4 ms·

Sex toy product design. I happen to speak from personal experience; a family member was working at a conservative job that wouldn't view his side business favor

Sex toy product design. I happen to speak from personal experience; a family member was working at a conservative job that wouldn't view his side business favorably.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Never before had it crossed my mind that some professional had a load of CAD sex toy blueprints on their workstation.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  They actually sculpted the molds by hand, since this was back when 3D printers were crude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31667798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31667798 3D printers only just barely became viable as prototyping tools for molds in the last few years. Specifically the Form 3.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Well, that was a fun read. Thanks for sharing.
eddd-ddde 3y ago
Well that's a different issue, that's like hiding my identity because some company won't hire people of my colour. You don't fight discrimination by making yourself anonymous.
- eppp 3y ago
  Not everyone wants to be an avatar for a social ill. Some people just want to live their lives and be left alone.
altruios 3y ago
Just for the sake of completeness: do you think the customers of your family member's business have any informational rights to know to whom they are giving their money to? If not, Does that lack of a right translate to every other company? How do you reconcile 'vote with your dollar' without knowing who you are voting for? I agree that is a sensitive issue - but only in so far as 'gotta cover their ass' from a conservative job... which is... a weird place for a sex-toy designer to be... (which raises far more questions about the quality of toy-design if it isn't supporting a livelihood). Appeasement to conservatives is rarely a good strategy... appeasement through omission of data about who they are hiring seems like your family member put themselves in this precarious situation on their own volition. Everyone's got to eat, though, so can't be too bothered :) But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self serving in that case you present.
- nickpp 3y ago
  > But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self serving in that case you present. I wonder: do you hold the same views when it comes to regular people's online privacy?
  - altruios 3y ago
    No, I hold the privacy of a public company differently than a private citizen. If you do business - the stipulation for that is you should become 'public', in so much that there is a record of who owns a company... it should be the consumer's right to easily access knowledge whom they do business with: we don't live in a contraband-fueled market, our goods and services are 'above board' and should face public scrutiny.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      I agree about the transparency when it comes to a business's activity: its goods and services. But a business's ownership is about the privacy of its owners/stock holders - which are regular people. Saying their privacy is "morally dubious and self serving" is akin to saying regular people's need for privacy is morally dubious and self serving. Is the old anti-anonymity argument of "if you're all legit, what do you have to hide?!" There is an argument to be made here though when said owner is another corporate entity - that is not a person so maybe it doesn't deserve any privacy.

Sex toy product design. I happen to speak from personal experience; a family member was working at a conservative job that wouldn't view his side business favorably.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

Never before had it crossed my mind that some professional had a load of CAD sex toy blueprints on their workstation.

sillysaurusx 3y ago
They actually sculpted the molds by hand, since this was back when 3D printers were crude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31667798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31667798 3D printers only just barely became viable as prototyping tools for molds in the last few years. Specifically the Form 3.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Well, that was a fun read. Thanks for sharing.

eddd-ddde 3y ago

Well that's a different issue, that's like hiding my identity because some company won't hire people of my colour. You don't fight discrimination by making yourself anonymous.

eppp 3y ago
Not everyone wants to be an avatar for a social ill. Some people just want to live their lives and be left alone.

altruios 3y ago

Just for the sake of completeness: do you think the customers of your family member's business have any informational rights to know to whom they are giving their money to? If not, Does that lack of a right translate to every other company? How do you reconcile 'vote with your dollar' without knowing who you are voting for? I agree that is a sensitive issue - but only in so far as 'gotta cover their ass' from a conservative job... which is... a weird place for a sex-toy designer to be... (which raises far more questions about the quality of toy-design if it isn't supporting a livelihood). Appeasement to conservatives is rarely a good strategy... appeasement through omission of data about who they are hiring seems like your family member put themselves in this precarious situation on their own volition. Everyone's got to eat, though, so can't be too bothered :) But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self serving in that case you present.

nickpp 3y ago
> But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self serving in that case you present. I wonder: do you hold the same views when it comes to regular people's online privacy?
- altruios 3y ago
  No, I hold the privacy of a public company differently than a private citizen. If you do business - the stipulation for that is you should become 'public', in so much that there is a record of who owns a company... it should be the consumer's right to easily access knowledge whom they do business with: we don't live in a contraband-fueled market, our goods and services are 'above board' and should face public scrutiny.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    I agree about the transparency when it comes to a business's activity: its goods and services. But a business's ownership is about the privacy of its owners/stock holders - which are regular people. Saying their privacy is "morally dubious and self serving" is akin to saying regular people's need for privacy is morally dubious and self serving. Is the old anti-anonymity argument of "if you're all legit, what do you have to hide?!" There is an argument to be made here though when said owner is another corporate entity - that is not a person so maybe it doesn't deserve any privacy.