zlacker

> Being efficient at destroying the planet is NOT success

For some businesses being efficient means there is a side-effect of destroying the planet. For others it's causing customers/employees long-term health effects like cancer. Many industries that are considered highly profitable have these types of things -- think pharmaceuticals (legal or not), lending, gambling.

"Success" in a business generally means being profitable. Usually this requires being "efficient" but being efficient isn't the goal. Neither is "Net good for society/humanity at large" -- at least not the main one, taking priority over being profitable.

>>gregma+(OP)
well maybe they should. That's why we have so much reguation. And why instead of following regulation they lobby to remove such restrictions.

Can I really say a company lobbying for worse people/worker/world conditions to be a "success"? The cigarette metaphor is apt here. if you wanna go more extreme, children in mines would be the best success; employees who can't talk back, can be paid peanuts, and are easily replacable is peak success.

>>johnny+wh2
I wasn't sure how MrBeast can "set viewers' expectations" so efficiently and mine so many minds with this formula until I recently witnessed a friend's children log into their YouTube Kids account and immediately be suggested a selection of choice MrBeast cuts. The six-year-old had the remote and went for several inane MrBeast videos in close succession but his older sibling was not impressed. But the bottom line is, children are involved in the equation, and in terms of interest in his customers' minds he is getting close to being the anti-Mister Rogers.