zlacker

[parent] [thread] 31 comments
1. calmbo+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-09-16 06:57:14
You lost me at "ignoring the ethics".

By de facto, you never ignore ethics. You may disregard them, but they're never ignored.

replies(4): >>hnbad+61 >>ponect+O1 >>wrsh07+BH >>nother+zb1
2. hnbad+61[view] [source] 2024-09-16 07:09:29
>>calmbo+(OP)
Ignoring the ethics is literally antithetical to good engineering. Alas it seems to be the default for operating a business.
replies(1): >>chii+Di
3. ponect+O1[view] [source] 2024-09-16 07:19:24
>>calmbo+(OP)
There is no ethics in business, only revenue and profits.

Name any ethical company and I'm sure there will be questionable actions they did in past with "due to the market conditions" excuse.

replies(7): >>bambax+y4 >>crypto+o5 >>Arisak+n6 >>earnes+T6 >>iamacy+5m >>colive+QF >>s_dev+sq1
◧◩
4. bambax+y4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 07:47:17
>>ponect+O1
There absolutely are ethics in business; ignore them at your peril (ask SBF).
replies(2): >>beejiu+bb >>ponect+0q
◧◩
5. crypto+o5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 07:56:05
>>ponect+O1
Ethics is no binary. You ethics are not mine and everybody does questionable actions from time to time. A company is an entity with potentially thousands people, one of them doing questionable things will happen.

Some legal entities are acting all the time in a way we would lock them up in psych ward if they were a natural person. That might be a good way to "succeed" but that's probably something the society shouldn't promote/foster.

In the real world it's not only revenue and profits. That's for sure taking most of the space but people behind the entities are caring about other stuff and takes non-profit-optimal decisions all the time.

◧◩
6. Arisak+n6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 08:06:20
>>ponect+O1
This is the line of reasoning phone scammers used whenever kitboga (a scam baiter) revealed his identity and asked them why they did this job instead of something better. One of them asked him "oh, so you are a saint, and you never did anything wrong?"

It's absurd to attempt to equate two actions completely out of their context to claim that "everyone is unethical sometimes ".

◧◩
7. earnes+T6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 08:13:06
>>ponect+O1
> There is no ethics in business, only revenue and profits.

Ethics affect everything we do. If you are doing something deeply unethical, you have way more difficult time finding good employees, for example. Because people don't want to work for scumbags. And the people you find, are likely also unethical and care only about money, how do you think that is going to play out in the long run?

Business and ethics are inseparable. You have to understand ethics to be able to make money - not meaning that you need to be ethical.

◧◩◪
8. beejiu+bb[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 09:01:54
>>bambax+y4
Ethics is not the same thing as legalities.
◧◩
9. chii+Di[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 10:25:53
>>hnbad+61
because ethics have a cost. If you competitors don't need to obey the same ethics, they will out compete you.
replies(1): >>growse+gj
◧◩◪
10. growse+gj[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 10:30:35
>>chii+Di
If you can't compete without throwing your ethics overboard, the right answer is to put it down and do something else, not join in.
replies(2): >>chii+9k >>nother+Nb1
◧◩◪◨
11. chii+9k[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 10:40:50
>>growse+gj
> put it down and do something else, not join in.

by not joining the rat race, you fall behind. This makes you less capable of withstanding the pressure from other rat racers in the world.

Imagine using this logic for survival in the jungle.

replies(2): >>Joeri+6l >>freeop+nq
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. Joeri+6l[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 10:53:32
>>chii+9k
The law of the jungle is perhaps not the best model for human society.
◧◩
13. iamacy+5m[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 11:05:17
>>ponect+O1
Games Workshop, multi-billion pound publicly traded British company. Manufacture their core goods in British factories, don’t engage in tax shenanigans.
replies(3): >>LunaSe+Aq >>jjkacz+bJ >>nother+2c1
◧◩◪
14. ponect+0q[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 11:46:36
>>bambax+y4
Sbf is just an example of people who failed. Contrary, Musk or Sackler family are good examples of people who succeeded. Do you want to talk about their questionable ethics and how it made them extremely rich?
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. freeop+nq[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 11:49:12
>>chii+9k
Ok. I'll bite. Ethics is one aspect of humans that allowed us to survive the jungle and move beyond it.

I take your comment as a joke, but have come to the depressing conclusion that too many impressionable people will not understand it that way. They will think it some nugget of wisdom to revert to being a rat in a jungle.

replies(2): >>hnbad+893 >>johnny+On3
◧◩◪
16. LunaSe+Aq[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 11:51:46
>>iamacy+5m
They do however change their figurine bases from square to round in an effort to deprecate people's armies in a bid to generate revenue.
replies(1): >>iamacy+vw
◧◩◪◨
17. iamacy+vw[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 12:39:10
>>LunaSe+Aq
Heh
◧◩
18. colive+QF[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 13:48:27
>>ponect+O1
I guess people are taking this comment as supporting unethical business, but in fact what he's saying applies to capitalism in general, and why capitalism is unethical. Pretty much every big company did and is doing unethical things, but for most people it doesn't matter because they're "successful". If you equate amounts of money with success, as our system does, then it is pretty much guaranteed that people will do unethical things to reach "success", i.e., X amounts of dollars.
19. wrsh07+BH[view] [source] 2024-09-16 13:58:52
>>calmbo+(OP)
I'm surprised you've never had a hypothetical conversation
replies(2): >>calmbo+pk2 >>johnny+fn3
◧◩◪
20. jjkacz+bJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 14:10:29
>>iamacy+5m
... Myself... I find their 3-year lifecycle for rulebooks a little aggressive... (as well as their pricing - but hey, it's a hobby)
replies(1): >>iamacy+rV
◧◩◪◨
21. iamacy+rV[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 15:23:59
>>jjkacz+bJ
Having to spend ~£120 (rulebook and codex) every 3 years for a hobby is probably okay though?
replies(1): >>jjkacz+Zz2
22. nother+zb1[view] [source] 2024-09-16 16:52:27
>>calmbo+(OP)
Ethics only exist to provide value. If you can’t point to a value that your ethics provide then it’s not needed and excessive. Most of the ethical standards do provide value or mitigate risk you just need to understand what that risk and value trades is.
◧◩◪◨
23. nother+Nb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 16:54:02
>>growse+gj
Ethics are not morals. Ethics are business practices morals are religious and political views.
replies(1): >>johnny+An3
◧◩◪
24. nother+2c1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 16:55:22
>>iamacy+5m
It’s probably a risk reward choice not a moral choice.
◧◩
25. s_dev+sq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 18:21:37
>>ponect+O1
Wikimedia Foundation.
◧◩
26. calmbo+pk2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-16 23:40:35
>>wrsh07+BH
You do not understand the process of cogent thought. Ethics are a consideration even during the context of hypotheticals.
replies(1): >>wrsh07+kG2
◧◩◪◨⬒
27. jjkacz+Zz2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-17 02:18:16
>>iamacy+rV
I am from far enough back in time (started with 1st edition and then went to 2nd - and had almost all of the codexes, even though I only played a single faction/army) I would buy codexes (army books) for all the armies, because I liked the art and the lore.

The 2nd edition box set was about ~£35 in 1993, adjusted for inflation that would be ~£73 now - which then when converted into CAD is well...alot more than what I just paid for 10th edition (about $80 CAD+tax). So - it's a good deal - and I am sure that there is overlap amongst friends during edition changeover.

5-year cycle would be a happy medium, but "that's just like my opinion man"...

◧◩◪
28. wrsh07+kG2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-17 03:22:03
>>calmbo+pk2
Please indulge my hypothetical situation: there is a company that produces many very expensive videos every week and make a lot of money from each one.

Every single video they make is a hit.

In this hypothetical situation, I would be impressed that this organization is able to deliver such consistent product. I would be curious about what they do or say operationally that enables that.

At the end of the podcast the filmcast, they say "at the end of the day, it is really impressive that _ made a movie." (They name the director)

This is true if the director has made dozens of movies or one. It's always impressive. Doing things in the real world is hard.

Do you find anything in this hypothetical situation agreeable? Or is it only hard when someone you like does it?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
29. hnbad+893[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-17 08:18:47
>>freeop+nq
This is apparently an unpopular idea but you're right: human nature is based on cooperation. Even under "free market" systems people do things that are not optimal market decisions because they are naturally predisposed to helping other people, even when it is often exploited. A lot of marketing deliberately exploits this, e.g. the common tactic of "giving something for free" to make the consumer feel like they owe a favor, or giving products a cutesy persona so consumers anthropomorphize the product and their interactions with it instead of seeing it as a disposable tool.

We come into this world naked, defenseless, starving and freezing. Other animals are able to defend themselves or at least flee, often only minutes after being born or hatching. It takes literal months for us to learn to meaningfully move on our own, about a year to feed ourselves and many more years to be able to pose a meaningful threat to natural predators or forage for food on our own. Throughout this entire time we not only need to be nurtured by our parents, we need an entire society to sustain us and our caregivers.

This is a common misunderstanding of our evolution: it's not simply our brains that gave us an edge over the rest of the animal kingdom, it's our cooperation. Large brains are a natural consequence of complex social interactions and feed back into them. It's not just the ability to make and use tools that set us apart, it's our ability to teach each other about them and learn from each other.

It didn't take a great individual inventor, it took a tribe full of people to carry on each invention and pass the knowledge to the next generation while sustaining the tribe to allow the inventors to invent new technology or improve upon old ones for the benefit of the entire tribe. We're not standing on the shoulders of giants, we're standing on a human pyramid of all who came before us and everyone around us helping to perpetuate humanity.

◧◩
30. johnny+fn3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-17 11:10:57
>>wrsh07+BH
Poe's law makes it hard to talk hypothetical on public forums these days.
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. johnny+An3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-17 11:15:29
>>nother+Nb1
1. morals drive ethics, so no point separating the two.

2. ethics is not some ettiquite decided in a business room. they are formed by society. It was probably never ethical to let kids work in coal mines, but as long as it wasn't illegal (and can take the PR hit) some businesses would just do it.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
32. johnny+On3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-17 11:16:25
>>freeop+nq
>They will think it some nugget of wisdom to revert to being a rat in a jungle.

are we really that far off these days, in this economy?

[go to top]