Woo-hoo! Op-ed in the Washington Post
May. 12th, 2018 06:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayfurr
Guess who got their op-ed about ethics printed in today’s Washington Post?
Woo-hoo!
You can read the column here or see the print image of the column here.
A few people have asked how it came to be — the answer is, I idly put in a few tweets the other day, found them somewhat amusing, and decided to submit them as an op-ed to the WaPo. They liked them too and the thing ran on Saturday, May 12. (I had published them here on furrs.org, too, but was asked to take that copy down until after the op-ed ran. They’re back up now, for what it’s worth.)
The amusing/disturbing thing, to me, is that in the 300 or so comments on the WaPo website so far, virtually all have been positive. First comment section I’ve seen on a public website that wasn’t full of racist trolls and flames. Amazing, huh?
no subject
Date: 2018-05-12 11:03 pm (UTC)Now I have a curious ethical aside that is related.
A friend of mine, Karl, also had a similar position as his first job after graduation. He was working for a coal mining company in SW Western Australia, and his job was in quality control. The coal from the initial extraction had to be of particular purity before being loaded into the trucks (I think it was 98% or so). It was a long-standing contract and the technology for extraction had improved a great deal since the contract had been signed. As a result, the extraction was normally about 99.5% or so. His job was to measure how far over the contracted amount the coal purity was and add more gravel to ensure it was at the minimum contracted level. To make the ore less pure!
How about that for an ethical question?