It Does not Matter Who

Recently, a football player unexpectedly ended his life. There were expressions of angst and surprise. Yahoo Sports noted that "Deaths of young NFL players never make sense," and then listed several other examples in recent years. the author lamented their ages, their "dreams," and their "too much to live for." This was all somewhat focused perhaps on the monetary rewards of professional sports and the attendant or parallel fame.

The exposé proceeds to mention mental struggles, appearances, and risks. There is little effort there to illuminate or expound on these. Having glossed over the collective lack of real familiarity in the fan/athlete relationship, the author wanders through the potentials for fans to perceive various issues or instances in which there may be no signs or indicia.

There are instances cited in which retirements have similarly been surprising. The theme of these is the underlying physical pain endured by those who make a living crashing into each other in pursuit of a pigskin. The author notes these examples as more readily accepted by fans. There are two coincident tangents there: that those athletes provided explanations, and that the explanations were seen as rational and reasonable.

But what of the suicide? No one likes that word. Articles that use itoften lead with something like:

"This story contains references to suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide and needs support now, call or text 988 or chat with the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988lifeline.org."

There is merit in that. Warnings are positive, and resources are worthwhile. See AI Lacks Conscience? (September 2025), Mental Health Emphasis (February 2025), Remediation and Reminders (November 2024), Construction? (June 2024), And September is Awareness Month (September 2022).

There is room here for some criticism. The focus of the author is on "the struggles of athletes we watch." I have never seen Marshawn, and if you have and are impacted, please accept my condolences on your loss. 

The criticism is that there is a seeming conclusion that struggles, hidden issues, and challenges are an "athlete thing." They are not. The lamentations regarding Marshawn might as readily be directed at a great volume of people who have taken permanent action in the face of temporary circumstances.

The fact is that many people die by suicide. The Centers for Disease Control says, "Over 49,000 people died of suicide in 2023." That amounts to a death every 11 minutes. It is nowhere near the accidental overdose rate (the total this century is over a million, the rate of which is improving, but still outrageous), but it is very significant. Additionally, 1.5 million people tried suicide in 2024. Another "12.8 million seriously thought about suicide."

Note to file: not all or even most of these were young athletes involved in high-profile, high-paying occupations. None of them was more than the football player; none was any less. 

Midway through the Yahoo Sports article, the author finally hits the real point worth discussing: "We don’t know what we can’t see." It was that sentence that spawned this blog post.

You simply do not know what someone is going through. I have written on that before. See Judge Jails Teen (August 2024) and Starfish (February 2022).

There is no explaining the why, whether it is a promising young athlete, a Ms. USA, or the person on the corner. Each has value. Each faces challenges. Each is as opaque as the next, and no one can expect or anticipate being able to see through their polished exterior to directly perceive what troubles them beneath. To try is a fool's errand.

The Yahoo author suggests we are disconnected. There is blame for our digital habits and lack of human connection. There is a perceived lack of empathy, personally and societally. There is much to lament, much to ponder, and much to be done.

In every profession, endeavor, school, and beyond, there are people who struggle. This will include the popular, the intellectual, and the abled, whether their particular talent and value have been perceived.

I say that because a great many people I know fail utterly to appreciate their own talents and values. There are too many who think that temporary challenges, however objectively insignificant or devastating, can be addressed with a permanent reaction.

We can do better. Reach out today and give someone a call. Share a joke, catch up on trivialities, and connect. They may need your call. For all you know, you may need it more than they do.

Yes, but How?

Some perceive appellate courts as courts of justice. They are courts of error. The displeased or disappointed party seeking review ("appellant") is pointing out an error(s) and asking the court to direct a different outcome. The answering party(ies) are seeking to show there was no error or that any error was harmless. See Understanding how Justice Process Works (March 2016).

There are many opportunities for legal interpretation and growth. I was recently reflecting on the role of appellate courts and other tribunals. There is a primacy in the trial tribunal contributed to by both function and economics.

The fact is that litigation is an expensive method for solving disputes. This expense, in pure economic terms, is noteworthy in terms of time and currency. Success requires investment of each, and there is the persistent chance that any party's investment will yield no return; they will not prevail. Therefore, most disputes are resolved through negotiation.

Thus, a small subset of filed claims reaches the point of a judge, or in the civil context, a jury, deciding issues of fact in a dispute, and some party prevailing.

The majority of those decisions are distasteful or disappointing to at least one party. That is widely accepted as axiomatic. The observer should also know, however, that it is not uncommon for all parties to find disappointment or dissatisfaction in the result of the trial.

This is anachronistic to some. They see any contest result as being binary, a "win" or "loss." There is some truth to that. The non-prevailing party is generally disappointed or worse. Nonetheless, the prevailing litigation party may not get all that was sought or desired.

As a general proposition, any disappointed party may seek review of the trial tribunal decision. These opportunities are defined by various statutes or constitutions. The party seeking review is the "appellant," and the responding party is the "appellee."

To make that more confusing, both parties may seek review. In that instance, each party is both. The "appellant" may also be the "cross appellee," and the "appellee" also the "cross appellant." This can be quite significant because appellate courts are courts of error, and the probable outcome of an appeal is affirming the trial tribunal.

Studies have concluded "that roughly 90% of appellate court decisions affirm lower court rulings." See Barry C. Edwards, Why Appeals Courts Rarely Reverse Lower Courts: An Experimental Study to Explore Affirmation Bias, 68 Emory L. J. Online 1035 (2019). That is a compelling consideration; most trial decisions are the end. It is exceedingly important that parties invest their best efforts at trial in the disputes that they elect to litigate.

It also bears mentioning that the impact of minimal reversal rates is hierarchical. Any jurisdiction's primary level of review is more accessible than its next. Simply stated, most litigants have a right to have trial tribunal decisions reviewed; however, further review beyond that initial foray is rarely a right.

Thus, despite the oversimplifications taught in secondary school, consideration by a state's ultimate court (often "Supreme") is far less accessible, and consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court is exceedingly rare statistically. Thus, it is likewise also exceedingly important that parties invest their best efforts in the initial appeal of any disputes they pursue there.

As an aside, the Edwards paper scratches the surface of inherent predisposition or "bias," addressing one concern: "Affirmation Bias." The reader should consider that there are at least 150 identified and named biases or predispositions. While Affirmation is worthy of study, it is no more so than the others. Though the topic of appellate affirmation is not the focus, the reader might consider Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), available at https://dwlangham.com/free-publications.

The topic of stare decisis, or "to stand by things decided," is a legal imperative. Trial tribunals are effectively bound to follow precedent. The Florida First District Court, in the realm of Florida workers' compensation, has admonished:

"Although a lower tribunal or court may bring its concerns regarding the application of specific case law to the appellate courts, it is nonetheless bound to follow precedent." Andrews v. McKim & Creed, 355 So. 3d 957, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023).

That is an academically correct foundation. Nonetheless, appellate authorities have been less contrite about their own adherence to precedent. Departures from established precedent may disrupt predictability and stability, leading to community perceptions of activism and ideology.

It also bears discussion of the potential flaw in the admonition. While free to "bring its concerns," there is the potential that the trial tribunal may be frankly unable. Few disputes reach trial, fewer still are appealed, and far fewer still achieve any appellate outcome beyond "affirmed." The path to consideration of change is very narrow.

Thus, it is incumbent on the trial tribunal to follow the law, statutory and decisional (stare decisis). Nonetheless, when the statute or decisional interpretations are not square with the facts at issue, the trial tribunal is free to distinguish that authority.

The paths for that discourse may lie in explaining the application of some contrary authority. It may instead lie in a factual distinction that renders application of a statute or prior authority inapplicable or questionable. To the point, it is incumbent on the parties to bring such authority to the trial, to both drive favorable interpretation and distinguish contrary authority.

It is for the trial judge to analyze authority and to either follow the arguably controlling authority or explain why departure is appropriate in the particular dispute presented.

The shortfall in Andrews was in stepping into why an appellate interpretation was incorrect. Make no mistake, many appellate interpretations are at best questionable. Appellate bodies are no less prone to error than any human endeavor; thus, there is always potential to appeal the decision of the appellate body to yet another, to a legislative body, or to the people from whom all governmental authority flows. 

Such appellate decisions, expansions, or retreats may conclude an appellate decision was incorrect. That path, however arduous or narrow, remains open for any party to advocate. Nonetheless, it is appropriate that only the appellate body in question ventures down the path to concluding "incorrect" or "wrong." When one does so, that label should be clear, with acknowledgement of the error's source. 

Thus, the "how" is not for the trial adjudicator to explain why appellate authority is flawed or poorly reasoned. The "how" is for the trial adjudicator to explain why such analysis is inapplicable or inapposite in the factual setting presented at trial. It is then for the parties to elect appellate review or not, and for the appellate body to (re)consider the application of law or not. 

Those who litigate should remember. Those who appeal should consider. Those who predict should harken back to the Edwards article and the array of predispositions that are the human psyche. 

 

Screen Time Wins

There is little doubt that the next generation is different. I have frequently lamented that, but it is a reality for which I have strenuously advocated acceptance. They have chosen their course, and the world is their oyster. We cannot change people, but must find a methodology for supporting their ascendancy and success somehow.

They are the TickTock generation, and they love screen time. Videos rule the information space, and they are exceedingly brief and abrupt, often utterly pointless, and sometimes dangerous. Gen Z is different. No doubt, others have been too; see These Kids Today (July 2023); Let's Make a Change (April 2023), and Making Legacy (January 2026). 

I have advocated for accepting the differences. I have been tolerant. I have railed against my inner balcony-man. I have even persistently let them play on my lawn.

GMA reported last month that "screen time alone doesn't tell the whole story." The challenge is the "immersive ecosystem designed to keep kids engaged." This is "social media, games, apps, and algorithm-driven feeds built around autoplay, notifications, and targeted content." Our young people are under targeted and near incessant attack.

So what? A recent Fortune article threw me. The author contends that students are now utterly unprepared for college work. For years, I have heard professorial types pontificate about the demise of critical thinking. In this, there is likely merit in reinforcing that college does matter, despite its naysaying critics. 

As an aside, college itself may be a fluid construct. Some of them are beginning to accept and embrace artificial intelligence. See Competency for Incompetents (January 2026). They are rethinking their value exchange, or at least their side of the exchange.

Economist Thomas Sowell addressed the critical thinking criticisms in his 1992 book Inside American Education:

"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."

He was springboarding off of another author; more on that in a moment. But he was beating the drum on thinking over 30 years ago.

Physicist Carl Sagan had similar thoughts in his 1995 book, Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

"The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."

Though these gentlemen and other luminaries have passed, I suspect their views on social media and Tick Tock would be entertaining and insightful. I hear Monty Python in my head: "and now for something completely different ..." (1971)(video and short attention span is not new). 

I have railed against the demise of critical thinking in my several semesters of teaching. I have taught many semesters of college. I am wondering if I have the stamina to make it to 100 classes. It is one of my life goals, but it would require several years, and I am old. Nonetheless, I have seen many young people as students (well over 1,000). I see the challenges with thinking, engagement, and criticality. 

To summarize: critical thinking is a problem. Artificial intelligence is not helping; social media is not helping. They are, at best, impeding and more likely deteriorating our minds and souls. But I digress.

The Fortune article asserts that far worse than being unable to think, "students are arriving to classrooms unable to complete assigned reading." In fairness, Rudolph Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can't Read in 1955 (yes, likely the same "Johnny" that Sowell was referencing). It has sold millions of copies, in multiple editions, and is sound in title and content.

I must admit, I never read it, but the Cliff Notes are classic (get it?). If you prefer, Don Henley can sing it to you. Shortcuts are not new, folks. We weren't all Rhodes Scholars, and to be fair, neither were they. 

Reading has been a challenge since I can remember, with spots on Saturday morning cartoons, sound-biting math, history, policy, and even reading (we used papyrus tablets back then, but hey, they were tablets).  

Speaking of reading, or the lack of reading .... 

Back in the day, I was a fan of the Washington R*%&$(#s. It was a football team that offended many. One of the most colorful players in that era was Dexter Manley, a defensive end with a flair for post-game sound bites. I will never forget the day in 1989 when he:

"revealed that his entire experience as a full scholarship college student-athlete (at Oklahoma State) was fraudulent, as he could neither read nor write."

He finished his coursework at Oklahoma State and could not read or write. I suspect he was not alone. That was in 1980, almost 50 years ago. No, this is not a new issue.  

But Dexter was insightful. He was entertaining. He was fun to watch demolish offenses. He was no Yogi Berra, but I will never forget his statement that he was going to "ring (Joe Montana's) clock." He was belittled for it, but it was funny, pithy, and pure Dexter. A million pundits have threatened to ring a bell, but Dexter's version will resonate forever. 

Maybe not being able to read is not new? Maybe being able to read is not critical to success? Maybe there are various paths to career, productivity, and contribution to society?

Nonetheless, I cannot fathom or condone college students who cannot read. If they don't love it, I get it. If they hate it, I still get it. There is no reason that one must be enthralled with or enjoy a chore to be proficient. But, you have to be ABLE to do it.

All the AI in the world will only mislead and distract in the hands of people who have no actual intellect, education, or experience. AI in the hands of an expert is exceptionally useful, and in the hands of a fool, it is the most dangerous tool ever invented. 

The Fortune article notes that reading is generally decreasing. The American public is not reading as they once did. This may be preference or product; cause and effect are debatable. In short, I wonder if we are not reading because we don't like it or if we don't like it because there is nothing worth reading (Ah, the old chicken or the egg debate).

As an aside, Poynter.org says that 3,500 American newspapers have closed since 2005 (that is 175 per year), and two are currently closing every week. Even the flagships are struggling; the Washington Post will soon layoff a third of its employees. Why? Well, it is certainly not because readership is booming and costs are decreasing. Does this support a generalized deterioration of reading? Is it only Gen Z? I think not. 

Back to Fortune. It notes that "nearly half of all Americans did not read a single book in 2025." As much as we might commiserate with Mr. Flesch, Dr. Sowell, or Dr. Sagan on critical thinking, the problem may be with the foundational reading. Why are young people not interested in reading? The facts support that "Gen Z’s reading habits still lag behind all other generations."

One professor quoted by Fortune says instructors are now "tap dancing," reading aloud to students in class, and conceding that students simply "can’t process about the very words that are on the page.” The reaction is labeled with the pejorative "coddling." The professors are being accused of lowering standards, accepting mediocrity, and tailoring curriculum to the lowest common denominator.

Some lament that a typical preparation was once "25 to 40 pages of reading per class," and students did it. I can recall personally much higher volumes in my law school experience. And, to make it worse, I had to read some (pronounced "many") of those pages more than once. Kudos to those of you who get it all on the first pass. See comments on the Rhodes Scholars, above. 

The quoted professors say that level of preparation is not accepted by students today. They will not read such a volume, and "many students instead just lean on AI summaries and miss the point of assigned reading." Holy misdirection Bat Man! AI is not always right? This is a Hall and Oates moment: "Say it isn't so" (RCA 1983). I will never forget when Mr. Maxwell warned my 11th Grade English class that the Hamlet Cliff Notes were inaccurate and incomplete - Blasphemy! 

It may be important now to consider tomorrow. The lamentable challenge with reading is troublesome, but the next generation faces allegations that are perhaps worse. Decluttering Mom reports that primary school kids today "can code on a tablet but cannot tie their shoes, write a legible sentence, or remember their own phone number." What are the basics for this century? In fairness, my own phone number is the only one that I do remember anymore (sometimes I have to check the phone while reciting it, though). 

The fact is, regardless of recriminations, the American education system built the roads that lead here ("all roads lead to Rome," Liber Parabolarum, 1175). There have been many detours and fallacies over the years, but, nonetheless, here we are. The state of education is what we built or allowed.

Well, all roads don't lead to Rome today (literally), and all education does not have to lead to illiteracy tomorrow. That we now have a generation that either never fell in love with the written word or was spurned by it matters. We can be analytical and retrospective. But what matters more is what we do next. 

In our modern world, where will the roads lead? What will we value? How will generations judge content, volume, and delivery? Can we move beyond, retreat from, the 15-second stupidity?

Self Insurance

I recently had the chance to speak to a group of workers' compensation professionals from around the nation. They are each involved with "self-insurance," a term that has evolved over the years that I have been involved in this community. 

Some are surprised when they are reminded that the vast majority of obligations in the workers' compensation law are the employer's. There is habitual reference in this community to the "employer/carrier," and certainly, there are contractual obligations between employers and carriers. By this contracting, the employer's statutory obligations can become the carrier's as well. 

This reminds me of the many discussions of "tripartite relationships" that arise in the realm of attorneys who defend insurance companies. I have heard many debate whether the insured (policyholder) or the insurer is "the client." The easy answer is "both," but there may arise instances in which the attorney will perceive conflict between the two clients' interests. Those may be difficult courses to tread. 

Many in the community do not recall, but in the 1970s it became difficult to obtain workers' compensation coverage in Florida. There was a perception of risk and pricing that led to diminished coverage availability. Insurance carriers became selective in their selection of employers, and some left the market completely. 

The solution was for employers to provide their own coverage, "self-insurance," which was realistic for some employers but financially beyond the reach of others. This is a simple thought; you might choose to buy insurance on your car or drive it without any. If you have an accident with insurance, you have less financial responsibility, but if you are without coverage, you are fully responsible. It is easy to see that the choice may be more available for those with large financial resources. 

The solution to that inequity in 1970s workers' compensation was that employers banded together and formed "funds" to provide coverage to those in their group. They were still "self-insured," but not individually so. This started a new lexicon with phrases and abbreviations. There were "self-insureds," "individual self-insureds," and more. 

There was soon a realization that the day-to-day of adjusting or managing a loss could be both time-consuming and complex. The logical path might be for a self-insured to hire adjusters and managers or to contract with a company that has such expertise on staff. Thus, self-insureds came to be referred to also as "self-administered" (expertise on staff) or not (contracting for that expertise).

The trend continued, and there were bumps. There had long been state funds as safety nets for insurance company financial failures (guarantee funds). Florida had the Florida Insurance Guarantee Fund (FIGA). The advent of self-insurance prompted a similar response in the Florida Self-Insurance Guaranty Fund (FSIGA). 

And yet, as the 20th century drew to a close, the insurance markets were more accessible. Self-insurance began to lose adherents. Large companies abandoned the challenges of financial disclosure, regulation, and hiring/managing expertise. They shifted back to insurance, but with a twist. 

Much as you might make a choice to self-insure your car, you might choose to reduce the cost of your auto policy with a "deductible." This merely lowers the insurance company risk and therefore lowers the policy price. If you have a $500 deductible, there are many minor events the insurance company will not have to pay for. 

As the deductible increases, the volume of avoided risks also increases, and the policy price decreases accordingly. Those deductibles might be "per claim" or "per year." The "per year" model is popular today with many health policies. 

In the 1990s, I had a client with a $5 million per-claim deductible.  That meant that for any accident, the expenses had to reach $5 million before the insurance company owed a nickel. However, the adjusting and management (expertise) was included from dollar one, just like in the example of non-self-administered self-insurance above. 

Complex enough? Well, stay tuned. 

In the self-insured model, a customer might choose to limit risk by buying "excess insurance." This would pick up at some preset level. The effect is much like a deductible. Once the age of guaranty funds began, states started mandating that all self-insureds would have "excess insurance." That is, all self-insureds had to have insurance. 

In the insurance model, a carrier may do the same. Having signed on for the risk of loss for an employer, the carrier may manage and finance that risk entirely, or it may likewise purchase excess insurance to limit its losses. In effect, the carrier takes some of the premium it receives and pays another carrier to assume some of the risk. 

That brings us back to the "tripartite" relationship. The employer may be a client, with responsibilities and rights. The carrier may likewise have responsibilities and rights. And, there may be one or more excess carriers stacked up on top, each with responsibilities and rights. 

Why would it matter? From the defense attorney's perspective, it may matter in terms of reporting, documenting, and discussing. It may be important in terms of representation, competing rights, and duties. And, for the worker, it may be important as regards the negotiation process (who is making decisions) and timing (how many layers, meetings, or committees will examine the decisions). 

But, at the foundation, the main point is that whoever has a "self-insured" portion or a "deductible" is self-insuring some portion of the potential financial responsibility. They are at risk and therefore should be conscious of the decisions being confronted, the analysis process, and the recommendations. Despite being "insured," the responsibility may suggest some "self-insured" risk to be managed. 

Despite the decreases in "self-insureds," there is a fair volume of self-insurance remaining in the marketplace, and those who would resolve or litigate claims would do well to understand the implications of it. 

Process and Balance

It is impractical today to know if there are trends in the real world. Our news sources track what we read and how long we linger on stories, and mathematical algorithms analyze and proselytize. The computers push content that the math suggests will draw our clicks, hold our attention, please their advertisers, and maximize their platform profits.

Social media is no different. Click on a post that advocates eating avocados, and you will likely see more avocado references. Do a few Google searches for avocado, and that may also drive such a trend.

And none of this is in a vacuum, as the advent of artificial intelligence has accelerated and empowered this process of categorizing and steering us. I recently heard from a friend whose AI research led to various humorous references that suggested such algorithm involvement. 

The AI, perhaps, seeks to please the user. Pam Langham is an eminent AI expert and says that LLMs are much like golden retrievers in their drive to please us. 

Thus, whether there has been an uptick in landlord/tenant disputes is unclear to me. But clearly, I am seeing more of them in the news recently. Some involve the formerly famous, like Denise Richards, or Mickey Rourke. Those seemingly involve eye-popping dollar figures. Others involve simple people like the rest of us.

The balance of equities is a persistence. There are concerns expressed by landlords, who perceive themselves as being frustrated by laws, regulations, and processes governing the eviction of tenants. Their stories note the challenges of a small property owner, who might require a year or more to reclaim their premises from a tenant who has ceased to pay rent.

There are also advocates who lament the ability of landlords to do as they wish with their property. They see inequity in a tenant being forced to find new accommodations, and particularly with short notice. These find equity and socialistic controls of private property as paramount to mere ownership.

For examples, look to the content of Buzzfeed about landlords, or the subreddit about tenant horror stories. A Google search will find you more examples, accusations, and likely some embellishment and hyperbole on both perspectives and the perceptions of each.

I see the competing interests of property law, contracts, and due process. Those who make policy have to balance the interests of broad constituencies like landlords and tenants. They enact statutes, ordinances, and regulations that govern how the rights of each are recognized and the extent to which they are protected.

It is always possible that policymaking will result in unintended consequences and may shift the rights/burdens analyses in expected or unexpected ways, according to the New York Post. Nonetheless, these articles are about real estate, not workers' compensation. But is the policy process and the balancing of rights and burdens really any different in workers' compensation?

That said, the main connection of the real estate issue is the litigation necessary for eviction. This pertains to expenses associated with the due process of determining how statutes, regulations, and contracts are applied to the tenancy in those properties. This is no different than the process for determining entitlement to worker benefits, and the related expense of both prosecution and defense.

Therefore, it was interesting to read some of the comments readers posted; those below were similar to others. The first commenter, "Lawrence," suggests avoiding the expense of a lawyer and "use AI." He provides advice on what to tell the large language model (LLM) and how wonderful the result will be, complete with "legal terminology and case precedents."

Another commenter, "Ed," responds with the fundamental truth that AI cannot be trusted. He warns of hallucination, ineffective responses, and the potential for tribunal sanctions. He also points out that how laws work often depends on the precise jurisdiction; state laws may differ, and local ordinances may differ even within the same state.

"Jim" jumped in to caution that even the best AI will not "help you think on your feet at a court hearing. Just the opposite."

As I reflected on these, it occurred to me that some who write comments on articles are likely not so well informed ("use AI"), while others are much better informed than some lawyers. See Lazy and Sanctioned (December 2025).

In the end, the whole discussion leads to some broad recommendations. Disputes over property, whether a leased premises or a worker's benefits, will potentially be time-consuming and challenging. Internet chats, article comments, and artificial intelligence are not likely the best places to get legal advice.

Competency for Incompetents

In the old days, we geriatrics were told we had to learn math, trigonometry, and algebra manually. The academic premise, boiled down to stock, was that we should not rely on calculators because in "the real world," we would not always have access to them. 

That guess was spectacularly wrong, and today we each carry more computing power in our pockets than NASA had to send Neal Armstrong to the moon (or to make deep fakes to make you believe he did).

I learned to process calculations for the mean and standard deviations a million years ago in a galaxy far, far away. We took a great deal of time to do these calculations in an era that had just discovered the spreadsheet. 

After graduating from college, I was introduced to the PC, VisiCalc, and later SuperCalc, Lotus123, Quattro Pro, and eventually Excel. Today, the standard deviation calculation that used to take me an hour can be done in seconds in Excel. It is so easy, I have forgotten how to do it manually (atrophy)

A few years later, I struggled to research decisional law, draw inferential distinctions and similarities, and build arguments. This also included assuring the currency of law through a book-intensive process called "Shepardizing." That company published a book of cryptic codes alerting to the citation of authorities. 

As I Shepardized, I had free access to the then-nascent innovations called Westlaw and Lexis, which each did the Shepardizing function. They were clunky, unfamiliar, and of questionable efficacy, but they did it. 

The academics told us we really needed to know how to do it the manual way. They cautioned that computers and software were expensive, and we might not always have them handy. I recall students using the tech to check their work and others using it to avoid their work. I still have an old Shepards; why can't I part with it?

I have written about the process by which unused skills decay and disappear. See Disuse Atrophy (December 2024); More Proof of Idiocracy (September 2025). What we do not practice, we lose. That is as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, Annie, "bet your bottom dollar ..." (Annie, Broadway, 1977).

So, we face a similar moment in 2026 regarding technology. Academics across the country are struggling with how to effectively teach writing, test inquiry, and measure achievement in a world where Artificial Intelligence (AI) writes without spelling, grammar, or syntax errors. 

Academics, judges, and others insist that people need to know how to write. Just as they clung for a long time to cursive writing, and so much more. 

But academia may be shifting. TCD noted in December that Purdue University would be among the first to bend the knee to our new robot overlords. In the pragmatist spirit of "If you can't beat them, join them," Purdue is shifting curricula.

In 2026, the school is adding "a new graduation requirement" for incoming freshmen. It is adding five AI core competencies in which students will be tested as a requisite for graduation. It is essentially embracing an enemy against which others argue and rebel. 

Notably, it is doing so before the ultimate impacts and results of AI are known, in a time when conjecture, pontification, fear, and anxiety rule. Another current evolution example is Macrohard, and the implications are intriguing. Mr. Musk may be viewed as a heretic, but that does not mean he is wrong. 

Purdue may be the thought leader of tomorrow, or a dimly lit bulb. The TCD article notes that its "announcement was met with widespread scorn" and skepticism. Embracing the purveyor and enabler of plagiarism is not seen as progress. One commenter described the plan as requiring "demonstrating 'competency' in a tool that's primarily a shortcut for incompetent people." 

Ouch. That is fairly critical. In centuries past, thinkers like Giordano Bruno and others confronted threats to their forward-thinking heresy. Power and institutions have always feared and disliked change. 

The Purdue announcement harkened back to summer and the Hechinger Report article on AI integration in higher education. This exposé noted that employers are seeking workers with AI skills and comprehension. The writer claims that "Generative AI technology is rapidly changing the labor market," and that trainers and educators will either get with the preparatory bandwagon or be run over by it.

Thus, colleges and universities are integrating AI into "their course catalogs, and individual professors are altering lessons to include AI skill building." There is a tacit admission there that perhaps calculators and computers will be part of our future and that there is merit in both learning to calculate standard deviations and using VisiCalc to do it for you.

The questions will be multifaceted. Students who lack skills beyond using AI, (manually calculating deviations, checking case citations, writing) may find some purchase in the market. However, those who lack skills will never know for sure if AI is hallucinating, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting.

Those who can both do the calculation and know how to engage a calculator will be more functional, competent, and effective. The same for the lawyers who can both build and support arguments and can use IA to polish, streamline, and perfect. 

They will be competent "humans in the loop." For now, at least, there is enough distrust and discomfort that we will demand "humans in the loop" for the foreseeable future until the AI becomes smart enough to oversee itself (and us). 

In the legal profession, it has always been reasonably easy to spot an advocate making arguments they read somewhere but don't really understand. Some of that is ignorance (not smart) and some is merely ambivalence (not invested). What is the difference between them? I don't know, and I don't care (ponder that).  

Both will persist with AI, indistinguishable from the mediocre lawyer who has a brilliant and imaginative paralegal (partner, associate, clerk). They will persist. As Wanda so poignantly noted, apes do read philosophy, "they just don't understand it." Fish Called Wanda (MGM 1988). 

Nonetheless, there will be arguments, disagreements, and posturing in education, training, and workplaces. Are we training philosophers or apes? Higher education and academia will struggle with whether today's skills are as important or as measurable as those of yesteryear. 

There will be early adopters, adherents, and patrons. There will be critics, detractors, and denigrators. There will be false starts, failures, and victories. 

Time will tell whether AI is the Brave New World of tomorrow or merely another tech bubble waiting to burst. There will be successes, failures, and much in between. But that has been true with various prior innovation waves. 

Progress is a path paved with many potholes and with only a few glorious destinations. There have been many visionaries vilified for their heresy, and yet a fair few who turned out to be correct in the end. This will be fun to watch, but perhaps difficult to live through. 

A hero?

It is all about perspective. Well, perhaps. I was reminded recently of an old joke. I have heard it many times, in many ways. If the following offends your particular school loyalty, feel free to repeat it with the names changed to protect your sensibilities.

Two boys are playing football in (your locale) when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler (if you are a Rotty momma/daddy, change this to whatever breed you wish). The joke is as funny if it is a toy poodle, but harder for some to understand. 

Thinking quickly, the other boy grabs a stick and strikes the attacking dog, averting the threat. A passing reporter witnesses the heroic act and comes over to gather facts for a story (perhaps today, the passer is an "influencer" who shoots a social media "short-form for Tick Tock?")

The reporter/influencer begins, "Young Gator Fan Saves Friend." 

"I don't root for the Gators," the youngster replied.

The reporter-influencer is not deterred and immediately begins again—"Little Seminole fan is a hero for..."

"I would never root for the Seminoles," the young man corrects. 

The reporter/influencer is confused. "Surely you cannot root for UCF?" and then immediately, "There are no other teams in Florida?!?!"

The heroic youngster quickly corrects, "I root for Alabama." 

The reporter/influencer begins anew yet again and intones, "Rotten little redneck delinquent kills innocent and beloved family pet." 

Told this way, you also accomplish insulting both Miami University and the University of South Florida by simple omission. Of course, if you tell it with the home state theme in a smaller state (Indiana), the omission part is a bit more challenging (Purdue, IU, and Notre Dame, but who would include Ball State or Indiana State in any frank or earnest football conversation?).

Nonetheless, the whole point here is perspective. There are any number of ways to look at anything, and much of our own perspective will be based on our personal experiences, encounters, education, socialization, and more. We will be "predisposed" to conclusions on a variety of levels. 

When someone lives in Florida, why would we instantly gravitate to a belief that they are a Gator fan? Is the South Carolina resident automatically a Gamecock, a Hoosier a Boilermaker, or a Californian a Bruin? Why would we assume someone roots for any team, football, basketball, or hockey?

We make assumptions. It is a natural human reaction to the input of data. We presume that others share our interests: "I like badminton; she must also follow badminton." We form associations between thing one and thing two: "He lives in Florida, and the Seminoles are in Florida; he must root for the Seminoles."

We are each hard-wired to make assumptions. Over our lives, we gain experiences that are built on those assumptions, and each time the assumption proves correct, it is reinforced in our inherent predispositions. Those predispositions are invaluable to us in many contexts: ice is slippery, stoves are hot, and dogs bite. 

We all know that these can be disproven. Some ice has been salted/sanded and is not slippery. Some stoves are turned off and are not hot. Not all dogs bite, but we greet each one with caution and inquiry before we assume we are safe. These predispositions can be quite helpful in various contexts. 

To the contrary, there is no corresponding benefit to our assumption that if someone is from South Carolina, they must (1) follow football and (2) root for the Gamecocks. 

In my latest book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), I have tried to peel back a few layers of the onion on these influences. I have applied their definition and essence to the field of dispute resolution. There are definitions, applications, and thoughts regarding how these various assumptions may be deceiving us in our day-to-day lives.

The example of the young ball fan here could be "context effect," "stereotyping," or the "well-travelled road." We might also be simultaneously impacted by all of these and a raft of other predispositions. These are influencing, impacting, and interacting in our day-to-day. 

We cannot (and should not—see the hot stove above) seek to eradicate predisposition from our efforts and endeavors. What we should seek is a better understanding gleaned from introspection and insight. In the words of Mark Cohn, "Do I really feel the way I feel?" (Walking in Memphis, Atlantic Records, 1991). 

We owe it to ourselves to be conscious and to consider how predisposition is coloring our perceptions, conclusions, and actions. It is an imperative in our daily lives, personal and professional. Download the book today and start that beneficial journey of awareness and consciousness. 

There is a free webinar opportunity, the Perils of Misconception, sponsored by WorkCompCollege on February 19, 2026, at 1:00 Eastern. Debra Livingston will moderate the discussion, and I am looking forward to a lively conversation. Join Dr. Geralyn Datz and Dr. Les Kertay for this event!

Ignoring and Distrusting.

I read a fair volume of news headlines daily, and likely peruse two to three dozen news articles. In fairness, the length of news articles seems to have diminished in recent years, and this volume is not so time-consuming.

I strive to pull those stories into my weekly legal lectures at the business college. The news so often includes great examples of legal topics. That effort frequently falls flat as none of the students have seen a headline event. They are busy, distracted, and frankly disinterested in the news.

Occasionally, after scanning an article, I will click on the "comments/" I am usually amazed at much of what the public has to say about the stories.

In a recent comment on a national news story, a local news reporter lamented the quality of that coverage. Their allegation was that the headline was misleading, unsupported by the body of the story, and unworthy of consideration. The local reporter encouraged readers to consider the local coverage instead.

That struck me. The news media being criticised by the news media. (Why don't sharks eat lawyers?)

Within days of that, the Associated Press (AP) ran A lost generation of news consumers? Survey shows how teenagers dislike the news media. That headline resonated because of those college lecture experiences. And it perhaps explained another reason the college students are not following the news.

The Literacy Project reportedly asked teenagers "to describe today's news media" in one word. The adjectives were not flattering:

“biased,” “crazy,” “boring,” “fake,” “bad,” “depressing,” “confusing,” “scary.”

Some of these might well have been similar responses in the 1980s. The news has always been somewhat "scary" and "confusing." That seems old hat. But the other adjectives are intriguing. The Generation Z (1997-2012) and Generation Alpha (2010-2024) each include current teenagers. They are using words like "biased," "crazy," and "fake."

The AP story goes on to describe perceptions of reporting "out of context," journalistic favoritism, fabrication, and more. There are broad negative perceptions ("about half of the teens surveyed"). The AP strives to place blame on prominent political influence and the "fake news ... mantra."

The author conceded, however, that there are examples of "mistakes or ethical lapses that make headlines." There is also acceptance that "opinionated reporters or commentators ... make readers wonder what to believe." This is blamed on recent "industry financial troubles," and "hollowed out newsrooms and fewer journalists."

There is also lamentation of the lack of positive Hollywood portrayals of the journalist profession. The author notes that the same Literacy survey asked teens to name such portrayals, and the leading answers were "the 'Spider Man' franchise" and "the movie 'Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy,'" neither of which was "particularly flattering."

This made me think of the legal profession, which has been the butt of more than a few jokes over the years (see above re sharks). In a parallel path, the legal profession is rarely portrayed by Hollywood in a complimentary or flattering manner. The public's impression of lawyers is largely drawn from increasingly aggressive and often degrading advertising campaigns, some seemingly just trying to out-buffoon the next one.

The proposed solution for journalists is to stop striving to pull the next generations to what "captivat(ed) people 20 years ago," and to instead engage in "things that captivate people today." This seems an admission that most young people live on some form of social media and, coincidentally, do not pay attention to news websites, broadcasts, or even those antique "newspapers" they might see on a rack at the local store (if they ever visit a store).

That said, someone posted a video of a black screen, with no sound, that runs for ten hours. Over two million people have viewed it (guilty as charged, officer). Over on the Tick Tock channel, there is a wide assortment of "who would watch this?" There is no accounting for taste. 

While the "got to the young people where they are" path may draw some eyes, it is not likely to cure the "biased," "crazy," and "fake." In the end, the cynicism of those kinds of adjectives is not positive for the journalism profession, regardless of how many eyes they draw.

The author was short on suggestions about how to gain credibility, engage honest debate, and separate the wheat from the chaff. If the news industry cannot regain credibility, can it hope to prosper or even survive? Can it compete with the biased, base, and cheaper social media posts?

More importantly, can a free society survive with an electorate that is uninformed? As I ponder my recollections of my youth, and the amount of time devoted by the news to box scores, weather, and human interest stories, I suspect that society has likely been largely uninformed all along. 

Just because the Boomers bought the paper in no way means they read the important parts, digested, and thought. I would like to think they did, but perhaps past generations were equally disengaged, but merely through different media?

Perhaps the cynicism and disengagement today are no different than yesteryear. Possibly only the mediums have changed, and today's youth doubt and discount apps the way yesterday's kids doubted and ignored news shows, papers, and magazines? That said, I for one fear for a future in which journalism is reduced to thirty-second soundbites that are half-ignored and mostly distrusted. 

A Milepost

In September 2025, I celebrated a plateau in Thousands and Thousands. In 2025, I presented my 2000th professional lecture and wrote my 2000th blog post. That was a combination of this blog and others to which I have contributed over the years. Admittedly, most of those were here.

Nonetheless, this post is the 2000th in this blog, Florida Workers' Comp. It is a surreal moment, despite my anticipating it over the last several months. As I write that, I am not sure anticipation is the right word. I struggle to find a better one: trepidation? reckoning? dread? Mileposts can mark progress, but progress can be challenging to accept.

Each iteration draws to the next. Every reflection or citation of a past post reminds of so many hours dictating these thoughts into my phone or cleaning them up into this format. I have pontificated here regarding a great many topics. I have undoubtedly offended a few, perhaps inspired one or two, and at times even evoked a laugh. Unlikely a belly laugh, but perhaps a smile and a chuckle.

My peddling here has become much like the perpetual motion machine I have been refining in my basement these many years. I just cannot seem to stop working on it. Reflect on that, a guy in Florida who has a basement (they say a basement in Florida is called a pool, that's a good one).

I had no intention of this 2000th-post reminiscence last fall when I wrote Thousand and Thousands. Yet, these thoughts came to me in reflection. What do mileposts mean? Some people encourage us to mark all the mileposts in life. Perhaps it is merely the "progress principle?" There is merit in perceiving yourself as moving forward. But only if you are truly moving, not "ghost promoting?"

In any event, there is the danger of falling into the trap of Sarah Lockwood Pardee Winchester and her never-ending home renovation, or the Song That Never Ends.

Do you stop at some milepost and finally simply change course? Forrest Gump never really knew why he was running, but one day he just quit, "after 3 years, 2 months, 14 days, and 16 hours." When Forrest stopped, he said, "I'm pretty tired... I think I'll go home now." Anticlimactic as a conclusion? Or just confusing?

My first post here was posted at 13:27 on March 10, 2012: Changes at the OJCC for Fiscal Year 2013 (March 2012). If I stopped with this post, published January 22, 2026, at 05:00, I would have been writing, in the spirit of Forrest, for 13 years, 10 months, 11 days, 15 hours, and 33 minutes (including leap days), and "That's all I have to say about that." (Forrest Gump, Paramount, 1994). 

Perhaps, I will keep writing this blog in some ever-insistent loop, a la Groundhog Day (Columbia 1993), until I finally get it right; in that moment, perhaps I will move forward without further exposition or explanation? Or, maybe, in the midst of that final post, I will finally "achieve total consciousness" (Caddy Shack, Warner Brothers, 1980).

So, tune in January 25, 2026, and see. Have I hit the wall, paused for a speed bump, achieved existential epiphany, or just kept on truckin? In any event, "thanks for playing my game" (Ready Player One, Warner Brothers, 2018), because it is comforting to know that "I got that goin' for me, which is nice" (Caddy Shack).

And "Gunga galunga ... gunga, gunga-lagunga" to you too. 

Is Privacy Gone?

Scott McNealy, an info tech founder and former tech CEO, long ago noted on privacy:

"You already have zero privacy - get over it."

I would like to think he is wrong, but I suspect he nailed it. The little bots in the World Wide Web have been tracking us and storing data for decades now. They know our proclivities, predilections, and preferences. You can tell by the way ads quietly appear for stuff you have been glancing at or searching for, sometimes things you've only mentioned out loud.

The idea of privacy is not new to these pages. I find the ubiquity of cameras a constant reminder that someone is watching me. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015), Judicial Bullying in the News (April 2018), Pay Attention (July 2023)(and the posts linked there), and Optics and Options (September 2025). We are all under surveillance nearly constantly. We are watched, captured, and categorized. It is only dehumanizing if you think about it. Stop thinking about it?

This all came back to me when a New York Post story crossed my feed in March 2025. The story begins with a Brazilian plane passenger who boards a flight only to find her seat occupied. She asked them, including a small child, to move so she could occupy the window seat that she had reserved and paid for. The child began to cry and pined for that window seat, but the paying passenger did not yield.

A fellow passenger filmed her, without her consent, and posted the video online. She alleges she was "shamed" online, in the midst of an "internet firestorm." Despite this interaction and video leading to "social media fame" and "multiple brand deals as an influencer," she is now seeking "compensation for distress and damages caused by the ordeal" from the airline and "the fellow passenger who fil(m)ed her."

Note, she is not apparently proceeding against the passengers who wanted her seat in the first instance. Despite her own distress and the associated fame and perhaps monetary benefits, she asserts she is striving to "prevent similar public shaming and what she called unauthorized exposure" for others in the future. If you know someone who has never had a bad experience flying, have them contact me. I would like to meet them.

More recently, a lady on the New York subway observed a man wearing Meta Glasses. According to Futurism, she "called him a dork" and then allegedly "broke (the) Meta glasses." Like much of modern life, this camera brouhaha was captured by another observer with a camera and uploaded to Tick Tock. The result has "since garnered millions of views." Futurism calls her a hero.

The victim (man with glasses, though either party might be labeled the victim here) shouted at the woman, "You're going to be famous on the internet!" And that she is. Nonetheless, the result has not been her humiliation but a broader celebration. Beyond the "hero" label, "the internet wholeheartedly rallied behind the alleged" glasses breaker. 

Some will remember the great hunt for a ball-grabbing Phillies fan that was captured on video. See Triggered (September 2025). That was one of those instances that was all over the news and then quietly faded to nothing. I am not sure the world of cyber sleuths ever found the ball snatcher, but I periodically see other exuberant doxing in various contexts. 

As a general rule, people are allowed to video you in a public place (subway), according to Consumer Shield, though state laws may differ. Nonetheless, the internet is replete with examples of some self-assured person threatening someone for taking photos or videos. 

According to Law Info, it is also generally illegal to "deface, damage, or destroy someone else's property without their consent." 

The law seemingly lands on the side of the privacy invader, not the video victim. The outcome seems to be that we forego our privacy when we step into the public realm, and we may be recorded or photographed there as any of our fellow travelers sees fit.

Many of those photos and videos will make their way to public displays like social media, websites, and more. The government is said to have more than 600 million photographs of us in its databases. Artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving capabilities and tools to search for and identify people in those photos.

In the example of social media, it may be practical to scrape the vast volume of photos in people's feeds and create reference points. No, your name is not in the account-holder's post, but your face is in the background. If the AI can find a variety of locations, events, or people associated with that face, then perhaps the authorities start to piece together who that face likely belongs to? In this regard, it may come to be like "familial DNA," see Its Always been a Matter of Trust (April 2025).

There are reports that claim your vehicle is persistently spying on you as you drive. U.S. News notes that your vehicle or phone GPS, your vehicle cameras, and more are documenting and measuring you. The implementation of impaired driving detectors may expand and accentuate that process. See Safety is Coming (March 2022).

There is currently a debate in Great Britain regarding police using facial recognition. The authorities want to use it more often, and the public is perhaps not so keen on the idea. There is an apparent, public, ongoing effort to "strike a balance with protecting people's privacy." There is a discussion of a regulatory process to "oversee police use of biometrics and facial recognition."

In that regard, perhaps there will be an attempt to stuff some of the "privacy" genie back into the bottle. Nonetheless, Scott McNealy may well be correct, and there is no privacy left to save. And, if you jerk someone's camera or glasses away to protect yours, the police may come for you instead of them.