For a fuller treatment see:

* https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/771/

Shareholder value (primacy) is one interpretation on the purpose of companies (and a relatively recent one):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

There are others:

* “Profits are to business as breathing is to life. Breathing is essential to life, but is not the purpose for living. Similarly, profits are essential for the existence of the corporation, but they are not the reason for its existence.” ― Charles A. O'Reilly, Lead and Disrupt: How to Solve the Innovator's Dilemma, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._O%27Reilly_III

* “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy...your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”[72] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Politics

If you back to the mid-1900s US:

> In 1949 General Foods’ president Clarence Francis told Congress that he had a “three-way responsibility to the American consumer, to our associates in this business, and to the 68,000 [stockholders in General Foods]. We . . . would serve (the company’s) interests badly by shifting the fruits of the enterprise too heavily toward any one of those groups.” Two years later, the president of Standard Oil of New Jersey claimed that managers needed “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise in such a way as to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups—stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” So widespread were such views that, in 1959, one writer in the Harvard Business Review complained that it was no longer “fashionable for the corporation to take gleeful pride in making money.” Instead, he complained, it was typical “for the corporation to show that it is a great innovator; more specifically, a great public benefactor; and, very particularly, that it exists ‘to serve the public’.”

* https://law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history...

Or further:

> American corporate law has long drawn a bright line between for-profit and non-profit corporations. In recent years, hybrid or social enterprises have increasingly put this bright-line distinction to the test. This Article asks what we can learn about the purpose of the American business corporation by examining its history and development in the United States in its formative period from roughly 1780-1860. This brief history of corporate purpose suggests that the duty to maximize profits in the for-profit corporation is a relatively recent development. Historically, the American business corporation grew out of an earlier form of corporation that was neither for-profit nor nonprofit in today’s parlance but rather, served a multitude of municipal, religious, charitable, educational, and eventually business purposes in early nineteenth-century New England. The purposes of early American business corporations—rather than maximization of profit to private shareholders— were often overtly public, involving development of local transportation, finance, and other much-needed economic infrastructure. With the rise of factory-based manufacturing, railroads, and other capital-intensive industries in the middle decades of the nineteenth century and the advent of general incorporation statutes, the purpose of the American business corporation shifted fundamentally from public to private. By 1860, the stage was set for the modern firm.

* https://repository.law.umich.edu/mbelr/vol9/iss1/2/

The idea that it is some kind of 'legal requirement' is also a myth:

* https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/771/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50209385

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

* https://www.mercer.com/insights/investments/market-outlook-a...

* https://info.marsh.com/marsh-cfa-institute-global-pension-in...

* https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/reports/2026/marsh-cfa...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50206830

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50201821

Points: 47

# Comments: 14

The "4" would be valid in hex, decimal, and even octal.

At what point does it become Russian roulette with a Glock?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:23

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)

There was an early Christian heresy what believed that clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

And another belief that humans can be saved by their own efforts, without the need for God's grace:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

In some ways your idea would be contrary to scripture (?): since no one can (fully/perfectly?) live those values, then no one can (fully/perfectly?) be Christian. Whereas is in the 'Lewis model' every one can be a Christian, but just a better or worse 'instantiation' of one.

Isn't this what Go programs are to a certain extent?

> Izzat (Bengali: ইজ্জত; Hindi: इज़्ज़त; Urdu: عزت, romanized: 'izzat, lit. 'honour') literally translated: "respect" is a concept of prestige, dignity, and social respect.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzat

* Similar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)

I am reminded of the US DST changes back in the 2000s: there was all sorts of drama because a lot of software is written in the US, and there was much 'computerization' in the 1990s, but US coders had never personally experienced a DST rule change during that time period, so any change needed a reboot to pick up the new rules.

That drama led to (e.g.) periodic dynamic checking of /etc/localtime on various Unix-y system.

Sometimes you don't realize that things can be improved until you experience situations in which they currently suck.

Have you ever gone to a mass on random Thursday? There is often no sermon during daily, non-Sunday mass. Yes, there are readings, but the central part of the mass is the Eucharist, which the Catechism (¶1324) calls the "source and summit of the Christian life".

> I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.

I don't think this is a good take. I think C. S. Lewis got in better in Mere Christianity:

> We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity

A "Christian" is someone who believes certain things (e.g., Nicene Creed), and that he should do (or not do) certain things. The inability to live up to one's ideals does mean you reject those ideals (or make them invalid).

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

* https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/science-and-scientism/

* https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-necessity-of-freedom/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(music)

There's a bit of a debate on whether rules/restrictions help or hinder creativity.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxXfeotgVVA

Aren't (many?) firefighters certified as paramedics?

This sub-thread started with:

> Zstd is worth a lot of other's people's pain.

The (philosophical/theoretical) debate/discussion is about the 'quantity' of "people's pain", and how much of it is it worth for having Zstd (and other things that have come out of Meta/FB). What is the 'trade-off' (if any) between getting good and accepting evil? (Assuming "good" and "evil" even exist.)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om...

Would it be better that:

* zstd exists because Meta exists (net benefiting over other people's pain — including possibly the 'pain' of genocide), or

* a genocide did not happen (or was not as bad) because Meta did not exist (but we never got zstd)?