> common law, but one of the issues this has caused is that natural or “God-given” law is at odds with the separation of church and State
Not true at all. The "modern" understanding of separation is what is at odds with the original intent at the time. Enforcement or support of a specific religion is what separation of Church and state is about not enforcement of agnosticism. Congress had sunday mass every week for many decades at the begining of the country. They still have chaplains, as does the military, they just don't enforce a specific religion.
> I can’t really agree that such a thing actually exists in any meaningful sense, but I can say I vastly prefer my tradition over others.
If you note my conclusion, human right is something enforced by the military not courts. To begin with, the law can recognize a human right but it can't define it, it (same as natural right to me) is beyond the jursidiction of the law. Unlike legal rights, declaring something a human right by law is merely recognizing a higher law, which means historical violations can retroactively be punished. Human rights can also be used as cause to fight a war (typically civil wars unless the aggressir claims their nationals are affected, like with putin and crimea). Human rights not only exist but have existed as long as humans have, when human law fails to recognize them and allows their violation the both the law and the violators are criminal enterprizes.
> rhetoric is rhetoric and law is law
It isn't rhetoric, it is reasoning and intent behind law as defined by the lawmakers. The law defines rules not reasoning and justification behind rules.
Material like this can be used in court to argue a case.
For your last paragraph, ultimately all criminal law exists because of the threat of imprisonment, but what I meant was not just that but also the fact that natural law is above legal law and that dispute is settled by violence usually. The most common human violator afterall is the state.
Universal agreement is not required, that's why wars happen to resolve most fundamental disagreements like this.
A human right is a right humans enjoy for no other reason than being a human. Despite my first paragraph, certain things like surviving or not getting harmed/punished simply because you exist are near-universally accepted as human rights, but again, like obligations, rights only have meaning if they can be enforced. The human part of human rights is critical because it transcends laws created by people. In essence, they are rights given to a person by their creator. This is why human rights, as ordained by the Creator is used as foundational reasoning behind the US war of independence and civil wars.
Both slavery and King George's tyranny were lawful but the law was rejected because a right given to humans beyond the authority of any government to regulate was violated.
This is one if the reasons why I passionately hate communism, because they don't enforce mere secular agnosticism but explicit atheism because anything short of that allowd the people to reason and challenge authority imposed on them that is absolute and unquestionable. You can't challenge the CCP and tell them you will hold a religious service without permit at your home because it is your right as a human to believe what you want and share that belief because under that regime there is no authority over humans above the government and as such human rights are defined by the government and is beyond challenge.
Ultimately, what the military (or victor military of a conflict) allows to be your human right is what is practiced.
My point was to shift the burden of bureaucracy to management instead of allowing them to use bureaucracy as a tool. If you think you need a person for liability/insurance reasons, well as a low or mid-level manager, you don't get that authority anymore in my proposal. You have to jump through pro-agility bureaucracy and ultimately justify every small decision like this to upper management and shareholders. So, if like you said the loss of agility is intentional, you make sure every single decision like that goes through almost unbearable scrutiny because it does add up. Your perspective as low/mid tier manager almost never looks at the overall loss of agility or risk appettite of the company. But C-suite gets paid to have that perspective.
Naturally, incentives have it so that this is inverted. Low and
Mid tier management have too much discretion with their limited perspective where they implement bureaucracy that burdens their workers instead of themsleves. Often, the risk aversion is for individuals and teams and when that becomes a culture then every team and manager implements needless inefficiency that brings the whole system to a halt when you scale up. That's why upper management at big companies, including google, just buys and integrates new companies to the most part. That's easier for them than working through the inefficiency of their own org.
Oh, the many times I've been told "A large ship turns slow". I have no idea what's going on with Google but the sickness is familiar.
I am just trying to get a small thing done, not turn the whole damn ship yet that I am faced with the same bureaucracy and inefficiency. But I have had success overcoming that, at the cost of not being very popular.
But the real solution is managerial. It is remarkably simple: To get anything done, require the least possible number of people to be part of that thing being done.
But for managers, they love to throw people and money at problems.
But really, it is upper management that needs to basically micro-manage everyone under them specifically when it comes to headcount.
I fully expect the CEO of alphabet asking random project managers to justify headcount of not just direct reports but who is being involved in their projects.
If you need 2 devs to code, one to qa/test. That's it. You don't get anyone else. Not for redundancy, not for anything else. You don't involve legal or marketing, change management,etc... because that means rules and procedures and politics and meetings and planning.
The problem is very old: "If all you have is a hammer,everything is a nail". For mid and low level managers, all they have is "get more people" when they want things done. And the arrogance of being a bigcorp compounds this because "we are $bigcorp, we have a team for this and a well tested process for that,such and such team can help with".
You cannot compensate for loss of agility by claiming reduction in risk and liability. You should not let lawyers, marketing and middle management choke your company to death. It's up to top brass to piss off everyone in their immediate surrounding so the bottom line is good and the company is healthy. Ultimately, shareholders need to hold management accountable for wasting their money.
It helps you trust the data protection and destruction policies of AWS less. If a disk goes bad, will it be wiped properly before being discarded for example? Or will your confidential data be recoverable by anyone at the landfill? What if an AWS DC tech identifies the bare metal your VM runs on and replaces a disk in the raid and takes the old one home? How good is their security to prevent that from happening? I can think a few ways of getting that past man trap xray scanners and all that physical security.
It's usually not intentional. It's common to either assume by default it will listen on 127.0.0.1 and connect to it. With cloud VMs, people spin up a VM for non-public use but check the box that adds a public IP and forget it's there.
It's a design problem in my opinion. By default, listening on 0.0.0.0/0 should exclude loopback interfaces by the OS. That way, anything makig incorrect assumptions would fail and would require correction. Second, cloud firewall rules should imply deny all when "none" is selected. That way, having no protection is the same effort as adding at least one manual rule.
I mean certainly a bubble in some form is always present and it always causes societal issues. It just happens to be more precise and effective at isolating you thanks to modern tech.
Before the internet, you exhaust the pool of available people pretty fast due to difficilty of communication. If you want to talk to someone you had to know their phone numbet and you may not know much about them outside of hear-say. Your bubble maybe the area you live in and the activities you enage in but discovering new people meant having to spend a significant amount of time in person interacting with someone. You may know they live somewhat within your bubble you don't get to message them for a while and checkout their various social media profiles.
I think of "Sienfeld",even thou they exaggerate a bit on that show,all the people they meet,date,work with are all within the same social bubble. But they still had to go on dates or interact with people in person before getting to write them off. If that was today, George Costanza would hardly get a tinder match and even then he'd write off those women after a message or two. Or he may use a more bubbled app.
I am just saying communication has gotten a lot easier which allowed us to build better bubbles. Loneliness isn't new but the effectiveness of our bubbles are much better than in the past.
You don't know what you don't know. Those questions merely isolate you in a bubble. They prevent you from discovering the uncomfortable different which might actually be exactly what you need.
The whole "loneliness epidemic" is a result of people stuck in bubbles with other people like them.
Being compatible and being alike are not synonymous. What people will admit they like and what they truly like are not always the same thing either.
Think about it,why would someone like your own self make for good companionship? You already have your lonely self,why would more of what is like you be less lonely?
I have a very strong opinion on this matter: Symmetrically different people make for a compatible companion. As in the old "opposites attract",but with a requirent that the opposite attributes are symmetic which means they complement and complete the other.
Not true at all. The "modern" understanding of separation is what is at odds with the original intent at the time. Enforcement or support of a specific religion is what separation of Church and state is about not enforcement of agnosticism. Congress had sunday mass every week for many decades at the begining of the country. They still have chaplains, as does the military, they just don't enforce a specific religion.
> I can’t really agree that such a thing actually exists in any meaningful sense, but I can say I vastly prefer my tradition over others.
If you note my conclusion, human right is something enforced by the military not courts. To begin with, the law can recognize a human right but it can't define it, it (same as natural right to me) is beyond the jursidiction of the law. Unlike legal rights, declaring something a human right by law is merely recognizing a higher law, which means historical violations can retroactively be punished. Human rights can also be used as cause to fight a war (typically civil wars unless the aggressir claims their nationals are affected, like with putin and crimea). Human rights not only exist but have existed as long as humans have, when human law fails to recognize them and allows their violation the both the law and the violators are criminal enterprizes.
> rhetoric is rhetoric and law is law
It isn't rhetoric, it is reasoning and intent behind law as defined by the lawmakers. The law defines rules not reasoning and justification behind rules. Material like this can be used in court to argue a case.
For your last paragraph, ultimately all criminal law exists because of the threat of imprisonment, but what I meant was not just that but also the fact that natural law is above legal law and that dispute is settled by violence usually. The most common human violator afterall is the state.