= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
qsz comments on Open thread, Nov. 09 - Nov. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (175)
What are you trying to achieve by posting these very specific hypothetical situations? The common theme seems to be "how one can adequately protect oneself, given future plans that somehow undermine one's present position" but the specific circumstances vary too much.
Wow, I didn't realise that commonality. I'll have to think this through for a bit.
I'm plainly trying to understand my strategic environment. The question isn't really that much of an abstraction from reality. I currently work in politics (but I'm not a politician nor work for the hypothetical senator).
I was especially thinking of a previous comment (maybe in another open thread) about a hypothetical PhD researcher working for industry but interested in revealing some confidential information later on. Having seen that comment which seemed to lack awareness of the kinds of legal agreements that are made in such cases, when I saw this one I wondered whether it was another "outsider" hypothetical with a more general goal.
I work in research, not in politics so I can't offer any suggestions on this one.
Ah yes, the 'would this constitute inside trading' hypothetical. Yes, that was also an NOT abstraction of a real situation, perhaps maybe, plausible deniability. I think I'm just privy to a lot of risk taking behaviour by people who are willing to risk current positions for future ones.