On Friday, February 7, 2025 2:53:42 AM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2025-02-06T23:19:11-0700, dovencio.dosho...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:12:09 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Hi Soren, > > > > > > Thank you for the serious follow-up. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies > > > > that involve their employer. > > > > > > Here I must disagree. I think your statement is equivalent to > > > claiming that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an > > > ethical stance with a poor track record of producing socially > > > desirable outcomes.[1] > > > [...] > > > [1] > > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/18/trump-says-he-cant-> > > > > > hav > > > e-conflicts-of-interest-former-business-partner-says-otherwise/ > > > > How does this statement be equivalent to "there is no such thing as a > > conflict of interest?" > > It's impossible to say, because you dropped context essential for the > reader to comprehend the discussion. > > Let's trace the chain of references and antecedents. > > [you] "this statement" -> [me] "(I think) your statement" > [me] "your statement" -> [Soren] "This" > [Soren] "This" -> ???
Do you not know how an email chain works? I guarantee you that I'm younger then you yet for me, it is so simple no one had to explain it. > > How does the linked article support your opinion? > > That people can disclaim conflicts of interest even while possessing > them, which is a form of failing to disclose them. The events played in this article are not similar to this situation. In the situation in the article the Georgian partners see the conflict of interest but the president claims he has no conflict of interest. In this situation he states he has a conflict of interest. That's it. Nothing happens. No one has called him out for claiming otherwise. > > > > 2. It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose > > > > their connection to the company when discussing policies regarding > > > > that company. > > > > > > Then you and I disagree. I think Google employees/contractors are > > > conflicted out on decisions like the one Roberto raised. Whether > > > they support or oppose Roberto's stated position is immaterial. > > > > This isn't useful. > > Useful to what end? I offered an opinion, not a device or technique. You don't provide a reason why, if that is your opinion then you shouldn't care. > > You can simply choose not to trust what the person has to say and > > disclosing conflicts of interest would make it easier for you to not > > trust them. > > One could "simply" choose not to trust what a person has to say based on > their having blond hair or being shorter than 2 meters tall. Normally when people judge others on things that is out of their control is called bigotry. > It turns out that the concept of a conflict of interest is, contrary to > height or hair color, materially correlated with outcomes of business or > policy decisions. I won't support this claim for you with a literature > search, but trust you to do so for yourself if you're curious, which I > suspect you're not. You assume I don't care. I asked you several questions with good intention and you just brush them off. I come to you with the very definition of curiosity and you (very stupidly) act like I can't care. > > > If you think through the scenario of a Google employee _supporting_ > > > Roberto's proposal, but being afraid to publicly say so, then you > > > have deduced why the conflict of interest exists. > > > > Okay I'll bite here is some game theory: > > > > Bit 0: false = They are not in support; true = They are in support > > > > Bit 1: false = They are afraid of speaking publicly; true = They are > > not afraid of speaking publicly > > > > Bit 2: false = They have harmful information; true = They have useful > > information > > > > Bit 3: false = They don't clarify their conflict of interest; true = > > They clarify their conflict of interest > > > > Note: If bit 1 is unset bit 3 is automatically false because they > > would not be able to disclose their conflict of interest without being > > able to speak about it > > Okay. You know how to set up (an elaborated) Prisoner's Dilemma matrix. > Good show. > > [quoting the enumeration of 16 scenarios with some reluctance] > > > 0000: .25 > > They don't support it, they don't speak about it, and they have > > harmful information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about, > > therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information. > > > > 1000: .25 > > They support it, they don't speak about it, and they have harmful > > information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about it, > > therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information. > > > > 0100: -1 > > They don't support it, they say something, it's harmful information, > > and they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should > > keep ties with Google but their information given is faulty and it > > causes Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1. > > > > 1100: -1 > > They do support it, they say something, it's harmful information, and > > they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian shouldn't > > keep ties with Google but their given info is faulty and and it causes > > Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1. > > > > 0010: -.25 > > They do not support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful > > information. Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful > > information -.25 > > > > 1010: -.25 > > They do support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful > > information. Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful > > information -.25 > > > > 0110: 1 > > They do not support it, they say something, it is helpful information, > > they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should > > keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice, > > 1. > > > > 1110: 1 > > They support it, they say something, it is useful information, they > > don't disclose their bias. The person says that that Debian shouldn't > > keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice, > > 1. > > > > 0001: .25 Same as 0000 but if they did speak they would have disclosed > > however, they didn't. > > > > 1001: .25 Same as 1001 but if they did speak they would have disclosed > > however, they didn't. > > > > 0101: .75 They don't support it, they say something, it wasn't useful > > information, but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person > > says they think Debian should stick with Google but it poisons the > > discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because > > of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without > > wasting some time. .75 > > > > 1101: .75 They do support it, they say something, it wasn't useful > > information but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person > > says they think Debian shouldn't stick with Google but it poisons the > > discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because > > of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without > > wasting some time. .75 > > > > 0011: -.25 Same as 0010 but they would normally disclose their bias. > > > > 1011: -.25 Same as 1010 but they would normally disclose their bias. > > > > 0111: .75 They do not support it, they say something, it was useful > > information, and they disclose their bias. The person says they think > > Debian should stick with Google and the info is useful, but some time > > is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but Debian > > makes the correct choice .75 > > > > 1111: .75 They do support it, they say something, it was useful > > information and they disclose their bias. The person says they think > > Debian should split ties with Google and the info is useful, but some > > time is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but > > Debian make the correct choice. > > > > Now we take the averages using factory optimizations to analyze the > > > result: > How did you determine the weights to assign each scenario? You haven't > motivated or justified them. Consequently, even independently of > "factory optimizations" (a Google search [naturally enough] suggests > that this is not a term of art in game theory; if you can explain it in > terms of, say, linear programming, I'll be fine) you can contrive any > result you desire. I don't have to care much about the scales of the weights. No matter how much you change the scale, you always get the same result- and just to be clear the scale only. If you change the negatives and positives you'll get different results. Negatives are a bad outcome, positives are a good outcome. As for not finding what factory optimization is a skill issue. Look at the first link: [From: https://instrumental.com/resources/optimize-manufacturing-processes/ what-is-manufacturing-optimization-and-why-should-you-care/] > Manufacturing Optimization is a holistic discipline that enables > manufacturers to get from proto to mass production and beyond as quickly as > possible, with as little waste as possible. It’s a data-driven embrace of a > better way – one that leverages emerging technology built on the powerful > shoulders of math. Factory optimizations and, as you called it, "(an elaborated) Prisoner's Dilemma matrix," is the same thing. It allows you to holistically check ahead of time or analyze the past. > [outcomes of arbitrary selected weights using unexplained algorithm > elided] Oh, look here, it seems I'm not the only one that "dropped context essential for the reader to comprehend the discussion." Should have known you'd be a hypocrite. > > > > Doing so is not a humblebrag. > > > > > > It can be gravy ladled on a juicy conflict-of-interest sirloin steak. > > > > Just your strawman opinion. > > You are James Damore and I claim my five pounds. Don't care mate. > > Regards, > Branden
