It's a categorical error. Like expecting a boat captain to be Descartes because they're good at leading people to operate a boat (or, for that matter, expecting Descartes to take first in a marathon because he was really good at applying logic to philosophical questions).
I think it's easy for people to make this error because humans like heroes; heroes simplify things. We want to believe that the people who are succeeding are succeeding because they're virtuous, not because (just spitballing here) the mechanisms we use to evaluate success are fundamentally detached from (if not opposed to) "virtue" as most people would understand the concept. if the latter is true, the world is far messier.
Sometimes it takes all those people voluntarily sitting at the same table as a convicted, unrepentant, and unpunished sexual abuser for the outside observer to "get" it.
Perhaps the still-open question is "Now what should one do with that knowledge?"
I’m well aware of that, no need to get all pedagogical. The system is quite far from what I favour. I’m saying that we shouldn’t be shrugging and saying “well that’s just what they are”, it’s no excuse.
Their forebears, sadly, did not. Specifically the ones who worked at IBM, but others as well.
What in the world is wrong with this man?
In Soviet Union it was a sign of loyalty not to question obviously false statistics and news. In Joe Rogan's circles is laughing at his shit jokes and praising his comic abilities in his podcast.
not to excuse the brazenness of it - i'm as disgusted as you are.
The entire industry gladly dropped their masks. Quite the irony, for a group of people that takes so much pride in "thinking different" and "changing the world".
It just so happens when you have a fragile ego in power, people seeking power will naturally play to that ego for a leg up.
We knew before 2015 that he was easy to manipulate. Easy to push his buttons, easy to flatter.
Frankly if you are a CEO in 2015 and you aren’t flattering this idiot to profit then you are violating your duties to your shareholders
In other words, they are behaving as necessary (and as advised) to avoid later being exposed to a lawsuit.
Or your competitors will. It’s the cost of doing business.
It's all fun and games til his policies crash the economy.
Short-sighted perspectives yet again. Short term gains at the cost of long term viability.
What began as feudal rent-seeking in England scaled into global capitalism, a system where those at the top still practice Norman-style exploitation for maximum extraction with no care about those being extracted from. It's all Norman-style exploitation for maximum extraction, stripped of any sense of community, obligation, or service.
Unless a nontrivial number of the people who are outraged either boycott Apple, Alphabet/Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta/Facebook, or sell their shares, or stop applying to work there then it'll prove that these CEOs were indeed making the right (financial) decision.
Ah yes, because that's the only thing that matters. Nihilistic capitalism at its finest – there no morality beyond economics. Everything that makes economic sense is moral because it makes economic sense. Whether it actually does is rather dubious by the way, as all of this has the very real possibility of massively damage these businesses in the medium to long term – so also nihilistic short-termism at its finest.