This is actually news, and sort of important.

But the article above has 300 points.//?

As a business person, nobody would [buy/use] exchange if it was not reasonably secure from an audit trail perspective. The intergrity of the communications is required for many business's who have record retention policy and what not.

Think about an analogy for a bank's accounting system that allowed audit trails to be compromised. Its a huge problem for the purchasing people and the managerial layer that has to sign off on sarbox etc.

Cites obama admin source

byline By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 2, 2015

24 hours before

Netanyahu’s Full Speech Before Congress, Mar. 3, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/10000000354782...

(2) The leak to the NYT about the server that broke this story appeared has been originated by the Obama administration. They were seeking to clip her wings as whispers about her policy differences with the Obama administration were circulating on Iran. Once HRC became such a sure thing she was inevitable as POTUS it would rended BSO an early lame duck, and on policy in the middle east where the two differ, would create issues for obama establishing a legacy. Obama now has the ability to pardon her (or in the actual turn of events, the Justice granted 'stonetear' limited immunity and killed a looming FBI indictment).

So both of these narratives play into a deeper and more complex game existing in DC than any sound bite or talking point proffered from a PR agency will attest.

As to the concept of a market externality, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you just mean "uncaptured incentives", well surely there are myriads. But the bigger point is that this is not a simple solution. You cannot re-solve the maths as per a case of omitted variable bias.

The reason that this is so may be intuively grasped with an example. Let us posit that rent-seeking is a behavioral consequence of 'opportunistic' principals. And that rent seeking public policy architects are inevitable, because our politician is opportunistic (qua politician--behavioral assumption).

OK, but now I've just made mess for EMH, and this is why EMH has an 'H' in its name. Because general economic theory requires that we assume away several things we just introduced. And if you understand EMH you understand why having opportunistic, strongly authorized, unrestrained public policy makers is a problem. Namely, (1) they hold private information (outside emh); and (2) they are free to play zero-sum dynamic games with market participants; and (3) they can charge economic rents by implementing a 'protection racket' scheme whereby donor/lobbyists avoid (large) zero-sum losses by taking (smaller) zero-sum losses that benefit the policy holder (so called diversions).

Lets hope its just one of those shitty translations of 'real science' being lost in translation when subjected to a journalist-friendly press release.

Theres 40 years of data using humans. Nobody doubts that dial sope or other similar soaps is safe in any meaningful sense. The science in this argument is being lost.

If these were legitimate tests they would have been done years ago and there would not be the various exemptions in this policy declaration.

I will insert the caveat here that I'm not a fan of everyday use of anti-bacterials. I also don't doubt that using anti-bacterials and prbably more importantly anti-biotics and various endocrine influencing chemicals and plastics with loose regard for the environment has negative impacts on society.

I think kids should eat dirt, assuming it's clean dirt, etc. They are made to handle the stuff that nature thows at them.

OCD people, and their kids, are a huge problem in society and should be dealt with, but this is not 'science based' public policy at all.

Its like asking someone to prove a negatve, which is absurd in many contexts. "why did something not happen" does not have a finite, knowable answer in the vast majority of contexts.

nah, you're mis reading this. the issue is continuity. most people will never become successful because of hyper-competetion and the need for continuity (ie, being in the game). You don't see that many michael jordan career sabbaticals among the great athletes either. And obviously being a great athlete takes loads of work, but not each effort is the same contribution obviously either. But great athletes have a very short window to prove themselves as junior/early pro players, and 95%and fewer in the talen pool will never take a "sabbatical" from the NFL (or whatever league/sport) and get their job back with no questions asked...its cut throat enough as it is for a bench/roster seat.

Then, there are people who are so successful in terms of their brand and personal networks etc that they can dabble in and out of various projects at will. But that is not your typical junior partner or junior parent or early-career stage founder. At least not realistically.

"less attention has been paid to the question of how to manage those workers on the opposite side of the spectrum: those who are harmful to organizational performance."

Which is complete rubbish--GE placed a huge focus on doing performance reviews and culling the "bottom 10%". A practcice which started a trend (called forced ranking) that grew to include many of the fortune 500, in cluding perhaps famously Microsoft.

Its either a bafflingly careless omission or a cynical gesture to pretend this topic is somehow "under the radar" in business school or corporate HR departments.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10684108

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10663203

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654739

Points: 2

# Comments: 0