Readit NewsIt's related in the same way that I can say "nothing matters at all" in reply to literally anything. Which is to say, very loosely, and entirely lacking substance.
Yes, the part where you made the unsupported assertion.
> not the proof
Nonsense. Your "proof" relies on a non-standard definition which you have pulled straight out of your ass.
What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)?
> The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale.
Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong.
> The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.
According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?
I guess that's why hedge fund managers have billions in assets and are paid millions of dollars, to deliver sub-market returns. Yep, makes total sense.
Not to mention it’s absurd a conversation this long hasn’t pointed out the relativity of ethical judgments or event attempted to define what ethical even means.
The majory of people are idiots, so this part is almost certainly expected and acceptable.
> If everything is unethical then nothing matters, but people don’t want nothing to matter so they construct shades of grey to make choices and judgements on. Your “um actually everything is unethical” is irrelevant to the game they’re playing.
Where did I say everything is unethical? Where did I say nothing matters? This is the way people want to re-frame the conversation because it is too difficult for them to break through their conditioning to apprehend how the world works.
I did, but GP dodged it by switching to ad hominem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38960797
Nothing will make other people accept your incongruous and intellectually dishonest definition, either.
Not too long ago my neighbor cleaned the carburetor on my lawn mower, and I fixed his router config in exchange. He would have had to spend tons of time figuring out how to do it himself, but it took me 5 minutes. I could have cleaned my own carburetor, but he already had the cleaner and had freshly done one, so it took him 5 minutes but would have taken me 30 minutes plus a trip to the store. The same principles from the example are at play here.
And whether Person B can get enough protein from coconuts is entirely irrelevant. All that matters in this scenario is that Person B was concerned about it and wanted to trade.
What? This is just silly. You don't know the difference between hypothetical fantasy and real life, or are you just being hyperbolic?
> Secondly, the principles that underpin this scenario are highly active in the world today
Still, it is irrelevant since I asked for a real world example.
> Not too long ago my neighbor cleaned the carburetor on my lawn mower, and I fixed his router config in exchange
Another contrived example which excludes the entire world. Who made the lawn mower? Who made the router? Literal slaves in a third world country. Surely you are not so ignorant you know this?
> whether Person B can get enough protein from coconuts is entirely irrelevant
It is not irrelevant; it is hilarious you don't know this simple nutritional fact.