5 ms·

If I make a device that lets half of society sit on its ass for 100 years then murders everyone, I think the costs should be factored in by sueing me before eve

If I make a device that lets half of society sit on its ass for 100 years then murders everyone, I think the costs should be factored in by sueing me before everyone is dead. But maybe that's just me.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
You mean like the computers and AI?
- remline 9y ago
  Every technology has negatives that companies try to turn into externalities. The ones that hurt their non-customers are the most egregious and should be subject to the highest corrections. Hardly a new theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract To give an example, we should be paying more for many electronics as the result of suits against most existing companies for not dealing with Tantalum sourcing.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Not really a useful concept since it’s purely subjective and may not meaningfully exist in any way at all.
    - remline 9y ago
      This is the kind of attitude that disturbs me about recent journalism and what appears to be the dominant opinion in the US. Getting quantitative results is entirely useless if you don't want to think about the subjective qualitative reasons we thought some arbitrary metric might matter and how they might be limited. Having a high GDP or salary is about raising your quality of life and options. If you are actively prevented from living all sorts of other lives simply because they are not as profitable then you are poorer than the wild man.
pbreit 9y ago
I don't. There needs to be actual damages or else, who knows?
- remline 9y ago
  So I can create antisocial companies that hurt more than they help and take/distribute profits until damning evidence is assembled using public resources, then pay back a small portion from whatever I couldn't get off my book value? I'd say that's giving organizations rights in civil matters that only are supposed to apply to individuals in criminal ones. The end result is thousands of companies actively trying to kill us and manipulate evidence and politics for much higher profits than the ones doing net positive work.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Stop buying their products.
  - civilian 9y ago
    You're presuming guilt before guilt has been established. Why do companies make profit? It's because they're offering a product or service that people buy. Why do people buy the product or service? It's because the value they get from the product outweighs the cost. What this really means is that--- all successful companies are doing social good, simply by being in business. If a company is making a big profit, they're probably doing so by providing much more value in their product than what they are charging.
    - remline 9y ago
      The people who buy stolen goods also get more value then they spend, so all thieves are inherently good? Some companies produce more good than bad. Some companies produce more bad than good, but the bad is primarily not affecting their customers. The latter is inherently easier which is why civil courts must be eternally vigilant.
      - 9y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

You mean like the computers and AI?

remline 9y ago
Every technology has negatives that companies try to turn into externalities. The ones that hurt their non-customers are the most egregious and should be subject to the highest corrections. Hardly a new theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract To give an example, we should be paying more for many electronics as the result of suits against most existing companies for not dealing with Tantalum sourcing.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Not really a useful concept since it’s purely subjective and may not meaningfully exist in any way at all.
  - remline 9y ago
    This is the kind of attitude that disturbs me about recent journalism and what appears to be the dominant opinion in the US. Getting quantitative results is entirely useless if you don't want to think about the subjective qualitative reasons we thought some arbitrary metric might matter and how they might be limited. Having a high GDP or salary is about raising your quality of life and options. If you are actively prevented from living all sorts of other lives simply because they are not as profitable then you are poorer than the wild man.

pbreit 9y ago

I don't. There needs to be actual damages or else, who knows?

remline 9y ago
So I can create antisocial companies that hurt more than they help and take/distribute profits until damning evidence is assembled using public resources, then pay back a small portion from whatever I couldn't get off my book value? I'd say that's giving organizations rights in civil matters that only are supposed to apply to individuals in criminal ones. The end result is thousands of companies actively trying to kill us and manipulate evidence and politics for much higher profits than the ones doing net positive work.
- briandear 9y ago
  Stop buying their products.
- civilian 9y ago
  You're presuming guilt before guilt has been established. Why do companies make profit? It's because they're offering a product or service that people buy. Why do people buy the product or service? It's because the value they get from the product outweighs the cost. What this really means is that--- all successful companies are doing social good, simply by being in business. If a company is making a big profit, they're probably doing so by providing much more value in their product than what they are charging.
  - remline 9y ago
    The people who buy stolen goods also get more value then they spend, so all thieves are inherently good? Some companies produce more good than bad. Some companies produce more bad than good, but the bad is primarily not affecting their customers. The latter is inherently easier which is why civil courts must be eternally vigilant.
    - 9y ago