Earlier quoted context omitted.
A post to the Truth Social account for Donald Trump included: "The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!" That's the closest thing I'm finding. Not seeing reporting that he literally said "war is peace".
That sounds more like "peace through superior firepower" rather than "war is peace".
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
101–110 of 174 posts
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#1021. Sociopaths don't recruit. They build fiefdoms and leverage social ties. How many times have you seen a random guy making minimum wage become senior management? Almost never. The exception to this is people who are hired to be in the running for senior management who are moved all over the company at a fast pace to get the lay of the land.
2. Losers are sociopaths who do not have the birthright to be sociopaths. Put the other way around, sociopaths are losers born into valuable social ties. Their natures are the same. Power corrupts. Most people never learn what they become with power. The clueless are the strange ones, the glue that holds everyone together and keeps the lights on.
3. As the author says, gametalk is obtuse discussion distinguished by the stakes involved. That is normal human social patterns, only distinguished by the stakes. If direct, straightforward discussion was the norm, we wouldn't need to use adjectives for it. The clueless are once again the outliers of the organization. The stakes and who gets to use them are the dividing line once again.
It's hard to think that most people are so selfish they would throw their group and others under the bus for benefits, but if you look for it, you will see it everywhere. Most people do not have the ability to exercise enough power to make it obvious.
Think about Resume Driven Development. Half of it is clueless people genuinely excited for Brand New Thing, but what about the rest? They know that in five years, companies will demand ten years of experience in Brand New Thing. So what do they do? They push for Brand New Thing wherever they can. This lets them accumulate leverage for their next job. Who does this hurt? Their company and everyone who has to deal with their Ball of Mud when they leave. This is the moral equivalent of some senior manager taking short-term gains at long-term loss to grab a fat bonus and fail upwards into another company.
I really enjoyed the series, but it has the same problems as other realpolitik subjects. Clueless will grab onto it thinking they can become the next Alexander the Great or Jeff Bezos and make a fool of themselves. The essential ingredients are never spoken out loud, and topics like this are always gross oversimplifications by their very nature.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#103See the Scott Alexander review: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-pri...
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#104Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#105Okay, so then — who gets squeezed more by AI: the clueless or the losers?
losers, clueless never had to be productive, just scapegoats. But now losers dont get that buffer window to try and become sociopaths, they just dont get hired at all.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#106Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
A post to the Truth Social account for Donald Trump included: "The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!" That's the closest thing I'm finding. Not seeing reporting that he literally said "war is peace".
That sounds more like "peace through superior firepower" rather than "war is peace".
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
and then I'd show him a news broadcast from last week, where the president of the United States of America literally said "War is peace".
Is the use of "literally" here, and the use of quotes, meant to be taken literally (as in, he literally said this)? Or is this the sense of "literally" which actually means "figuratively"?
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#109Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#110See the Scott Alexander review: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-pri...
Scott took it too literally. See also how the broader rationalist community took issue with Sam Kriss for inventing a not-obviously-fake historical figure. The biggest takeaway for me is that you shouldn't expect to succeed as a manager by meeting (or exceeding) KPIs. It's about as effective as being a "nice guy" and expecting intimacy in return. The KPIs are there for assigning blame, not for identifying key personn…