from the lets-put-a-wall-of-qualifiers-in-the-middle-of-sentences dept.
MIT brain science researchers took a look at comprehension of (and preference for) the use of legalese (legal language used in contracts and so on) vs. the same thoughts expressed in simple sentences. While lawyers did better at understanding their own dialect, nearly everyone, lawyer or not, preferred ordinary English. https://news.mit.edu/2023/new-study-lawyers-legalese-0529
Parsing legal language
Since at least the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon declared that federal regulations should be written in "layman's terms," efforts have been made to try to simplify legal documents. However, another study by Martínez, Mollica, and Gibson, not yet published, suggests that legal language has changed very little since that time.
The MIT team began studying the structure and comprehensibility of legal language several years ago, when Martínez, who became interested in the topic as a student at Harvard Law School, joined Gibson's lab as a research assistant and then a PhD student.
In a study published last year, Gibson, Martínez, and Mollica used a text analysis tool to compare legal documents to many other types of texts, including newspapers, movie scripts, and academic papers. Among the features identified as more common in legal documents, one stood out as making the texts harder to read: long definitions inserted in the middle of sentences.
Linguists have previously shown that this type of structure, known as center-embedding, makes text much more difficult to understand. When the MIT team tested people on their ability to understand and recall the meaning of a legal text, their performance improved significantly when center-embedded structures were replaced with more straightforward sentences, with terms defined separately.
More detail in TFA along with references to related work.
I've had to read my share of contracts and complex NDA/secrecy agreements, some of which were pretty sneaky, others very easy to follow. In my experience, the long sentence with strings of qualifiers in the middle is common, but once you know that is the structure it is possible to mentally assemble the start and end of the sentence and understand what's being said. Then add back in all the conditions where it applies, or does not apply.
I've been caught out a couple of times to my business and financial embarrassment. Once burned I've learned that, when there is a lot on the line, reading the fine print is often worth the effort. I've also learned that a contract presented to me isn't always cast in stone--reasoned objections are often negotiable and clauses can be struck or modified. While always an option, I resist hiring a lawyer, preferring to work through the language myself.
Full paper here, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2302672120 behind a paywall for me (perhaps the text is available elsewhere?)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2023, @12:44PM (22 children)
I've dealt with a number of issues involving contracts and every single time there are mistakes, problems, oversights. The language is just the start.
You would think that it has to be better than this.
The worst offenders are the bolt on terms that go nowhere. One recently had 'as disclosed in this contract' but no one could find where, and the other side could not or would not say. Where is this term specified? There's a reference right here. Where to? Nowhere, as far as I can tell.
If I ever went for office I would like to change the law such that an amended contract must be provided in full. If you make changes then you need to provide a copy of the contract showing the changes inline, highlighted and obvious.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday June 28 2023, @01:23PM (5 children)
Can ChatGPT-5 solve this problem?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 28 2023, @02:06PM (3 children)
Yes, it can help. By only speaking in legalese, Chat GPT5 will educate the public to this strange incomprehensible language used to disguise true meanings and intentions.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday June 28 2023, @04:19PM (2 children)
That sounds very suspiciously non-sarcastic. I'd be surprised, if creating chat-gpt silos isn't already a thing. It's much easier to create a good chat-gpt "ai bot", if you narrow the focus.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday June 29 2023, @02:36AM (1 child)
So, that's what's writing all that business crap I have to agree to before I can buy whatever it is they are selling.
But I look on the bright side. It really chills my impulse buying. By the time I realize what I have to agree to to buy the thing, I realize I didn't need it that badly.
It's already dissuaded me from making a lot of really bad decisions.
Like buying a new car...instead buying an older one directly from the owner . So far, I've gotten six good years out of that old machine, and no sign I won't get six more. For less than 10% of new, cash buy, and the only papers I had to sign were the title transfer with the state DMV, the check to pay the previous owner, and papers to put the insurance in my name. As previously agreed, after title was transferred, money paid, and finally insurance coverage issued, the key changed hands and I drive him home. Over six years ago. Why did it take me so long to cut the marketeers out of the loop? It wasn't until I read about the woe of used car dealers and useless one-sided contracts that made me realize that is a lot easier to screw someone with tricky talk and a pen. The guy I bought it from was just as naive as me. The fact he was so willing to bring it to my mechanic spoke highly of his integrity.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday June 29 2023, @02:46PM
Buying direct from individuals, especially individuals that have kept reasonably good care of their vehicle, is a much better deal than buying from any dealer. The dealer has pressures that require him to sell, sell, sell, which one would think make them sure to have good cars. One would be mistaken. So long as said vehicle lasts longer than any warranty they give, it's no sweat off their back.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2023, @02:41AM
I don't think most business documents would compile.
They would likely abend, throwing an error code for referencing undefined variables.
That's why reading legal documents will drive computer programmers batshit-crazy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 28 2023, @01:28PM (14 children)
From the start, I always found signature pages to be the biggest farce. Sure, you've got my signature on a blank piece of paper, I've signed and dated.... something. Now, where's my copy? Oh, you don't get one. Ah, I see...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday June 28 2023, @02:24PM (11 children)
I've long wondered if that could be easily nullified in court; IE: could you be held to something on pages you didn't sign and don't even have copies of. I've seen, and probably signed at some point, contracts where each page had a signature line.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:56PM
> ..where each page had a signature line.
Haven't seen that, seems a little excessive to sign on each page. I have been asked to initial each page, so that's similar. Also having both sides initial any written-in changes makes sense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday June 28 2023, @04:22PM (5 children)
When signing papers for a house / loan, I signed more papers than I could shake a stick at. There are places/industries that take contracts very seriously. Not that you should trust them, but they certainly try to cover their own behinds.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday June 28 2023, @05:01PM (4 children)
You'd think signing for a house is where they take signatures extra seriously. But I have seen signings, for houses, in which signers chose from among a handful of fonts whichever one they thought looked most like their own handwriting, then just type in their names!
Handwritten signatures have become one of the biggest bits of bull in the legal world. Not as bad as the problem with legalese, but worthless for their ostensible purpose of authentication, which it seems we need a whole lot less than one would think from the way so many carry on about valid signatures. We've had rubber stamp signatures for decades. Forgery, too.
These days, of course, there are many more ways to fake a signature. I enabled routine use of what is basically a digital version of a rubber stamp signature. Scanned the boss's signature and made it into a png image, then configured a pdf reader to use it for annotations. This "electronic signature", as it's known, does sometimes cause issues when the other organization's minions, who don't know shinola about digital signatures, whine that the signature isn't valid. Of course they're only repeating what their braindead software told them. In that case, we convert the entire pdf to images, and the devil with it taking lots more space. If necessary, we print the thing out and scan the printed pages back into another pdf. That dodges all the digital signature validation issues, and they accept it. Stupid, but there it is. Yeah, we could try to set up with valid digital signatures, but that's a pain to do.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Reziac on Thursday June 29 2023, @02:23AM (3 children)
I used to sign checks for deposit with a stamp provided by the bank.
Except it was a stamp from a long-dead bank.
Pretty much impossible to fake because it didn't reasonably connect to anything.
[looking] Huh, I still have the stamp (35 years later).
When I bought a house, the title company called next door to the bank to verify my signature, which has degenerated to where it's indistinguishable from my initials, and they thought that can't be right... (even tho I'm sitting there signing right before their very eyes).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2023, @05:43AM (2 children)
I've got an old seal paper embosser from some bankrupt company 30 years ago. Looks a notary stamp. Betcha it would pass for one.
Heck, if a fake signature is good enough, is a fake seal OK too? It's not deceptive. It's stamps out the company name in the same pretty circular pattern commonly used by notary publics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2023, @10:18AM
Notaries are required to keep a paper trail &/or log of the documents they notarize. Be my guest if you want to fake a notary seal, but the penalties seem quite severe should you get caught--for example if the document in question is used as court evidence...the paper trail won't exist.
Why would you fake this anyway? At least around here, just about every bank branch has a notary on staff, it's often walk-in service, and free. During covid I needed a notary and I had to call in advance and make an appointment, hardly a big problem.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 30 2023, @01:09AM
Friend of a friend signed checks with "George Washington" "Alexander Hamilton" "Mickey Mouse" and whatever other famous name came to mind at the moment.
I once asked my bank about signing with a pen name. Whatever is on your signature card, they said. As many sigs as you want.
Legally you can call yourself whatever you like so long as there's no intent to defraud. Your seal would probably fall under that.
I have a bunch of my uncle's cashed checks from the 1950s and '60s. Some don't even have the bank name printed on them, nor the account holder's name. Some are written in pencil. A few aren't signed at all. The legacy of a small town and a high-trust society.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Thursday June 29 2023, @12:11AM (3 children)
I recently was part of a deal signed with a chinese company (a bit over year back now). They brought the company seal; and as part of the signing fanned the pages so that a few mm edge of each page was visible and stamped the fan so that a bit of the stamp was on each page, which would make adding/removing pages not impossible but certainly more challenging work. The whole stamp process was pretty neat and much more formal than what we are used to here.
On the other hand, it had to be done in person, and its not just any stamp; they're carefully controlled, and getting it done during covid was no small feat.
for more info...
https://focus.cbbc.org/how-to-use-chinese-company-chops/ [cbbc.org]
China does have electronic seals/electronic signatures as well but for whatever reason it wasn't an option in this case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2023, @03:29AM (1 child)
All very nice and formal with company chop block, etc.
But the next question comes easily -- after a year are the parties living up to the deal?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday June 29 2023, @10:08PM
Heh. Yes, they've been good partners for several years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Thursday June 29 2023, @09:45PM
Very interesting. I remember hearing / reading about the page edge seal imprint somewhere. Seems like a pretty good system.
A few years ago I had to file a bunch of paperwork and forms. They required "wet signatures"- had to be real ink, different from the print (that's easy, most print was black, so blue pen). Some required notary and witness signatures, some required initials on each page where only the last page had full signatures.
I'm strongly not a fan of "e-signature". I don't know but I wonder how well they would hold up in court.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday June 28 2023, @05:43PM
I remember signing some legal papers years ago that needed to be notarized. But, the only bit that was actually authenticated was the final signature. There was nothing in place to guarantee that the previous pages were what I was agreeing to. A simple replacement of the pages would be trivial to change the entire contract.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2023, @11:23AM
I found this to be a problem. The contracts were signed, the lawyer had it. Later the bank asked to see the contract I signed. Which I didn't get a copy of. The lawyer was one of those types who took a copy of everything so they could retrieve it.
This should never have been needed. No one could point to a policy where it was said it is required. They didn't say upfront it was needed. Why do they need the page I signed? I have the page the other party signed. Isn't this enough? No.
I have come to the conclusion that a lot of lawyers make up rules as they go.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday June 28 2023, @02:58PM
Most lawyers suck, but I blame the laws and the entire system, judges too. My brother is a lawyer, usually the good kind, and you might be amazed at how much leeway judges have. Too much, imho, and too much power.
I agree with your points, but I find very troubling the clauses in "contracts" that say "we reserve the right to amend or change the terms of this contract..." How does that hold up? If you change the terms, it is no longer a contract!
I put that in the same category as the "shrink-wrap" license, where "by opening this package you're agreeing to the terms herein"- terms you could not possibly have read until you open the package! Very clever, but how does our government "system" allow such things?
Again I blame the legislative system. They (senators, representatives, parliamentarians) need a more agile system- one where they get clear information about how the laws are working, or not, and then modify the laws. There are too many linguistically clever people working on ways to circumvent the intents of legislatures and the system needs less ego and more willingness to clarify laws and fix the holes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by istartedi on Wednesday June 28 2023, @02:42PM (19 children)
When this topic comes up, I'm always reminded of a relative's will with the phrase "per stirpes" in it. Would defining that in the middle of the text have made matters better or worse? We were all scratching our heads until they explained it. I suppose using specialized jargon such as that in the text *might* be better, as long as it doesn't get out of control. Most of the will made sense. It was just that one term that nobody had ever seen before.
Wills, trusts, taxes, marriage, divorce, and real estate. Those have to be 90% or more of the laws we deal with, right? They should work on getting those simplified first.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:26PM (17 children)
I'm admittedly cynical, but I see such language as lawyers protecting their own profession. IE, only another lawyer can understand the language and multi-run-on sentences.
Years ago in uni, for a couple of years I stayed in a large apartment complex that had a very many-page all legalese lease. One of the zillion clauses said that by signing the lease I'm giving up my right to replevin. What? Fortunately uni had a campus lawyer for students. She explained that "replevin" involves recovering your belongings from the landlord (for a long list of possible reasons).
But, and importantly, even though you sign the lease, your right to replevin can not be taken away. In other words, said contract can not overrule existing laws.
The problem is that not everyone knows that, nor does anyone really know all laws. So there will be cases where landlords illegally seize, keep, sell, dispose of people's belongings and get away with it (because lawyers cost more than the belongings are worth).
IMHO it should be criminal to include clauses in a contract that attempt to subvert law.
Back to your point, lawyers like to use their own special language and extremely uncommon words. Even my lawyer brother calls it "obfuscatory".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gnuman on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:30PM (13 children)
Even better, if you have contracts full of these illegal clauses, the entire contract can be ruled as invalid if push comes to shove.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:38PM
That's very interesting. Much like if a witness is caught in a lie in court, any or all of the testimony can be considered a lie.
(Score: 3, Touché) by istartedi on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:50PM (1 child)
But what if the contract hedges it with something like, "to the extent allowed by the governing laws, you relinquish your right to replevin".
Now you have to hire a lawyer to figure out the extent to which such rights may be relinquished, which may be no extent at all; but you don't know that without a lawyer.
I'm not saying that's good. Lawyers are plainly running a racket when it comes to things like this. We need to stop it, and we need experts to make sure it's really fully stopped. Let's call a... dammit!
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday June 29 2023, @03:40AM
D'oh!
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 28 2023, @08:23PM (9 children)
Which is why most contracts include a "severability" clause. Generally along the line lines of "If any portion of this contract is found, by any competent jurisdiction, to be invalid or unlawful, the remainder of this policy will continue to be in force."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday June 29 2023, @01:16AM (8 children)
Perhaps we should make that particular clause illegal?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 29 2023, @01:36AM (7 children)
Perhaps. But I'd posit that would open a different can of worms.
Not sure which would be worse.
NB: IANAL.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday June 29 2023, @03:30AM (6 children)
Yes, it would likely create quite a lot of drama for dodgy companies, but it would also make sure that said dodgy companies made damn sure they didn't include anything in a contract that they knew wouldn't hold up legally. I'd love to see it happen as it would minimise the creation of 'innovative' legal strategies such as non-disparagement agreements as part of redundancy settlements.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 29 2023, @04:34AM
That's a fair point, although doing so would also likely cause quite a lot of (the same) drama for respectable non-profits and good corporate citizens.
As well as a raft of other unintended consequences.
I didn't offer up severability clauses as the (or even a) solution, I just pointed out that you'd likely be trading one set of problems for another, with no judgement as to which scenario is/would be worse.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 01 2023, @12:24AM (4 children)
That's why contracts usually have a severability clause -- so the rest of the contract remains in force even if parts are found void under the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability [wikipedia.org]
Boilerplates:
https://afterpattern.com/clauses/severability [afterpattern.com]
In part because law HERE may be wholly different from law THERE, and you can't be a lawyer for everywhere and everywhen.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Sunday July 02 2023, @10:39PM (3 children)
As a thought experiment though, a contract should be a formal definition of an agreement that mutually benefits two parties. Each and every clause within make up that agreement and the balance of benefits. If a particular clause is found to be illegal, then surely the balance of benefits within the agreement has shifted and a re-negotiation is required to restore balance? Surely someone wouldn't include a clause in a contract that they didn't care about losing? Surely the party that loses a clause would want to renegotiate in order to maintain the fairness of the agreement?
If a party includes a clause that maintains the contract even if chunks of it are ripped out, then it's a sure sign that they know the contract is heavily stacked in their favor.
Let's say there's a clause in my contract with Netflix that gets tossed out in my jurisdiction. That should just mean that we no longer have a contract (i.e. Netflix stops providing me with service and I stop paying them) until an alternative can be put together. In order to avoid sudden catastrophes (e.g. my power company stops providing power), legislation could allow for a 30 or 60 day grace period so that essential services aren't impacted.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday July 02 2023, @11:15PM (2 children)
Interesting points. I suppose the question is... to what degree do you want to void the entire contract?
So what about laws, which also commonly have severability clauses?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday July 02 2023, @11:32PM (1 child)
To the degree that companies stop putting in bullshit clauses that they know won't stand up in court. Having to re-sign your entire customer base and deal with the negative publicity would hopefully be enough of a deterrent (though I recognize that updating a contract is already something we see all the time - "click here to accept updated T&C - read the following 200 pages if you want to know what the changes are").
I might be OK with a severability clause if it didn't allow invalid clauses to remain in a contract. Once a particular clause is found invalid, it should be removed from all copies (or at least have a disclaimer stating that the particular clause is NOT valid in $JURISDICTION).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday July 02 2023, @11:39PM
There is that, but what if you, the other signee, do not =want= to void the contract?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 29 2023, @05:17PM
Do you do that in your profession?
Assuming you are an IT person, did you invent terms like RAM and CPU to make things more complicated or to make them more clear?
It's always odd to me that people will shrug off new terminology in their own domain as proper and necessary but any time some other domain does the same thing it's some kind of conspiracy!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Friday June 30 2023, @01:14AM (1 child)
Flipside of that are laws such as one we have here -- tenant can abscond in the night owing much back rent, leave behind their belongings, and I am obligated to store said belongings for some lengthy period at my own expense, after which I cannot sell them but must in some other way "dispose of" them.
The only reasonable solution is to quietly disappear anything left behind.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Friday June 30 2023, @02:26AM
It's been interesting to get alternate perspectives, hearing stories about the other side in various situations and disputes. My lawyer brother has enlightened me to for example how the courts view cops and other govt. agencies, and how the system has to protect itself.
In domicile cases the govt. / courts don't like having people homeless, so as I'm sure you've heard and probably experienced it can be very difficult to evict squatters. I've read some stories of clever legal ways to do it, like in some states you can't get the cops to remove the people, but the sheriff can.
"Chattel", right? Legalese for people's "stuff". "Replevy my chattel"- I want my stuff back! I'll get a "writ of replevin"- court orders you to gimme my stuff!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday June 28 2023, @04:26PM
Laws / regulations for Nursing Homes and Nuclear Power Plants are quite numerous as well.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:27PM
Ambiguity is the core feature of language, legal or otherwise. Hence why we have judges that interpret specific cases.
As to legalese, it's not really an issue. Just read some of it and it will become clear. It's not worse than reading Hamlet or something, or computer sources.. Actually, it's more clear. for example, in Canadian Competition Act, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/page-17.html#h-90061 [justice.gc.ca]
so it's rather straightforward but you have to refer to other parts, which makes it less readable but still understandable. You know, have to work at it. And the reason for these references should be clear from computer code -- deduplication, making it simpler to change the statutes later on via amendments years down the line.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 28 2023, @03:43PM (2 children)
Really, it should be possible for normal, educated people to understand legal documents. If the IRS can do it with tax form instructions, then anyone can do it.
Target all documents to a tenth grade reading level. Prohibit special legal vocabulary.
The same for laws, only there one needs to go farther: the total volume of laws that apply to an individual should be *readable* by that individual in a reasonable period of time. Say, the length of a 1000-page novel, which is about 250,000 words. Want to pass a new law? First, you've got to delete something to make space.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2023, @11:15PM (1 child)
The problem with IRS tax form instructions is that the IRS doesn't read them!
I get these demand letters. "We found an error on your calculations. You owe 1,582.64 more."
But they don't say where the error is. It's always couched in some area of a bottom line on some form somewhere if at all.
Then it's either pay, or play wait on the line while the charger keeps the phone active and hope the connection holds when someone finally picks up.
It's like contesting a traffic ticket...it costs more to fight it than pay it. I got nailed with one several months ago. I had done absolutely nothing wrong. I was cited for violating a CVC code for something that was impossible for me to do at the location I supposedly committed the infraction. I took it to court. The officer didn't show up. But it still took several days of my time to get mixed up in someone else's game.
My crime? I did a U-Turn from a center lane that was marked for that purpose.
Why? To avoid waiting for what looked like an accident ahead. All northbound traffic at a standstill. Southbound traffic nearly non-existent.
Cited for:. Illegal left turn at intersection.
( I was a good 1500 feet South of that intersection according to Google Maps. )
So, what motivated the officer to be such an ass?
It was not an accident. It was a pop-up DUI checkpoint. I saw no signage about no U turns. Only the road striping that indicated the availability of the center lane for turns.p
My attitude toward police changed that day. More like a collegiate MBA employee as compared to a private business owner. The one I dealt with did not seem to have any more intelligence than a gun. Polite, but it had a job to do. Vending tickets. Don't even try discussing lane stripings. They aren't programmed for that.
Nota Bene:. A few years ago, I bought a huge vehicle to replace a 40 year old tiny little car I had outgrown. But I wasn't familiar with it's handling dynamics. So I took it out at 3AM to get acquainted with it when no one else was around.
Well, an older officer noted my really weird driving and pulled me over. "Do you know why I pulled you over?". My reply:. "Probably anything. I would think you suspect crazy or drugs."
I fished the registration out, showing I had only had this thing less than a week, and my reticence ii driving it in public until I understood how to handle it. I noted his service pistol and noted that he probably fired quite a few rounds through it before showing up in public with it. Both machines, his and mine, are lethal. And we both owe it to the public to know how to handle our devices. He saw that at no time did I do a crazy in front of someone else, even though I executed a helluva lot of failed maneuvers. Like making one U-turn after another. Failed U-Turns at intersections.
My parting word to him was I felt that when I am driving, it's as if I am fiddling around with a loaded gun. One mistake, someone may die, and with the size of what I have, inertial physics practically guarantees the damage will be substantial.
His parting word to me is he wished everyone took driving as seriously as I did.
He knew. No ticket.
I'm finally retired. Unless I am paid very well, I do not do anything that involves reported earnings because it just stirs up all sorts of accounting problems for me come tax time. I'll still fix your stuff, like that electronic module that's no longer available anywhere, but don't pay me in money...do something for me if you want me to do something for you, even if you pay someone else to do it. And neither you nor I sign anything.
I've already dealt with those who have college degrees in the art of war ( hat tip to Sun Tzu ) aka corporate politics. And seen just how fast these guys will destroy a company. Mostly by alienating the workforce by micromanagement and disempowerment in an attempt to make them all interchangeable. Keeping them ignorant. Marketing ( How to lie while avoiding accountability , a useful skill in writing contracts ). After dealing with a few of them, I can usually recognize them on sight. They usually flash signals of wealth, power, control, devoid of ethics, as they are smart enough to get around that. Ethics are for little people. Look out for number one! The love crisp haircuts and expensive suits, gotta conceal that the head is full of substandard concrete. Much like spackling and a fresh coat of paint conceals a housefull of termites.
I only deal with people I can trust. I see those fiddling around with pens and papers about like a cat would see those fiddling around with a cat carrier while making references to the vet.
I'd just as soon put my hands in handcuffs as to sign their papers. It's as foolish as getting in into a card game with a shark.
My tools are oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, measurement tools, soldering irons, and numerous hand tools. I am very distrustful of men flourishing papers and pens as much as I am leery of those brandishing guns. Both are lethal in the hands of men who have compromised ethics. Men who specialize in the control of others using inertial physics or legal maneuvering to compel others to their command. It's a game I'm not good at. I avoid playing their game as much as I can.
I fix things. Not destroy things.
Sorry...I just had to vent a bit. SN is a helluva lot cheaper than psychotherapy.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday June 29 2023, @03:48AM
Thanks for sharing some wisdom. We're quite similar, including 'scopes and other such things, although I've always had a knack for vehicle handling dynamics, partly due to the very wide variety of cars we had when I learned to drive, from VW Bug to Cadillac Sedan de Ville, full-size pickup trucks, misc. other cars including a friends AMC Hornet, then my first car- a Detroit iron "muscle car".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday June 28 2023, @06:51PM (6 children)
In the book Foundation a diplomat was visiting and the Foundation boys recorded his every word, that they took to mean that they had the empire's backing. They had his speech analyzed, and it turned out that he hadn't actually said anything at all.
I took a college course in verbal logic as a result of that passage. It's required for lawyers, but I only took it because of Asimov's fiction. Half a century later I've discovered it's very handy for writing fiction, but essential for a legal document.
And this from people who, well, I once read a study with the word "enumerate" or variations thereof fifteen times in the first paragraph without once using the word "count". Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday June 29 2023, @07:40AM (5 children)
Well, in their defense, an enumeration is more of a listing than a count.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday July 10 2023, @06:22PM (4 children)
Yes, but the study used it as a synonym for count. Scientists are no more experts in English than those with doctorates in English are experts in fluid dynamics.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday July 10 2023, @11:40PM (3 children)
Surely knowing the difference between a count and an enumeration is not considered expert level English?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday July 13 2023, @12:42AM (2 children)
Define "expert". Certainly an expert knows the difference, but that doesn't mean that knowing the difference makes you an expert.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:54AM (1 child)
Rather, define "common level of English" - I'd have considered enumeration vs count to fall into such a category, not "expert level of English". English is technically speaking my second language, and I've not formally studied it above high school level.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday July 14 2023, @09:26PM
An eighth grade reading level is considered the common level; it's the level writers are said to strive for (although you will find "australopithecus" in my novel Nobots). Sadly, there are no experts writing for Yahoo. Saw an article today with a made-up word like President Harding did, writing "defensed" instead of "defended".
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org