> For two, if you're looking to cast aspersions on the editorial influence of owners, you'd maybe
The operative word here being "if". Not that it makes sense even granting your motive of wanting to cast aspersions, which you made up in order to to cast aspersions yourself, since it's not a binary choice.
To call Bezos a bookseller is just fantastic, you're projecting a whole lot of laughability.
How is it hard to dismiss the moral advice of people who lack integrity?
> it seems you are calling the kettle black here.
Because it's "probably" in your opinion that they sacrificed integrity, it "seems" like that's not just probable, but fact? Nonsense, even before getting into how you just equate any lack of integrity with any other, as if it was binary, instead of a matter of degree.
> For example, if someone at a drug maker decides that while the drug is okay for its original use the billions they made the last decade were due to more and more misuse of that drug, what happens if they do the right thing and scale it all back? So that they voluntarily sell only a hundred million of that drug, when they could sell billions. Could they?
Plenty can, and do.
> Individually you might be tempted to say they could but humans are selfish and that's the reason they don't.
Other individuals (pretend they) can't, and don't.
But you can't just take the positive effects and call it a day. The fact that many people would not do that, and find it tacky, manipulative etc. when they notice, is just as valid as the fact it "works" on some as long as they do not notice.
> I can definitely spare 50MB of disk space and 200MB of RAM
Yeah, once. For a game, or a movie. But not 100 times for utilities I am actively using. Imagine, any given application can be run together with dozens, hundreds of others. Just like any given website is rarely the only website that's open.
Looking towards resources you can waste is the wrong approach. Look for waste you can do without, period.
FB can't make a YT clone in under a year because "years of experience still count for something"? So a scenario where a YT clone is made quickly, yet years of experience still count for something, is not possible at all?
At least for some, it's the result of experiences with and/or knowledge about Stalinism, the Nazis, et al. For those, it doesn't matter what 99% of the people do, we don't derive the value of something from how many people do or think it, we derive the value of people from what they think and do in relations to these questions. It's fine to be "not well traveled", but I wouldn't put my hand into machinery I don't 100% understand. That you don't see what is the lioness and what are the cubs is not relevant to the lioness.
More like how the US subsidizes weapons, dictators and armed conflict. To compare FB to medicine is kinda neat in how fucking brain dead retarded it is.
Asserts itself? Circles the wagons more like. On HN you can't even "abrasive", hahaha... "asserts itself" in the sense of "making bald assertions and tuning out any response they can't handle".
Well, if you don't face the backlash, the backlash will face you. So welcome to Berlin, Google. We'll make you cry, and then charge you to clean up your rotting corpse. One pathetic, spineless cunt at a time.
It's almost as if when all you're able to do is compare two numbers and see which one is bigger, every problem gets reduced to comparing two numbers to see which one is bigger.
The operative word here being "if". Not that it makes sense even granting your motive of wanting to cast aspersions, which you made up in order to to cast aspersions yourself, since it's not a binary choice.
To call Bezos a bookseller is just fantastic, you're projecting a whole lot of laughability.