3 ms·
The next sentence says: > And it can hardly escape anyone’s notice that I would achieve exactly the same end-state — the book on my Kindle — if I just skipped
by stavros 4mo ago
The next sentence says:
> And it can hardly escape anyone’s notice that I would achieve exactly the same end-state — the book on my Kindle — if I just skipped the first two stages.
- __MatrixMan__ 4mo agoSure but why pussyfoot around the issue? We should be actively encouraging each other to punish misbehaving companies. It's the right thing to do. They're deaf to anything besides pain. If you want to help your fellow humans, you need to inflict that pain. Otherwise the company won't change.
- stavros 4mo agoI agree, but I think that the author is saying the same thing.
- munk-a 4mo agoI think by spelling out the process in this manner and then highlighting the absurdity of the first two steps your argument is defusing a lot of the bad faith responses that are likely to arise. It does feel cumbersome to execute the argument in this manner but it feels rationally defensive.
- breuleux 4mo agoI just see it as a way to highlight the absurdity. They're heavily implying they won't buy books on Amazon anymore in the next paragraph: > So it looks as though this move — both mean-spirited and commercially incompetent — will result in the loss of about 50 book sales per year.
- jldugger 4mo ago> Sure but why pussyfoot around the issue? We should be actively encouraging each other to punish misbehaving companies. It's the right thing to do. Probably because doing what you suggest would not look great in court: "Dear Jeff Bezos, Here is my signed confession letter of intellectual property theft. Yours Truly, Mike Taylor"
- randallsquared 4mo agoThe poster isn't pussyfooting around the issue, he's feigning discovery to emphasize the point as a rhetorical move.