I get the point that the author is making, that any given employee's work is more complex and difficult than you might guess from a short summary, but... Well, that's the case for everybody? At the end of the day the company still needs a way to judge how valuable any given employee was.

The article complains that managers end up competing on who plays the calibration game better, yet a lot of suggestions at the end boil down to "managers should play the calibration game harder".

I'm not sure there's a systemic solution to this.

> There are plenty of illegal immigrants with a criminal record.

Assuming that all the people who will be negatively impacted by a blanket policy will be criminals is also a failure of empathy.

Trump explicitly, repeatedly said he would deport all undocumented immigrants. That explicitly means migrants without a criminal record. Yes, he sometimes claimed that most of them were bad or criminals or eating pets, but believing that isn't a failure of epistemology! Trump didn't craft some deviously clever lie here, he just said a bunch of bullshit and people bought it because they needed a bogeyman.

As sibling comments point out, the reason these "Oh, we didn't know!" excuses from Trump voters ring hollow is that given a choice, they'd still vote for him today. They'll still vote Republican next election, the primaries will still pick the most Trump-like candidate for the party. Nothing was learned.

Because learning anything would require admitting that, yes, Trump's lies were extremely easy to see through, yes, any blanket measures against immigrants will also hurt the "good ones", and yes, Trump voters are morally responsible for the things Trump does.

I strongly disagree with your framing. Yes, policies can have unintended consequences and immigration policy in particular is a minefield of obvious solutions having terrible results... But that's not what we're talking about.

When OP says "I was for wide-scale deportations until I saw people I like being deported", it's not a case of unintended consequences, it's a case of "When I voted for the leopard party I didn't think the leopards would eat the faces of people I like!"

Unintended consequences means things like "criminality increased because immigrant communities lost trust in the police".

But come on. "Families swept into jails, plain-clothes officers ambushing people on their way to work or school" is how deportations work. Being surprised by that is like being surprised that the death penalty means people get executed.

This isn't a failure of epistemology, it's a failure of empathy. OP just didn't think that the people getting deported would turn out to be people with moral value.

> The best case scenario is that you lied about having people answer support. LLMs pretending to be people (you named it Sam!) and not labeled as such is clearly intended to be deceptive.

Also, illegal in the EU.

Maybe wait more than an hour before implying the refunds were a lie all along.