> People’s terminal preferences are the root of who they are. There is no goal that exists beyond one’s terminal preferences. You can prefer to obey some moral distinction, but you prefer it because that increases your happiness/life satisfaction. If it didn’t, why would your brain ever bother to spit out a “you should do it” answer?
This is circular reasoning. You have baked in the assumption that people operate by maximizing their individual self-interest.
A simple answer to why one might do it, even if it didn’t maximize their own happiness/satisfaction, is that they are genuinely focused on a less individualistic aim.
Self-sacrifice in service of higher value doesn’t necessarily make one happy, but it can be part of one’s nature to recognize that one’s own sacrifice benefits others in some way.
> It's a false dichotomy anyway. Steve could've been a nice person but instead he was an asshole. You're just letting him get away with it because someone else does bad things too.
You won’t find anything in what I said that is related to this straw man. Nothing I said excuses his behavior.
It’s also absurd to suggest he got away with anything. He is well known as an ‘asshole’.
My point is that you and others who focus on Jobs are letting everyday passive aggressive corporate asshole behavior go unexamined just because the anger is hidden with a fake veneer of cordiality. Jobs is a scapegoat in this regard.
Steve was no worse than a passive aggressive middle manager. The difference was, he wasn’t fake. To put it another way - he would stab you in the front rather than the back.
Nobody is saying that, the point is that what Jobs did is no worse than the everyday corporate passive aggressive manipulative stuff that nobody bothers to comment on.
I mean this is all true, but it’s worth pointing out that Wayland is actually an effort to get rid of X11 on the Linux desktop by introducing a new protocol.
Given this, it’s not surprising Wayland has become the name associated with the overall goal.
This is be a fine distinction to make if there is an implementation of Wayland that is there. Then we can say this is just about a particular implementation, and not Wayland itself.
If no implementation of Wayland is ‘there’, it seems pretty reasonable to say Wayland is not there yet.
However it’s also true that they can simply be a reflection of an otherwise unworkable situation.
In a regular employment situation, I think that if you get to the point of wanting to issue an ultimatums, it is just an indication that the company is not a good fit for you any longer. On an individual level it’s better to recognize the signal and leave without burning bridges.
However if you role is ‘ethicist’, it is fundamentally your responsibility not to turn a blind eye to or be complicit in unethical processes, so giving an ultimatum may have been the only option available to retain integrity.
I don’t think we can declare these to be ‘missteps’ given her role. Perhaps Google is simply not capable of being ethical, and is going to fire people who challenge that. What would not be a ‘misstep’ under these circumstances?
It’s about you reading ‘bitterness’ in to what they wrote. The bitterness is in your mind.