zlacker

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.

>>ponect+(OP)
There absolutely are ethics in business; ignore them at your peril (ask SBF).

>>ponect+(OP)
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.

>>ponect+(OP)
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 ".

>>ponect+(OP)
> 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.

>>bambax+K2
Ethics is not the same thing as legalities.

>>ponect+(OP)
Games Workshop, multi-billion pound publicly traded British company. Manufacture their core goods in British factories, don’t engage in tax shenanigans.

>>bambax+K2
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?

>>iamacy+hk
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.

>>LunaSe+Mo
Heh

>>ponect+(OP)
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.

>>iamacy+hk
... Myself... I find their 3-year lifecycle for rulebooks a little aggressive... (as well as their pricing - but hey, it's a hobby)

>>jjkacz+nH
Having to spend ~£120 (rulebook and codex) every 3 years for a hobby is probably okay though?

>>iamacy+hk
It’s probably a risk reward choice not a moral choice.

>>ponect+(OP)
Wikimedia Foundation.

>>iamacy+DT
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"...