|
| ▲ | quesera an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Still can't believe people buy their stock, given that they are the closest thing to a James Bond villain, just because it goes up. I proudly owned zero shares of Microsoft stock, in the 1980s and 1990s. :) I own no Palantir today. It's a Pyrrhic victory, but sometimes that's all you can do. |
|
| ▲ | notarobot123 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| To the proud contrarian, "the empire did nothing wrong". Maybe Sci-fi has actually played a role in the "memetic desire" of some of the titans of tech who are trying to bring about these worlds more-or-less intentionally. I guess it's not as much of a dystopia if you're on top and its not evil if you think of it as inevitable anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | psychoslave 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know. Walking on everybody's face to climb a human pyramid, one don't make much sincere friends. And one certainly are rightfully going down a spiral of paranoia. There are so many people already on fast track to hate anyone else, if they have social consensus that indeed someone is a freaking bastard which only deserve to die, that's a lot of stress to cope with. Future is inevitable, but only ignorants of self predictive ability are thinking that what's going to populate future is inevitable. |
|
|
| ▲ | duskdozer 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| To be honest, while I'd heard of it over a decade ago and I've read LOTR and I've been paying attention to privacy longer than most, I didn't ever really look into what it did until I started hearing more about it in the past year or two. But yeah lots of people don't really buy into the idea of their small contribution to a large problem being a problem. |
| |
| ▲ | Lerc 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >But yeah lots of people don't really buy into the idea of their small contribution to a large problem being a problem. As an abstract idea I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that the size of any contribution to a problem should be measured as a relative proportion of total influence. The carbon footprint is a good example, if each individual focuses on reducing their small individual contribution then they could neglect systemic changes that would reduce everyone's contribution to a greater extent. Any scientist working on a method to remove a problem shouldn't abstain from contributing to the problem while they work. Or to put it as a catchy phrase. Someone working on a cleaner light source shouldn't have to work in the dark. | | |
| ▲ | duskdozer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >As an abstract idea I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that the size of any contribution to a problem should be measured as a relative proportion of total influence. Right, I think you have responsibility for your 1/<global population>th (arguably considerably more though, for first-worlders) of the problem. What I see is something like refusal to consider swapping out a two-stroke-engine-powered tungsten lightbulb with an LED of equivalent brightness, CRI, and color temperature, because it won't unilaterally solve the problem. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kbrkbr 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Stock buying as a political or ethical statement is not much of a thing. For one the stocks will still be bought by persons with less strung opinions, and secondly it does not lend itself well to virtue signaling. |
| |
| ▲ | ruszki 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think, meme stocks contradict you. | | |
| ▲ | iwontberude 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Meme stocks are a symptom of the death of the American dream. Economic malaise leads to unsophisticated risk taking. |
|
|
