4 ms·
I know this was meant as a joke, but I can't resist the temptation to point out that this is a subtle misinterpretation of the Shirky principle (which I'm sure
by tpoacher 2y ago
I know this was meant as a joke, but I can't resist the temptation to point out that this is a subtle misinterpretation of the Shirky principle (which I'm sure you're probably already aware since this was probably meant as a joke :p ).
The Shirky principle doesn't necessarily say that companies will engage in malicious behaviour in this manner. It's mostly about how, consciously or not, they tend to focus on solutions that continually mitigate problems, but tend to ignore solutions that could forever eliminate those problems, thus ensuring that they remain relevant in the mitigation space rather than successfully eliminate the need for them to exist in the first place.
- ggm 2y agoSince they haven't found a horse thief since around 1907 I suspect they are looking assiduously but also carefully not where horse thieves actually are, within 20 miles of their courthouse. Therefore dutifully meeting the shirky principle in its finest sense. I work in a policy forming not-for-profit which was tendered a "no more policy" policy in 2011 and voted it down. I am sure that meets the definition for perpetual problem solving.