainant was right, and eventually won the award.
It doesn't take a lot to get ruined, so please, just be honest. If you aren't, someone will know.
