this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
969 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
2618 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, with all these negative opinions of reddit and spez, I'm both curious what the business world generally thinks of him, and their plan for the business.
Ultimately, the interesting thing will be if investors will give any money when they IPO.
I personally wouldn't, but because I don't like the leaders. Some people don't care, they just want returns where ever they come.
I'm a bit of a hater for this company, and hope their IPO is a flop. We'll see.
The people with all the money don't care about anything like this. They don't even care about stewardship/long term value building except maybe the Dupont's and old moneyers. Why wait around trying to make or build something when I can just ride the hype train and make sure I get off and onto the next one before the house of cards falls down?
TSLA's market cap is 618 billion dollars
GM's is 45 billion dollars
Shell Oil's market cap is 200 billion dollars
I've decided that's what's wrong with everything at the core -- the only virtue is money and it doesn't matter how you get it. Spez or anyone else could be doing way worse and everyone would shrug.
Yeah, I'm not sure how to curb the trend of money destroying companies and countries.
It's hard to incentivize not being greedy.
There's plenty of billboards/ads/magazines/etc idealizing rich athletes, celebrities, CEOs, etc. There's no MTV cribs for modest/honest/hard working single parents, community volunteers, small business owners who kept their own pay lower to afford employee's medical benefits, etc.
There's no awards show for most humble (ha), most improved, most selfless, most mentor, etc.
I think shame from society was the regulator in the past, but we are in gilded age II so money supersedes morals.
Reminds me of -- Societies grow great when men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit.
I definitely don’t think shame played a role. Desire for positive legacy partly, but also for a lot of history kings understood that a peasant uprising provided an opportunity for someone else to take the throne. Look at the Roman Empire. Every emperor was shameless, but some lived lives of careful acknowledgment that all it took was an ally with a dagger to end them, while others died young. Those are the two options, there were no brazen long lived Roman emperors. For most of the 20th century communism was an option if businesspeople fucked around. Today these people fear no consequences
Is shame and legacy not related? Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth suggests they are.
And on emperors, we thankfully don't have that in most of the world anymore. I think the question is, 'what keeps the aristocracy in check' which you're right is partially pitchforks, but there used to be decorum and decency, even if it was pretend for a long time in things like politics and the media.
There's a reason the stockades are cruel and unusual punishment -- We are pressed maybe the most by our peers.
I smoked cigarettes for a long time and wanted to quit but never really could even try. When I moved somewhere where people my age thought it was gross and no one would go smoke with me, it was so incredibly easy -- for example.
If the upper class looked down on each other even a little bit for gutting the poor or the environment or mocking the republic, things would be different I think.
Agree with all.
Will take a significant change for things to revert back IMO.
There's that saying that comes to me, similar to... hard men make good times, good times make soft (greedy/morally bankrupt) men, soft men make hard times.... Now just take the non-gender / misogynistic verson of that as needed :)
The word men/man is actually gender neutral. In old English wereman was masculine, wifman was feminine, and there were a slew of other words that were used for children and various other things. We stopped using the gendered words in middle English.
sounds like the 4th turning. I guess as a nomad its my job to make sure the hero's who will fix this have support.