Posts
Comments
My prediction about the outcome of the fencing bout could better be expressed as multiple predictions, for instance "I will score more points than my opponent" and "I will win the bout."
What if lightning struck the building a day earlier and the match is called off? Of if you get arrested on the way to the match and thus you forfeit by failure to show up? Or if your opponent forfeits, which makes the first prediction wrong?
In those circumstances, there's no reason to modify your prediction for the next time. While they were wrong, none of the wrongness had anything to do with your fencing skill.
A better set of statement might be "I will not score less points than my opponent." and "I will not lose the bout on points.". Although those logically reduce to almost the same prediction.
In fact, that seems like a reasonable general principle. Predictions often should state what won't happen than what will. Stating what won't happen allow you to automatically exclude many random outliers that are outside the scope of the prediction you're trying to make.
If you state the prediction in such way that an 'act of God' means you are right, not wrong, then when they occur you don't have to try to justify why your wrongness doesn't really count. Granted, it doesn't mean you were right, either, but, mentally, it's probably safer to say 'I technically got that right, but it doesn't really count' than 'I technically got that wrong, but it doesn't really count.'.
The way I keep from leaving my laptop anywhere is to put my car keys in the laptop bag.
Barring rides with other people and mass transit, it's impossible to leave your car keys somewhere. And if you travel mass transit, you could leave your wallet in the laptop bag instead. But even if you do travel sans car, you will notice your lack of keys/computer the second you get home, instead of figuring it hours or days later when you try to use the computer.
I do this trick with things beside my laptop, like if I'm helping move furniture and don't want to endanger the phone in my pocket, I make sure my car keys are one of the things I remove also. If I'm somewhere else, and there is anything I might leave, my keys are with it. (And this rule also requires that all of my things are in the same place, another good rule in general.)
I also do this at home, in a way...I put things I need to remember to take with me on top of my car keys, so I can't take the keys without picking that thing up. (This is obviously not a good plan if you can't keep track of where you leave your keys at home, as it will make them harder to find. But I don't have that problem, I only have one place they ever get left.)
The Hostile Takeover, Part II seems to fall apart with the realization that boards do not vote in order like that, but all at once, and may change their vote during the voting. You can postulate such a Board, but it's fairly unlikely such a thing would exist.
And it also falls apart with the fact that parliamentary law would not allow such a maneuver even if voting worked like that. It is simply not permissible to pass resolutions that hurt individuals that vote against them.
What would actually happen: 1) The lackey says: I move that we vote upon the following: that if this motion passes unanimously, all members of the of the Board resign immediately and are given a reasonable compensation; that if this motion passes 4-1 that the Director who voted against it must retire without compensation, and the four directors who voted in favor may stay on the Board; and that if the motion passes 3-2, then the two 'no' voters get no compensation and the three 'yes' voters may remain on the board and will also get a spectacular prize - to wit, our company's 51% share in your company divided up evenly among them. 2) The rest of the Board look at each other and one of them says: I move we postpone that indefinitely because, frankly, that's complete nonsense, and possibly not even legal. 3) Someone seconds that. 4) The board votes that the original motion should be, indeed, be proposed indefinitely. (A funnier variant involves amending the motion so the lackey is removed instead, and everyone but him is given reasonable compensation whenever they resign.)
Board of Directors, under pretty much all legal system, operate under Robert's Rules of Order by default, and under Robert's Rules of Order there are certain things even a majority can't do, like punish members for voting specific ways.
Exceptions are indeed allowed if the bylaws say so, but this hypothetical company apparently has bylaws that say 'A majority of board of directors can literally do anything they want, even stuff expressly required under Robert's and state law to be in the bylaws.' That's not likely.
And then, after allowing anything in the bylaws, the Board itself previously decided to override the reasonable default rules or order to make an absurd order-based voting system and require the board to cast votes on crazy things the majority of the board does not want to vote on and has decided to allow members to be punished or rewards for their votes. (And apparently doesn't have any way to make amendments to motions.)
And at that point the major question it: What would stop the Board from just disallowing new appointees any voting rights, and further all authority of the Board is now permanently held in a group that's composed of the four existing board members and someone else they've selected? In the hypothetical world you've set up the Board can just appoint and operate a shadow Board, well in advance of anything the lackey can do. This is completely crazy, of course, but apparently the bylaws allow the Board to do anything.
Robert's Rules of Order are not Nomic, and weren't written by stupid people.