And when that company commits a crime, it should be punished and its stock should lose value.
It seems like you're arguing that shareholders should reap rewards for actions that a company takes but be shielded from negative financial repercussions that result from criminal actions it takes.
This creates a moral hazard similar to to the "too big to fail" situation of banks. It incentivizes risky and potentially criminal behavior because ownership is able to capture the value of any upside and is shielded from the downsides of the behavior.
> "This 'Skinnerism' has been discredited in cognitive psychology decades ago and makes absolutely no biological sense whatsoever for the simple reason that any organism trying to adapt in this way will be eaten by predators before minimizing its "error function" sufficiently."
> "Living learning organisms have limited resources (energy and time), and they cut the search space drastically through shortcuts and heuristics and hardcoded biases instead of doing some kind of brute force optimization."
But those heuristics and hardcoded biases were developed through brute force optimization over the course of billions of years, a massive amount of energy input and many organisms being devoured.
Given the relationship the current US administration has with Russia, it seems like Facebook would be a less welcome alternative for a pro-democracy Belarusian protestor.
It's currently a good predictor (socio-economic clustering) but it's less causal (find the right buddy -> immediately become wealthy).
It's objectionable because it introduces yet another mechanism for dramatically increasing inequality and economic stratification while also making capital markets more corrupt and less efficient, which undermines core aspects of our economic system.
General intelligence in its biological form was achieved with hundreds of millions of years evolution, which required the "evaluation" of trillions and trillions of instantiations of nervous systems. The total energy consumption of all those individual organisms was many many orders of magnitude more than all of the energy that has been produced by the entirety of humanity.
You think his marketing team randomly chose from a selection of polygons to run as the primary image on a national ad campaign? The Trump administration loves their dog whistles.
I have an immediate family member with rheumatoid arthritis who struggled to fill their prescription through Kaiser because of this as well. It caused a lot of stress in my family. If they were unable to fill their prescription and had complications as a result, they may have needed to go to the hospital, which is not something you want to in the middle of a pandemic when you have an autoimmune disease...
I know someone who submits PRs to large open source projects at the beginning of the year to update forgotten copyright values in their codebases in order to get listed as a contributor on github. It's a bit tongue in cheek but on first glance their open source contributions look pretty impressive...
> As long as it stays within the boundaries set by the law.
> Stop trying to tell a large corporation to stop doing business and make profits, go change the society in which it operates.
This comment posits that companies act in a closed system. Companies don't just act within the boundaries set by the law, they actively seek to directly change laws by lobbying and to change the interpretation of laws through litigation in order to best suit their interests. They are political agents as are their workers.
It might bring more gray area into your life but like it or not what you do for your day job can have moral implications. You may have taken this post as a personal attack because you work at Google, which may be why you are so vociferously arguing against it. But even if one disagrees with where this person drew the line I think it behooves everybody to at least occasionally reflect on the ethical implications of how they spend their time, especially in tech where what you work on can easily affect millions or billions of people.
I'd hope this discussion would be more about the merit of where this line was drawn in this case rather than whether or not one is even justified in taking a moral stance instead of just putting their head down and shutting up or quitting.
It seems like you're arguing that shareholders should reap rewards for actions that a company takes but be shielded from negative financial repercussions that result from criminal actions it takes.
This creates a moral hazard similar to to the "too big to fail" situation of banks. It incentivizes risky and potentially criminal behavior because ownership is able to capture the value of any upside and is shielded from the downsides of the behavior.