“Lots of people empowered to raise a question plus nobody empowered to give an answer plus no incentive for anyone to be the counterbalancing force in favor of hitting the organization’s goals” would be my hypothesis here.https://twitter.com/juliagalef/status/1154110416676483072 …
-
-
This ends up ceding entire fields to statis not because progress is forbidden but because progress is known to be likely regulated, a status which can be true without progress actually being regulated at all.
Show this thread -
And, popping a level up the stack, the reason why the organization has such a conflict here is because the organization does not genuinely institutionally believe that their stated primary goal overrules the goal which is theoretically secondary.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
(Seriously try the home version of this game. The more details you add to X the more caveats your lawyer will add in response. "Does federal law allow you to speak?" "OF COURSE." "Does federal law allow an employee of a financial institution to speak?" "... Some caveats.")
Show this thread -
("Does federal law allow an employee of a financial institution to speak during an election year?" "Some more caveats." "How about on a Tuesday?" "A red herring." "A Tuesday in February." "... Depends which Tuesday." "Does the hour matter?" "OF COURSE IT DOES. STOP TROLLING ME.")
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've found "how do I legally X?" To be the by far the most productive way to phrase that question to attorneys over the years.
-
Stupid typo.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.