"Considering" might be a bit strong. All that's really happening is the CRTC is opening a public consultation in response to a formal complaint. A cursory look at the CRTC's website shows quite a few public proceedings that are open to comment [0], including the one from the featured article.
I'm inclined to believe this is an example of the system working as intended. A complaint was filed and now the public has their opportunity to voice their opinions in response.
That was a very entertaining read. Pulling no punches in the conclusion:
> 'In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows.'
Here’s an example: while interviewing a man for a comptroller position, he asked me if I was familiar with financial statements, like a balance sheet. This person knew I had been an entrepreneur for years. When I simply replied yes, because I found the question so mystifying, I was met with laughter and a five minute lecture on why balance sheets matter. A lecture that would have been more fitting for a high school level finance class than an interview with a CEO who carved out a precious 30 minute slot to speak with a candidate.
That is brutal. I don't understand how someone could be so tone-deaf, especially in a job interview.
This is true, but I think the point the parent comment was getting at is that an investigation tends to take a more holistic look at the incident rather than simply assigning blame directly to a single factor. Even pilot error, especially in the context of commercial aviation, is often found to be the result of training deficiencies or cultural issues on the part of the airline.
I'm not sure why the article refers to Chesterton's fence as a fallacy when it basically agrees with the principle that you shouldn't blindly push reforms without understanding the reasoning behind the existing state of things.
That's not to say I disagree with the content of the article. I think it presents a good approach to promoting improvements to processes, the key takeaways being:
1) Observe the process and try to understand all aspects of it (not just that which affects you).
2) If you still feel that it can be improved, come up with a plan to improve and implement the process in a limited scope over which you have control.
3) If successful, break down why it was successful, and evaluate whether it is suitable to be expanded to the general case.
4) Find the owner of the existing process to discuss it with them, and present your proposed improvements.
I think there's an argument to be made that you should talk to the owner of the process before you start coming up with improvements, which could save some time on understanding it. But I suppose that depends on the situation.
In 2013, the Wunderland donated one square meter to each of the six major political parties in Germany, asking them to envision what the nation would look like if their party were in power. Top politicians and their advisors visited the Wunderland to participate in this special “Utopia” exhibition. They fretted for weeks over the small details, which each took on the symbolic importance of a plank in a political platform. They had to decide what to include, what to emphasize, and which scenarios would convey their policies most precisely; essentially, what kind of world they wanted to imagine into existence.
I really like that idea. It's almost like an elevator pitch for each party's platform.
Monsanto have now
agreed to provide royalty-free licenses for its
technologies to help fast-track the further
development and distribution of the rice.
I'm inclined to believe this is an example of the system working as intended. A complaint was filed and now the public has their opportunity to voice their opinions in response.
[0] https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/instances-proceedings/Defaul...