3 ms·

While I don't know how far your advocacy will go in business environments for which nearly every actor - applicants, employers, customers - in the majority oper

While I don't know how far your advocacy will go in business environments for which nearly every actor - applicants, employers, customers - in the majority operate on pragmatic considerations, and in markets which destroy any non-pragmatic actors for them; but I applaud your efforts and look forward to hearing about any progress you make on this issue. You've still failed to convince me that there exists a "morality" mechanism that failed in Microsoft's case, per my original question, by the way. The simple fact of the matter is that they're not concerned with morality, and so long as you continue to believe in it as 'existing' in a corporate world without being able to point to 'where', you'll find that shock you felt in your initial comment more often than you'd like.

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
>While I don't know how far your advocacy will go in business environments for which nearly every actor - applicants, employers, customers - in the majority operate on pragmatic considerations, and in markets which destroy any non-pragmatic actors for them; but I applaud your efforts and look forward to hearing about any progress you make on this issue. This doesn't have to be true. What should and can happen is that more people take the high road, especially technical people, and work to lower the barrier of entry and make it more practical to join them on the high road. >You've still failed to convince me that there exists a "morality" mechanism that failed in Microsoft's case, per my original question, by the way. The simple fact of the matter is that they're not concerned with morality, and you'd be a fool to think otherwise. I don't think otherwise, obviously. The difference between us is that it matters to me.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  > This doesn't have to be true. What should and can happen is that more people take the high road "Doesn't have to be" is not "is" for a reason. What "is" evolved from what "was", and what 'was' was a system that had such efforts competing with profit-motivated ones. As I said, the market environment is one inherently toxic to those who do not prioritize profit margins - as those who do not are eventually outmoded, outmarketed, outpriced, or (at net loss) simply outwaited by those who have the bigger bankroll (or the biggest sharks capable of working from 'credit' on the backs of investor confidence). It's not sustainable because those who 'try and take the high road' are punished with failure (and those who do not rewarded) by the simple 'agnostic' market forces generally aggregating the desire to narrow margins. Efforts to outlive that motive have existed in the past, and will likely exist in the future, but do not last because they cannot compete with that motive. > I don't think otherwise, obviously. Yet you believe them to have 'failed' to address the morality issue internally (which you expressed surprise at. Believing they would do otherwise?); which you ascribed to the programmers who worked on the software. They don't necessarily know what the work product's end use/implementation will be; that knowledge is likely 'kept on a need to know basis' away from them; and to somehow escape the market forces they're subject to to 'take a bigger stand' against. Many people could and would starve taking such a stand, and it would not stop the system or slow it one whit; it would keep grinding on with further applicants to the field who do forego morality in lieu of bread on the table. As I asked elsewhere [0], if you have some idea for how "morality" can be introduced by such actors into their decision process without jeopardizing their livelihoods - I'm sure they would happily hear you out over your third option which would allow them to have both. But if you cannot, I'd warn that asserting "what matters to them" is not as much as "what matters to you", even knowing that no route exists for them to support the cause you tell them they don't 'care' about. That would only serve to alienate them from your message. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14059446&goto=item%3Fid%3D14059079%2314059446 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14059446&goto=item%3Fi...

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

>While I don't know how far your advocacy will go in business environments for which nearly every actor - applicants, employers, customers - in the majority operate on pragmatic considerations, and in markets which destroy any non-pragmatic actors for them; but I applaud your efforts and look forward to hearing about any progress you make on this issue. This doesn't have to be true. What should and can happen is that more people take the high road, especially technical people, and work to lower the barrier of entry and make it more practical to join them on the high road. >You've still failed to convince me that there exists a "morality" mechanism that failed in Microsoft's case, per my original question, by the way. The simple fact of the matter is that they're not concerned with morality, and you'd be a fool to think otherwise. I don't think otherwise, obviously. The difference between us is that it matters to me.

nebabyte 10y ago
> This doesn't have to be true. What should and can happen is that more people take the high road "Doesn't have to be" is not "is" for a reason. What "is" evolved from what "was", and what 'was' was a system that had such efforts competing with profit-motivated ones. As I said, the market environment is one inherently toxic to those who do not prioritize profit margins - as those who do not are eventually outmoded, outmarketed, outpriced, or (at net loss) simply outwaited by those who have the bigger bankroll (or the biggest sharks capable of working from 'credit' on the backs of investor confidence). It's not sustainable because those who 'try and take the high road' are punished with failure (and those who do not rewarded) by the simple 'agnostic' market forces generally aggregating the desire to narrow margins. Efforts to outlive that motive have existed in the past, and will likely exist in the future, but do not last because they cannot compete with that motive. > I don't think otherwise, obviously. Yet you believe them to have 'failed' to address the morality issue internally (which you expressed surprise at. Believing they would do otherwise?); which you ascribed to the programmers who worked on the software. They don't necessarily know what the work product's end use/implementation will be; that knowledge is likely 'kept on a need to know basis' away from them; and to somehow escape the market forces they're subject to to 'take a bigger stand' against. Many people could and would starve taking such a stand, and it would not stop the system or slow it one whit; it would keep grinding on with further applicants to the field who do forego morality in lieu of bread on the table. As I asked elsewhere [0], if you have some idea for how "morality" can be introduced by such actors into their decision process without jeopardizing their livelihoods - I'm sure they would happily hear you out over your third option which would allow them to have both. But if you cannot, I'd warn that asserting "what matters to them" is not as much as "what matters to you", even knowing that no route exists for them to support the cause you tell them they don't 'care' about. That would only serve to alienate them from your message. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14059446&goto=item%3Fid%3D14059079%2314059446 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14059446&goto=item%3Fi...