Isn't this just another definition of the original principle. People rise to the level where their noise is just enough to not worry the people promoting them i.e. the lesser their noise is the more they will be promoted. What you are offering seems like an explanation rather than a new observation.
> "This sounds kind of naïve. It's not because of data related policies that these haven't happened."
Maybe they are not talking about data related policies but more about policies that could foster local development. Agree with your other points.
1. It is possible to punish a person for his crimes in a justifiable manner.
2. People are somehow deterred by punishment when the option of winning via cheating is available to them.
It's very hard to argue that 1 is possible considering the ethical dilemmas that it exposes e.g. would capital punishment be a justifiable punishment for a murderer?
If 2 were true, then there wouldn't be doping scandals in sports, would there?
1) any entity, corporate or otherwise, must act without flaw or be dismantled. Big talk from one whom I doubt is running a top 5 company in arguably the most influential sector of the global market. The fallout of 'ending' VW is the forgotten factor. Try a little tenderness, who don't you?
2) the infrastructure that sustains VW is not a logo, or a brand name, it's thousands upon thousands of individuals, women and men who work hard to sustain that company so that vehicles are provided for a myriad of purposes. 'Ending' something if it has a flaw is like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Why not change what needs changing and be less vitriolic? Are you shorting VW? Are you invested in Mitsubishi? Are you a Renault shill? Do you like speaking in hyperbole so as to clarify something without having to do the heavy lifting?
Obvy responses to poster above you if that wasn't clear to someone.
Accountability, credibility, and a sense of duty to the greater good must be part of what defines a society. When those are intact, individuals take responsibility and accept consequences. When they are too far eroded, there is no way to force or coerce society back to integrity except perhaps through a concerted effort over many generations.
Ever since I saw my parents' initial skepticism to the use of handheld devices (smartphones, tablets etc.) I have always wondered what such a mental block for my generation might be like. It could very well be an invention such as this that is considered speculative today which might become viable overnight. My kid may someday wonder why his dad doesn't understand basic quantum phenomena.
A non blue eyed person will see that there are 100 blue eyed people and observe them killing themselves on the 100th day. For the blue eyes, if the 99 blue eyes they can see were all of the blue eyes, they would kill themselves on day 99. So the different eye colors have different information.
As far as I can see, the brown eyes all kill themselves the next day.
They won't, because they only know that everybody else has brown eyes. They do not know if they themselves have brown/pink/green/purple eyes. They only know they don't have blue eyes.
Because they would see 100 people with blue eyes, not 99, and so wouldn't kill themselves until one day later, at which point they now know they have brown eyes, because of the suicide.
The islanders don't know that there are only blue and brown eyes. For all they know, their eye color could be green, red, etc. Hence, the logic only applies for the blue-eyed people.
