4 ms·

> the literal sole goal is to profit. When trying to build an argument from first principles, it's important not to make a mistake early on. In your case, you

> the literal sole goal is to profit. When trying to build an argument from first principles, it's important not to make a mistake early on. In your case, you use the profit seeking as an argument that this automatically leads to minimizing everyone's salaries. In reality, profit gets maximized when you have a team full of high achievers and with very low turnover. That's fundamentally not compatible with your original hypothesis.

eganist 5y ago
> When trying to build an argument from first principles, it's important not to make a mistake early on. In your case, you use the profit seeking as an argument that this automatically leads to minimizing everyone's salaries. Where did I say this, or even imply it? > In reality, profit gets maximized when you have a team full of high achievers and with very low turnover. That's fundamentally not compatible with your original hypothesis. I mean, if I made that claim, I'd agree with you, but I'm currently quite lost as to how that conclusion was reached. I said and implied nothing about minimizing salaries.
- aerosmile 5y ago
  > if cutting out Colorado is less painful to profits than disclosing salaries So you implied that disclosing salaries cuts into profits, which I took to mean that you're seeing an inverse first-order relationship between salaries and profits.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Just quoting the whole sentence shows that that's not what they meant: > "Reducing surface area for conflict" is one of many steps on the way to the goal for profit, and if cutting out Colorado is less painful to profits than disclosing salaries and opening up that conflict surface, then that's naturally what will happen.
    - eganist 5y ago
      Thank you
rootlocus 5y ago
When trying to build an argument from first principles you should stop. You don't, and quite possibly can't, make complete and irrefutable arguments. The world is filled with exceptions, humans with emotions, probabilities, etc. > In reality, profit gets maximized when you have a team full of high achievers and with very low turnover. Profit is a function with lots and lots of parameters. Who are you to say which parameter has the highest weight? How about market share? How about profit margins? How about illegal deals with public funding? How about marketing? How about creating addictions? How about being niche? How about having excellent customer support? How about having better quality? Lots of companies make significant profit from a legacy project that's almost impossible to improve, but marketing still finds clients that want it. They don't need a team full of high achievers with very low turnover.

eganist 5y ago

> When trying to build an argument from first principles, it's important not to make a mistake early on. In your case, you use the profit seeking as an argument that this automatically leads to minimizing everyone's salaries. Where did I say this, or even imply it? > In reality, profit gets maximized when you have a team full of high achievers and with very low turnover. That's fundamentally not compatible with your original hypothesis. I mean, if I made that claim, I'd agree with you, but I'm currently quite lost as to how that conclusion was reached. I said and implied nothing about minimizing salaries.

aerosmile 5y ago
> if cutting out Colorado is less painful to profits than disclosing salaries So you implied that disclosing salaries cuts into profits, which I took to mean that you're seeing an inverse first-order relationship between salaries and profits.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Just quoting the whole sentence shows that that's not what they meant: > "Reducing surface area for conflict" is one of many steps on the way to the goal for profit, and if cutting out Colorado is less painful to profits than disclosing salaries and opening up that conflict surface, then that's naturally what will happen.
  - eganist 5y ago
    Thank you

rootlocus 5y ago

When trying to build an argument from first principles you should stop. You don't, and quite possibly can't, make complete and irrefutable arguments. The world is filled with exceptions, humans with emotions, probabilities, etc. > In reality, profit gets maximized when you have a team full of high achievers and with very low turnover. Profit is a function with lots and lots of parameters. Who are you to say which parameter has the highest weight? How about market share? How about profit margins? How about illegal deals with public funding? How about marketing? How about creating addictions? How about being niche? How about having excellent customer support? How about having better quality? Lots of companies make significant profit from a legacy project that's almost impossible to improve, but marketing still finds clients that want it. They don't need a team full of high achievers with very low turnover.