What made me happy today?

But ... how? Why? *confused* I don't know many senior politicians who are so open to the public. (Most of ours avoid the general public completely, until it's election time). Maybe things are different in the Czech Republic? :)

Good luck, DoctoreX! I don't know much about Petr (beyond what I've read about him in his wikipedia article, and who knows how accurate that is?) ... but based on the wiki-article, it sounds like I'd broadly agree with his stance on most issues.
It was a business conference about AI, so he was one of the guests talking about it. He is also ex-millitary (and we are close to Ukraine), so AI drones are right now a concern of the government too.
But yes - he is one of the most reasonable politicans I know.
 
DR? I'm confused.

To me, this sounds like ad hominem attacks getting out of hand. (Obviously)
 
I was legally accorded a plain and simple surname I'll never need to repeat, spell aloud, or explain. And a middle name to go with it.

Still Quaker(ish), but no longer ostentatiously so.

'Tis a gift to be simple, 'tis a gift to be free...
 
I try to suppress schadenfreude. Sometimes I succeed, yesterday I did not.

The global accounting firm, Deloitte, is losing a bunch of money in Australia.

The Australian federal government hired Deloitte to produce a report certifying the legality, precision, efficiency, and general wonderfulness of certain Australian government operations. I think the fees were around a half million.

Deloitte proudly delivered the report and initially defended it when nonbelievers pointed out a few flaws. The footnotes didn't make sense. One of the sources for the report was a lofty tome that unfortunately doesn't actually exist. Legal citations were either inappropriate or whole cloth fiction. A quote from an Australian federal judge gave great credence to the report as long as you overlook the fact the judge didn't actually say what the Deloitte report claimed.

In other words, it was artificial intelligence pulling artificial facts out of its artificial rectum. How charming.

Two months ago, Deloitte released a YouTube video bragging about their work with AI, saying that before AI their processes were an impediment to achieving their ambitions (Deloitte's word).

Enter AI.

It's all mildly hilarious until you consider another fact, which makes the shameful tale extremely hilarious.

The government function the report analyzed favorably was an automated welfare violations system.

Deloitte's AI, in what could be the world's first case of cross platform artificial conspiracy, praised Australia's AI.

I hope I never have to give a briefing at work about Deloitte's various scandals.

The company's full name is Deloitte and Touche. I can't help it. My spooneristic snark reflex kicks in and all I see is Toilet and Douche.

In the age of Enron, this would have destroyed them (D&T). Nowadays, I suppose the business world will shrug and say Sorry you got caught, better luck next time.
 
In the age of Enron, this would have destroyed them (D&T).

Ye gods, I still remember the Enron scandal ... and the Arthur Andersen scandal ... and the Kenneth Lay scandal. (Yes, Virginia; there was a time before 9/11). Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of crooks.

At least Kenneth Lay had the decency to resign and give himself a heart attack before he could be convicted. Jeffrey Skilling couldn't manage that.

(There's much more that I can say about Lay and Skilling, but never mind).

Nowadays, I suppose the business world will shrug and say Sorry you got caught, better luck next time.

Nah, any accounting firm that gets caught nowadays would simply write off their losses for tax, close down for a time, add yet another layer of thick, rich and greasy middle management, and re-open under a new name.

And if they're honest, the name would be something like this:

DEWEY, CHEATEM, AND HOWE
Defrauding the public since 1885

But I guess they won't get many clients like that. ;)
 
I was legally accorded a plain and simple surname I'll never need to repeat, spell aloud, or explain. And a middle name to go with it.

Still Quaker(ish), but no longer ostentatiously so.

'Tis a gift to be simple, 'tis a gift to be free...
The Quaker surname in my family line was Smith. About as unostentatious as one can get, I suppose. And not the easiest one to trace back.
‘Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be
 
My sister in law told me that while they were on an adventure the other day, my niece saw something she wanted me to have. It's a pretty decent sized crocheted kraken. Kiddo said it was like mine and it would match. She meant my Cthulhu tattoo that she's seen only a couple times. I know I talk about her a lot, but my niece makes my world a whole bunch better.
 
Simple Gifts originated as a Shaker song, not a Quaker song.

That's technically true, since the Shakers forked off from the Quakers in the mid-1700s — and first in England, close to a century after my forebears had already fled to made a strategic relocation to the New World — but simplicity always was and remains a core and explicit Quaker virtue, one the Shakers inherited rather than added. In other respects, Shaker beliefs are a radical departure that Quakers disapprove, but not in that one.
 
The song was written about 100 years later, so I'm giving full credit to the renegades.;)

Also true and just. But I nonetheless sing SG in secret. And tap my toe in public.

And renegade — that's the word I was looking for.
 
They're called Quakers and Shakers cause they live in constant fear of the big man. That's my theory.
 
'Tis a gift to be simple, 'tis a gift to be free...

This reminds me oh-so-much of a nonsense rhyme I learned as a teenager, when reading a book about Britain:

I'm proud to be British,
I'm glad that I'm free;
But I wish I was a little dog
and my taxman was a tree.


(I told you it was nonsense) 😊
 
Back
Top