Of course it’s AWS printing their money, not retail.

But again, that doesn’t feed the conspiracy-minded mob or generate clicks.

Edit response to emiliobumachar:

If the US broke international law and their treaties with the UK it would be a really bad look at the very least. Conversely if that doesn’t happen what are you going to be convinced of?

(Sorry about responding this way, but after two months of getting no response from the mods about rate limiting me, I’m just adapting.)

Google is hurtling toward an antitrust case they won’t win, and it will really be all their fault.

Maybe she feels the same way? No need to buy here an $800 model either, you can get really good iPhomes for a fraction of that price.

Here’s an alternative theory... I didn’t take it personally because I didn’t take the stance you’re criticizing. Now you’re left in the untenable position of assuming I was offended on the behalf of some strangers, or what bothers me is unrelated to “hurtfulness” and has to do with something else.

My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.

Again, perspective is your friend. Maybe people disagree with you, maybe they disagree with how you’re saying what you’re saying, or maybe they agree with parts, but not the whole. This is yet another illustration of the perils in treating s diverse community as a monolith. For example my problem with your original comment was the signal:noise ratio, best illustrated by the complete innacuracy of how you characterized the reaction of so many people. Your latter day hand-waving about “it changed over time” is more of the same.

I’m thinking that a mirror might help you with your bias concerns.

Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. It can also be helpful to not lump the tens of thousands of people here into one bin of “HN did x” when trying to make that point.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

Debunking the Shareholder Value Myth: History Although many contemporary business experts take shareholder primacy as a given, the rise of shareholder primacy as dominant business philosophy is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of the twentieth century, large public companies followed a philosophy called managerial capitalism. Boards of directors in managerial companies operated largely as self-selecting and autonomous decision-making bodies, with dispersed shareholders playing a passive role. What’s more, directors viewed themselves not as shareholders’ servants, but as trustees for great institutions that should serve not only shareholders but other corporate stakeholders as well, including customers, creditors, employees, and the community. Equity investors were treated as an important corporate constituency, but not the only constituency that mattered. Nor was share price assumed to be the best proxy for corporate performance.7...

So where did the idea that corporations exist only to maximize shareholder value come from? Originally, it seems, from free-market economists. In 1970, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman published a famous essay in the New York Times arguing that the only proper goal of business was to maximize profits for the company’s owners, whom Friedman assumed (incorrectly, we shall see) to be the company’s shareholders.9 Even more influential was a 1976 article by Michael Jensen and William Meckling titled the “Theory of the Firm.”10 This article, still the most frequently cited in the business literature,11 repeated Friedman’s mistake by assuming that shareholders owned corporations and were corporation’s residual claimants. From this assumption, Jensen and Meckling argued that a key problem in corporations was getting wayward directors and executives to focus on maximizing the wealth of the corporations’ shareholders.

Don’t repeat outright bullshit like it’s a fact.

It would be pretty expensive to maintain though.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19589015

Points: 1

# Comments: 0