Trust but Verify

[George S]

There is a time to use that principle: when the consequences of misplaced trust are extreme.

I'm white and I don't trust the police either.

Time to buy and wear a body cam. Time to buy and install a dash cam.

Trust but Verify

 

[fast]

There is a time to use that principle: when the consequences of misplaced trust are extreme.

I'm white and I don't trust the police either.

Time to buy and wear a body cam. Time to buy and install a dash cam.

Trust but Verify

Reagan

 

[fast]

Also, verification doesn't imply distrust, but it can suggest distrust.

"Why are you verifying ... Don't you trust me?"

"Yes, I do, but ... <insert creative reasoning>"

 

[untermensche]

Trust but Verify

Why should we trust?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Trust but Verify

Why should we trust?

Because that is how things get done.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Yes, I do, but ... <insert creative reasoning>"

But the voters....you know them.

But my insurance company....

But my lawyers...

That'sthe ticket. Say counsel advised you. It doesn't even have to make a lick of sense, and you put the blame safely out of your hands.

 

[Jayjay]

There is a time to use that principle: when the consequences of misplaced trust are extreme.

I'm white and I don't trust the police either.

Time to buy and wear a body cam. Time to buy and install a dash cam.

Trust but Verify

Reagan

Paraphrasing a Russian proverb, coined in the 12th century by Ivan the Terrible as he put his mothers head on a spike. (And I'll be deeply offended if you check that last part on wikipedia instead of taking my word for it.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a time to use that principle: when the consequences of misplaced trust are extreme.

I'm white and I don't trust the police either.

Time to buy and wear a body cam. Time to buy and install a dash cam.

Trust but Verify

Dashcams are a good idea anyway--in general they'll leave it clear who caused an accident. I got one for that very reason (although the trigger was the fact that the local cops will no longer investigate non-injury accidents--we don't have an impartial witness to the accident scene anymore.)

Since I got one I've been hit once. The camera didn't show the accident but had she chose to contest it what it did show coupled with the damage location left no doubt what had to have happened. I doubt she would have contested it anyway--her rear fender, my side panel, that's pretty hard to be anything but backing out without looking.

 

[bilby]

There is a time to use that principle: when the consequences of misplaced trust are extreme.

I'm white and I don't trust the police either.

Time to buy and wear a body cam. Time to buy and install a dash cam.

Trust but Verify

Dashcams are a good idea anyway--in general they'll leave it clear who caused an accident. I got one for that very reason (although the trigger was the fact that the local cops will no longer investigate non-injury accidents--we don't have an impartial witness to the accident scene anymore.)

Since I got one I've been hit once. The camera didn't show the accident but had she chose to contest it what it did show coupled with the damage location left no doubt what had to have happened. I doubt she would have contested it anyway--her rear fender, my side panel, that's pretty hard to be anything but backing out without looking.

So you lost control while cornering at excessive speed and span out into her parked vehicle? That's some pretty dangerous driving on your part there. It's a good thing you came up with the story about her backing out without looking.

 

[fast]

Reagan

Paraphrasing a Russian proverb, coined in the 12th century by Ivan the Terrible as he put his mothers head on a spike. (And I'll be deeply offended if you check that last part on wikipedia instead of taking my word for it.)

It would be irresponsible of me to convey what you've taught me as true without at the very least checking a total of three sources.

- - - Updated - - -

Dashcams are a good idea anyway--in general they'll leave it clear who caused an accident. I got one for that very reason (although the trigger was the fact that the local cops will no longer investigate non-injury accidents--we don't have an impartial witness to the accident scene anymore.)

Since I got one I've been hit once. The camera didn't show the accident but had she chose to contest it what it did show coupled with the damage location left no doubt what had to have happened. I doubt she would have contested it anyway--her rear fender, my side panel, that's pretty hard to be anything but backing out without looking.

So you lost control while cornering at excessive speed and span out into her parked vehicle? That's some pretty dangerous driving on your part there. It's a good thing you came up with the story about her backing out without looking.

Get out of my head!

 

[Bronzeage]

Trust but Verify

Why should we trust?

Because most people, in most situations, are trustworthy. Normal social interactions contain enough safeguards we can risk small things.

 

[fromderinside]

Why should we trust?

Because most people, in most situations, are trustworthy. Normal social interactions contain enough safeguards we can risk small things.

Most people are trustworthy? We're born with that? Why, then, do babies cry when they are uncomfortable? I'm pretty sure we should be skeptical and verify.

 

[rousseau]

Why should we trust?

Because most people, in most situations, are trustworthy. Normal social interactions contain enough safeguards we can risk small things.

There are situations where you can expect a trustworthy response. The guiding rule is: what action causes person [x] to gain the most for themselves while minimizing loss for themselves. And it pretty much always works.

 

[fromderinside]

Because most people, in most situations, are trustworthy. Normal social interactions contain enough safeguards we can risk small things.

There are situations where you can expect a trustworthy response. The guiding rule is: what action causes person [x] to gain the most for themselves while minimizing loss for themselves. And it pretty much always works.

Presuming one has a good odds and reality calculator which one shouldn't presume. Remember the Maximize/Optimize studies? Those were the ones that pointed out why humans suffer from Gamblers Fallacy.

 

[untermensche]

Why should we trust?

Because most people, in most situations, are trustworthy. Normal social interactions contain enough safeguards we can risk small things.

That's fine when you're just dealing with other people, but the question is, why should we trust anybody with authority?

Anybody with authority and power should be very closely monitored, not trusted.

 

[Bronzeage]

Because most people, in most situations, are trustworthy. Normal social interactions contain enough safeguards we can risk small things.

That's fine when you're just dealing with other people, but the question is, why should we trust anybody with authority?

Anybody with authority and power should be very closely monitored, not trusted.

Would you vote for someone you could not trust? What exactly do you trust them to do? What would be a violation of that trust?

 

[untermensche]

That's fine when you're just dealing with other people, but the question is, why should we trust anybody with authority?

Anybody with authority and power should be very closely monitored, not trusted.

Would you vote for someone you could not trust? What exactly do you trust them to do? What would be a violation of that trust?

I don't trust any national politician, beyond Ralph Nader, who really isn't a career politician.

I don't trust the lot of them. They are all bought and paid for.

That is how you become a national politician, unless you're a billionaire like Perot or a guy with no chance like Nader.

Elections are nothing but voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Bronzeage]

Would you vote for someone you could not trust? What exactly do you trust them to do? What would be a violation of that trust?

I don't trust any national politician, beyond Ralph Nader, who really isn't a career politician.

I don't trust the lot of them. They are all bought and paid for.

That is how you become a national politician, unless you're a billionaire like Perot or a guy with no chance like Nader.

Elections are nothing but voting for the lesser of two evils.

You make it sound as if it's impossible to be bought and paid for, and still be a trustworthy person.

If you had the money to buy and pay for a politician, what kind of person would you buy? Could you trust them?

 

[untermensche]

I don't trust any national politician, beyond Ralph Nader, who really isn't a career politician.

I don't trust the lot of them. They are all bought and paid for.

That is how you become a national politician, unless you're a billionaire like Perot or a guy with no chance like Nader.

Elections are nothing but voting for the lesser of two evils.

You make it sound as if it's impossible to be bought and paid for, and still be a trustworthy person.

If you had the money to buy and pay for a politician, what kind of person would you buy? Could you trust them?

If the politicians came out and said; "Yes, I have been bought by this rich benefactor or that rich benefactor and I will serve their interests above all."

Then I might begin to trust them.

Trust flows from believing what people say.

 

[rousseau]

There are situations where you can expect a trustworthy response. The guiding rule is: what action causes person [x] to gain the most for themselves while minimizing loss for themselves. And it pretty much always works.

Presuming one has a good odds and reality calculator which one shouldn't presume. Remember the Maximize/Optimize studies? Those were the ones that pointed out why humans suffer from Gamblers Fallacy.

Know what you know (or in this case, know has good probability), and know what you don't know.