I have no idea what point you were trying to make. The "cattle" analogy is about reproducibility. There is absolutely no reason to keep systems in an unmanageable state that you cannot reproduce.
It doesn't matter. You can't have these conversations without being censored anymore.
My works HR department got sick of having people use "logic" and "evidence" to argue against their policies. After kicking a few people out the door and generally saying you can't talk about this at work anymore, nobody talks about it.
>use "logic" and "evidence" to argue against their policies.
Many times when folks who tell me they're presenting "logic" and "evidence" in a debate they're personally invested in there's grave flaws in both their logic and evidence presented. The freedom to intellectually debate HR's policies in a company is rightly limited, you can call it "censorship" but endless uninvited earnest debate about policies isn't really wanted or needed in the workplace.
And this is where the resentment came from as well. It was always well understood that HR is not exactly there to help you, but I know I personally snapped at one drone ( and eventually quit ) over those inflexible policies dictated from clouds above.
At the end of the day, you can
always choose not to play.
edit: I dont want to name the policy as it may identify the company. It was a particularly idiotic one though.
People who use “logic” and “evidence” usually tend to do so in a manner so out of context and so obstinately, it tends to negative the validity of their points, at least that is my experience.
