> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?
Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?
Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
You can re-read the first line of my comment if you think I'm putting those two things on the same level, and you will see that I agree with:
> He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
It is like posting “You have interesting thoughts about Kim Dotcom. What is better, paragliding or parasailing?”
Am I the only one that didn't read either that way? I think a lot of biases are hanging out in this conversation.
Human understanding of humans and human social structures (which one needs to make just rulings) isn't objective. To claim otherwise is not just subjective, but incoherent. It's an infinite regress. Many people throughout history possessing ideas that we now consider to be stupid were convinced of their objectivity.
FWIW, I think this vendetta against Kim Dotcom is way out of line, and wouldn't have happened if he were more important.
Also Data Protect was a fraud masquerading as an information security company. I was living in Germany then and it was a joke in the infosec space.
The top-level poster appears to be proposing a general rule for how people should behave. But how suitable is it really?
The way to explore that is to test it out by trying other inputs, as the GP did here.
> He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
That is noticeably different than stating, "it feels gross so don't do it".
It also seems designed to shut down criticism of the original proposed rule -- or at least that's the only interpretation I can ascribe to it. This is bad because that original proposed rule is bad (in my opinion) and deserves criticism. Ihe best kind of criticism of any rule is "Let's try this other input, and see if you still agree with the conclusion".
It "being designed to shut down criticism" is a wildly subjective take at best and at worst way more spurious than anything they or I am suggesting. I think your bias is showing and you are doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."
This "point" isn't connected in any way to the original proposed rule, which is what is under examination here. So when the GP sought to test that rule by applying it to a different type of person, this "point" does not amount to an objection -- it's simply irrelevant.
I don't think I can make this any simpler.
So would you like to address the topic or would you rather continue playing pretend with imaginary rule sets for conversation?
Ironically, it's you who is attempting (and failing) to shut down criticism instead of addressing it.
Victims are victims. We just overlook victims of the state because of a biological religious adherence to revenge. Righteous violence and all that jazz.
Publicly available information supports the fact that Snowden was also an opportunist - the vast majority of the material he leaked was unrelated to domestic surveillance, which was his stated purpose for leaking.
Numbers don't lie.
Now you have a pointless thread five deep.
The premise was that these services didn't actually perform the piracy, its users did. Kim Dotcom played both sides of the field, much like how social media platforms are right now with the whole "we're not a media company" but wanting all the profits of providing services that those companies do.
I'm not saying I agree, but it provides context as to why people felt Kim Dotcom was a hero.
> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?
Or maybe even more generally to people like Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet? Because maybe at some point enough should be enough?
While they want you to believe that, there’s no correlation between being rich and being best, or even good, at anything. You’re not the best athlete because your mom and dad were the best athletes. But if your parents were wealthy, you’re wealthy.
If they want standards to be applied ”consistently”, great. They can start by paying their taxes.
Why shouldn't this quantity be softly capped at some value to prevent natural runaway towards 100%? What's wrong about capping it on the other side slightly above zero for the purposes of personal survival and preventing organic deterioration?
> Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away?
Obviously that.
> and who would they give it away too?
That is really irrelevant. The money they gave away can literally be burnt and it would still improve the situation. Money is not value. Money is just a score indicating how much value are you entitled to obtain in the future.
> The federal government controls more money than any entire private business
Is that true? Despite trillions of debt? There are national governments in the world (and not small ones) that currently owe more to businesses than they own assets.
Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success. Once you win everything you should step aside and let others have their fun. You shouldn't feel compelled to punish your body even harder for years to come and others shouldn't have to wait till your performance deteriorates.
I don't agree with this definition of money. The vast majority of money doesn't represent human output/labor and none of it is created by human labor. Probably the simplest to understand example of that is crypto. It represents trillions of USD in wealth and has almost no human labor input or output. That's a simple example, but certainly not the only example.
> Is that true? Despite trillions of debt?
Yes it's true. It's not even close. The US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out. They could save up for roughly 6 months and buy out the most expensive company in the world (apple). A company that has been growing their wealth for 50 years. This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money. Moving money from the grossly rich to the insanely unthinkably rich doesn't make much sense to me.
> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.
What problem does this solve? I don't have anything much against it either, but I can't find any reason to do this.
I agree. That's completely not what I said.
Money is how we keep track of what fraction of the future output of others (of our civilization really) someone or some organization is entited to command (consume or destroy for their needs or schemes) in the future.
> US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out.
I'm still not convinced. You can spend a lot when you are incredibly deep in debt. Spending doesn't make you rich.
> This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money.
The point is not giving money, it's taking the money away. Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.
>> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.
> What problem does this solve?
No global problem. But professional sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment. I don't agitate for limits in sport but that's just an example that reasonable limits may benefit people in many areas.
I still misunderstand you, I think.
> Money is how we keep track of [...] output of others
How do I reconcile that you agree money doesn't represent the output of others, while understanding this comment that says it keeps track of the output of others?
> Spending doesn't make you rich.
I would argue that being rich doesn't matter at all. We can always print more money. The only part of being rich that matters is the influence your spending represents. Otherwise it's nothing more than numbers in a computer database and has no impact on the world. The fact that the government spends so aggressively is what makes their influence so powerful and scary. Unlike rich individuals, the governments wage war frequently. I would much rather see random people have obscene net worth rather than see major countries grow their military budget, building weapons that are even more efficient at killing poor people in other countries.
> Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.
agreed, that's why it matters so much as to where the money is going when you take it from rich individuals. Giving it the federal government grows their military budget, which the president of the US has complete control over. A single individual with the authority to launch a full-scale invasion tomorrow. Compare that to elon musk or bill gates. Their purchasing influence is infinitesimally small compared to the same money utilized by the federal government.
> sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment.
valid argument. I don't agree with it, but I don't find the argument to be inconsistent or without merit.
Simple. If for example government decides to print million dollars and give it to you for no reason then it doesn't represent any economic output of others yet you having it means that you are entitled to acquiring some economic output of others in the future.
Basically you can easily get money by contributing nothing or even by destroying economic value, but this money entitles you to acquiring economic output of someone else. Money is nothing more, nothing less, just a right to useful things people other people (and their machines) do.
> I would argue that being rich doesn't matter at all.
Great, so you don't oppose taking a significant part of wealth of the people that hoard so much of it, right? Since it doesn't matter at all.
> Unlike rich individuals, the governments wage war frequently.
Business literally devastated entire planet, is in the process of acidifying the oceans, raising sea levels, poisoning biosphere, destroying communities, health, lives, all the time. I don't think governments will ever do this much bad (unless WW3 happens). All thanks to unchecked power of having too much money and wanting even more because it's allowed. You seriously underestimate impact of greed and overestimate impact of governments.
> agreed, that's why it matters so much as to where the money is going when you take it from rich individuals
I'm telling you for the third time that it doesn't have to go anywhere. It can be burned as easily as it was printed. And no value is lost. Only the share of influence on the future changes so that the richest loose a bit and every one else gains a bit.
> A single individual with the authority to launch a full-scale invasion tomorrow. Compare that to elon musk or bill gates. Their purchasing influence is infinitesimally small compared to the same money utilized by the federal government.
Small handful of tobacco industry owners cooperate to kill 8 million people each year and they are allowed to do that. It's perfectly legal. Just 10 years of this and you have deathtoll of WW2. I think if a person in power suddenly on a whim decided to kill 8 million people a year there'd be some questions form the electorate.
And that's just a single small industry and only one small group of rich people.
And you know this how?
Now he spouts off their official propaganda.
Only very sheepishly and obliquely. If he's supposed to be their mouthpiece, he's a pretty meek and ineffective one.
> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?
I don't think it's a relevant comparison, but I do think that particular suggestion should apply to them. Imo a fundamental component of "succeeding" in Western culture is in how quickly you learn which parts of which systems act on perverse incentives or actively against the good of the people, and subsequently being able read the room when there's an opportunity to play hero; sticking your neck out might earn you a smily face sticker next to your obituary, but more likely it'll end up screwing you, and it's naive and/or arrogant to think that this time will be different and you'll singlehandedly rid the ocean of pollution (metaphorically). Realizing that you can't rid the ocean of pollution doesn't mean you should start dumping more trash into it, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your civic duty to reduce your personal waste, but it does mean you have to set your ego aside for your own benefit, because in practice and in all likelihood you'll make practically zero or even very negative difference, and put a real tangible target on your back, in whichever context this plays out.
Could be a safety meeting at your company in which you're just a peon and you feel like speaking up about a code violation, could be that you're a young Mr Beast employee that wants to vouch for their co-worker who's making less but doing more, or it could be that you want to make your company's website more accessible, in any case, unless you very clearly have the latitude to do so and control over the outcome, don't, because you'll screw yourself or someone else.
Drive as well as you can in your lane, whatever that means to you, and if you don't like it, signal and change lanes, then do it again.
This also means not overexerting oneself on things that require real tangible sacrifice but have only tenuous, nebulous, or only marginally more financially beneficial outcomes. Don't sacrifice too much time alone or with your partner or family or in nature for shipping yet another arbitrary AI SaaS bs product that will disappear in a week, pick the relevant battles and demand am important outcome, we don't have enough time to squander on such asinine missions. Again, that doesn't mean don't do work, or earn money, or help others, or whatever, just be careful how much of your life you trade for some 1s and 0s.