The raven remembers

I had a radio telescope array in my home town and got to do work experience there which was really cool. But then I chickened out when it came time to choose university courses, because I was worried about what a career in the field would look like in Australia…

Astrophysicist

I’m aware Mr Beast exists, but I know nothing about him. I mean, I would have assumed he is awful, because money does that to people, but I’d have nothing to back up my gut feeling.

And I’ve never heard of KSI…

Oh oh, yo, porfa!

The quote you gave suggests that companies are legally expected to maximise profit, but with caveats/nuance. It also highlights shareholder pressure towards the same goal.

If the claim is that fear of legal action doesn’t technically count as 'legally required ", then sure, I used the wrong word. But as I said elsewhere, it doesn’t change my point.

Boycotts aren’t pointless, because they force companies to change by attacking their bottom line/share value. It doesn’t make them moral, it just hits them where it hurts.

Companies are inherently immoral. Whether the pressure that creates that reality is from this particular case or whether it comes from self preservatio is genuinely irrelevant to my point.

Taking away Musk won’t make a company moral, because all publicly traded companies are immoral.

I don’t know why this particular case gets people ignoring the topic at hand to argue about it whenever it’s mentioned…

I answered it elsewhere. If you want real discussion, respond to that.

I answered elsewhere in the conversation chain.

It’s a consequence of the eBay vs Newmark ruling. Arguments against it are theoretical only and haven’t been tested, and would be next to impossible to achieve with extant companies that don’t already have advertised social priorities.

let’s be honest if it’s simply self preservation rather than some oft-cited but wrong assertion of the law.

For the purposes of my point in this discussion, the distinction doesn’t matter. Whether the pressure to maximise profit over morality is a legal requirement or self preservation, the end result is inherent immorality

Publicly traded companies are legally required to maximise profit for their shareholders. There inherently immoral.

Al menos lo fue un oportunidad para practicar tu español!

Thanks for that. I was always curious how they were able to survive staff change

The screenshot you posted of PugJesus is unrelated to the voting situation, except in so far as he left the fediverse, but then came back to post that comment.

It’s a Piefed feature that appeared when we updated the instance. I don’t think we can disable it completely, but when I get the chance, I’ll increase it to a stupidly large number to make it effectively unlimited.

Yes, they are. Vocally so

What determines cash value in that case?

How does that work for the next generation of employees, the ones that weren’t there from the beginning? Doesn’t it mean privatisation as people retire and sell off their shares? And doesn’t it mean dilution of value for new employees as their shares represent an ever smaller portion of the company?

How do they approach those issues?

Got a new wheel and pedals, so back in to Gran Turismo!