Astral Codex Ten

President

10 min read

President

Article

President is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between April 15, 2025 and March 01, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as “Congress and the President set their budget and balance it off against their other priorities”; “Congress and the President set their budget”; “the President has inherent powers derived from his constitutional role”. It most often appears alongside Congress, ACX, Affordable Housing Bureau.

Metadata

  • Category: People
  • Mention count: 2
  • Issue count: 2
  • First seen: April 15, 2025
  • Last seen: March 01, 2026

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Highlights From The Comments On POSIWID
April 15, 2025 · Original source
the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm And I think it’s the second that’s most relevant to POSIWID. If the system could switch to doing the good without the bad, would it happily make the switch? For the cancer hospital: yes! For NEPA: I think not. This is an interesting test, thanks. My only concern is that “if the system could switch” is kind of meaningless. When we ask whether the purpose of a charity is to help the poor, or just to give high salaries to its CEO, the test urges us to ask “If it could switch to helping the poor just as much without paying its CEO anything, would it do that?” What if the answer is “the board, low-level staff, and donors would support this, but the CEO wouldn’t,” and the charity’s actions come from compromises negotiated among these groups? What is the purpose of the charity then? TimG writes: I've seen reports (don't know how true) that NGOs in San Fran get paid a lot of money to solve homelessness. But after billions spent, homelessness is worse. I thought this saying was a kinda reference to that sort of thing: the NGOs are there to collect money by virtue of the fact that there are homeless. Which is not what they are purported to do. My understanding of the situation is that there are many groups. Some are traditional anti-homelessness groups that try to build homeless shelters or something. Others are homeless-rights-advocacy groups that try to prevent the police from doing things which they think violate homeless people’s rights, like forcing them to go to shelters. It’s true that these two purposes are at odds, and that this conflict prolongs homelessness in San Francisco. But I think that thinking of this as a “system” whose “purpose” is to preserve homelessness (because systems actually act in ways contradictory to their goals) makes you less able to understand the dynamics, not more! The build-shelter groups are mostly building shelters! The fight-against-shelters groups are mostly fighting against shelters! Both of them are doing what they claimed to do, and it’s all canceling out. The more you are tempted to think of [the set of both these groups] as a single “system” fulfilling a single “purpose”, the more confused you’re making yourself. Brett writes: I've always thought of the phrase as an argument against the "no true Scotsman" fallacy when it's used in an organisational setting. When there are significant failings of an organisation, the response (within the organisation) can sometimes be: "there are some bad apples working against the purpose of our system: our system is not supposed to do this and the failings are due to individuals and not the system itself". POSIWID then is applicable: you can't claim a system "isn't supposed to" do something, if it's repeatedly doing it on a large enough scale. I don’t think this works. Often failures are because of incompetent individuals. For example, one reason that UK intelligence agencies did such a bad job fighting Communism in the ‘40s and ‘50s was that lots of their staff, including some leaders, were Soviet spies. When those people were replaced, results improved! And there are plenty of stories of companies that turn around once a few bad executives get fired and replaced (eg Apple after Jobs came back). So why would we want a phrase saying that the failure of systems is never because of incompetent individuals? David Henry (blog) writes: It makes the most sense if you don't take it as having anything to do with intentions. The truth at which it gestures is "This system can be relied upon to consistently produce this outcome, just as if it were designed to do so." The point is to suggest that the "unintended side effects" are a direct result of the "rules" of the system, intentionally so or not, and therefore you can't ignore them as one-off incidents, or hope a minor patch will fix it. The system needs to be abolished, or else given a complete overhaul. Obviously the ambiguous phrasing also allows you to assign insanely hostile and nonsensical motives to the outgroup. I would like to think this was not intention of the people who came up with the phrase, but whether it is or not, it can be relied upon to consistently produce that outcome. I agree this is one of many possible meanings it could have which there are much better ways to phrase. Joost de Wit writes: I’d say the hospital is precisely designed to cure 66% of people because it operates within constraints (financial, #doctors, approved meds). A “system” designed to cure let’s say 99% of people would look wholly different. I have occasionally been a low-level representative in hospital administration meetings. I’m trying to to think of what suggestions I could given to “redesign” the hospital to cure 99% of people. “Hey, guys, have you considered having more money?” I guarantee the hospital has considered this. The reason they don’t have more money is that insurance companies won’t pay more for care and donors won’t donate more. Maybe you could bring it up a level, to the US health care system as a whole? But insofar as anyone is in charge here (maybe the Secretary of Health and Human Services), I guarantee that person has also considered getting more money. The reason they don’t have more money is that Congress and the President set their budget and balance it off against their other priorities. Maybe the system is America as a whole? In this case yeah, you could imagine an America redesigned completely around cancer care, where there are sky-high taxes and all the money goes to cancer hospitals, so much so that bridges collapse and the military can’t defend the country anymore because we’re spending all the money on hospitals. But what does it mean to have a “systems analysis” principle which is incapable of accurately analyzing any system smaller than the whole country? Also, shouldn’t we expect a good theory to yield true predictions? My theory is that cancer hospitals want to cure as many patients as possible (given other constraints). If I recommended them a new policy that would increase their cure rate, they might worry about cost or hassle - but if it were low-cost and low-hassle, they’d eventually implement it. But if you recommended a new policy that brought them closer to 66% (“We’re on track to rise to 70% next year, but if we get Dr. Smith to relapse back into alcoholism, we can go back to 66%!”) they would call you insane and fire you immediately and definitely not agree. Since “make cure rates as high as possible” accurately predicts the hospital’s behavior, but “keep cure rates at exactly 66%” doesn’t, why would you describe the second one as the “purpose”? What use is it to accuse them of having a “purpose” which they will never take any action to achieve? But also, what are even we doing here? In real life, nobody says things like “the purpose of a cancer hospital is to keep cure rates at 66%”. Why are people defending this inane statement so hard? This reminds me of the old atheism-religion debates, where some atheist would bring up an awkwardly-phrased Bible statement, and the religious people would contort themselves to say that nooooooo, it’s totally true that the world was created in seven days, as long as you define day to mean “any time period of an indeterminate length”. But at least their motives make sense to me; lots of other things depend on whether Bible verses are true or false. POSIWID was first coined in 2001. Why should people contort themselves to defend this extremely poorly-phrased thing? In this comment thread, people have claimed that the real meaning of POSIWID is: Chesterton’s Fence
Inline links: writes, writes, blog, writes, writes
"All Lawful Use": Much More Than You Wanted To Know
March 01, 2026 · Original source
Mass and targeted surveillance of foreigners in their foreign countries is legal. Broadly, the courts have declined to grant standing to allow court cases to test the Executive Branch’s position that the President has inherent powers derived from his constitutional role to authorize foreign intelligence and counterintelligence surveillance, which de facto has allowed this position to become the standard Executive Branch argument for lawfulness.
Inline links: President has inherent powers derived from his constitutional role to authorize foreign intelligence and counterintelligence surveillance
Whatever the President thinks is legal may also, in certain cases, be legal. During the War on Terror, President George W. Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel claimed that he also had the inherent constitutional power as President to lawfully authorize warrantless mass collection of internet metadata and telephone call records, a dragnet scooping up Americans and non-Americans’ data alike. The program was initially justified by counterterrorism, but was far more expansive4. This was such a scandal within the US government that many DOJ officials threatened to resign; even DOJ officials who didn’t know what was going on threatened to resign because they assumed it was so bad. Later, the program was moved under statutory and FISA Court frameworks, until finally Congress ended it by passing the USA FREEDOM Act.
Inline links: warrantless mass collection of internet metadata and telephone call records, 4, threatened to resign because they assumed it was so bad