[_fat_santa]

> This is not a minor procedural oversight. It is a structural bias built into the process which sends out a clear message: full participation in EU policymaking requires a Microsoft licence.

Im gonna be honest it sounds more like a procedural oversight.

[braiamp]

When the policy is that X happens, procedural oversight can't be claimed when X doesn't happen. If X doesn't happen, then the policy is being rejected or ignored. No matter which, it allows the executing agent bias to be on full display and set the tone. There's a reason why a compliance office becomes the norm.

[chrismorgan]

Combined with their rapid acquiescence to the request, it sounds to me like a procedural oversight due to a structural bias.

[dtj1123]

It sounds like a procedural oversight which demonstrates the structural bias built into the process.

[einpoklum]

> it sounds more like a procedural oversight.

But the "oversight" is likely due to the fact that those policy-makers only see MS Excel used around them, and only expect people to use MS-Excel - which is why they did not think there might be any problem with requiring its use in a procedure. So, the people doing policymaking, and other related technical work, at the EU do actually need their MS license to work.

[pfortuny]

Nope: they have signed a contract with Microsoft, it is not oversight, there was a clear decission by the specific committee to buy Microsoft Products and Support, and it is costing us (EU taxpayers) lots of money just to interact with the EU.

[wiz21c]

they are activists, everything make them nervous. however I'm sure there are tons of past reasons to make them nervous...

[solid_fuel]

I would argue they are the same thing. What is a procedural oversight if not bias in the system? The existing process missed an obvious issue because of bias.

[raverbashing]

Also sounds like an LLM wrote it (the original message)

[AuthorizedCust]

That text reads like AI output, where I commonly see two short sentences that describe a dichotomy in the “This is not… This is…” pattern.

Therefore, that these sentences don’t describe the situation great could be due to poorly vetted copy-paste of AI text.

[Imustaskforhelp]

LibreOffice using AI against Microslop/anything related to it doesn't feel very Libreoffice of it to me.

I know that this pattern is used by AI but it only said this is, one time not two times and then continued with It is rather than the pattern that you mention. An AI would've probably used "This" second time instead of "It" most likely given that its probably really trained on it.

I mean, we do use "this is" in a sentence atleast once like they did.

How else do you want them to write this point :/

I don't think that Libreoffice team is using AI to write their messages.

[EGreg]

Im also gonna be honest

Ever since LLM generated content proliferated we now have “This isn’t X. It’s Y” shibboleths EVRYWHERE!

A person doesn’t normally start a sentence with “This isn’t a silly minor thing that you wouldn’t think it was but I had to say it out of the blue as a set up for the next sentence.” only to be followed by “This is a major deal worthy of you resharing and liking!”

They might do the clauses in the other order, though. “This is a huge deal! Not just business as usual.”

[st_goliath]

> Ever since LLM generated content proliferated we now have...

Or maybe, ever since you became aware of it, you started increasingly becoming aware of it?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

[EGreg]

Nope. It is generated by LLMs, and a few people got influenced by it now.

It isn’t like em-dashes

[Aerroon]

I've definitely been writing like that for a long time.

[johanyc]

"Nope. It isn’t like em-dashes. It is generated by LLMs, and a few people got influenced by it now."

Your comment can be rearranged in that it's not X it's Y format too.

[EGreg]

Yes, but it's not natural to say "It's not <non sequitur thing no one was talking about>. It's <amazing globally impactful thing that should make you pay attention>." That's how LLMs write though.