zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
> Lot of people critiquing this, but you can't deny the success.

You could say that about literally any shady business. Imagine seeing a PDF proving tobacco leaders knew for decades that it caused cancer and saying what you did.

Being monetarily successful does not mean you’re good or shouldn’t be criticised.

>>latexr+im
Exactly!! we need to stop conflating "efficiency" with "success"

Being efficient at destroying the planet is NOT success

If anything we need to go slower and gentler (environmentally, socially, economically), not "faster"

>>oulipo+Fd1
But also perhaps not conflating “success” with morally positive outcomes.

Being efficient at destroying the planet is to successfully destroy the planet.

I think the original point was precisely to separate the concepts that make something successful - to be successful at what you do - from a judgement on the outcomes - the thing that you are doing.

>>wrasee+pf1
> But also perhaps not conflating “success” with morally positive outcomes.

The reason why I would conflate them is that success had a positive social implication. You get respect if you're successful. In order to separate these concept, I'd use language that doesn't have positive connotations. "Efficient" is more than accurate.

>>mihaic+Gn1
The scope of “success” under examination in this guide is tailored for an artificial economic organism that wants to survive and capitalize in a particular competitive marketplace (YouTube).

It is almost certainly not generalizable advice for achieving “success” in the cooperative game of life on earth.