Gaslighting actually decent business people on the internet is a very bad look for you. I'm not insane, I just have values and principles you don't understand. If I'm virtue signaling, then you're signaling you are an unreasoning a**.
It's hard to imagine that you have anything constructive to contribute to a business conversation, when you see someone who acts out of ethics and assume they're acting performatively. That just means you don't believe ethics are real. That's a very dangerous attitude in a business person.
Curious about the company that you own, what its business model is. I bet you're in crypto.
That's a lot of projection going on. It's deeply unethical to squander economic resources on your vanity. The elephant in the room is that your employees are not starving Africans who deserve charity far more. Your actions cause the death of starving children who would have otherwise been fed if you had not overpaid your rich employees so you can feel good about yourself. You're a bad person.
And no I'm not in crypto. I've been saying it has no lawful utility so voluminously that mods have asked me to stop trolling crypto people. So we can establish your assumptions and fundamental intuition and instincts are very inaccurate. You have a broken compass and it has caused you to become disconnected from first principles of microeconomics.
What is your company name and who are the unlucky shareholders you're victimizing?
Last, I hope you can learn the difference between kindness and niceness. The former is legitimate while the latter is what you do - a manipulative social strategy, often employed by predators with subclinical psychopathology, to ingratiate yourself to others in leu of merit.
First off you yourself are projecting that I am squandering anything. I would argue that what you say is squandering is simply not taking advantage of customers and workers to deliver your crypto scam. You would argue that you're being virtuous.
Now you're charging me with causing death of children. f** you. Laying the charge that I'm being nice to manipulate, while being manipulative.
Anyways if you want to argue that you need to reduce your workers to squalor and keep them there in order to be a virtuous business person... Guess what? I'm very comfortable with you calling me a bad person then. Because to you the good person is one who enslaves customers and workers alike. That's absurd to me.
Anyways, your argument is that a large mega national corporation should exploit the cheapest market because that saves lives in that market. I argue that they only use that market because it is exploited, and their strategy will keep it that way. So they are perpetuating the conditions that cause the deaths you are trying to prevent.
Anyways you keep making heroes of multi-billion dollar corporations, and I'll keep trying to dismantle them.
Not going to tell you my company and have you attack it, but I'll point out that I'm the sole investor, and every worker gets a full copy of our engineering stack because we run open source.
I'm not overpaying anyone. I'm paying everyone the fair share of the work that they produce. You want me to reduce them to serf's because that maximizes the companies utility and is good Management in your mind. Paying someone less because you can get away with it is an abuse.
You're going to keep projecting that I'm being manipulative and nice rather than simply having some ethics and having worked very hard to free myself from under the thumb of abusive bosses.
You're here to hurt me aren't you telepathy. Not to tell the truth or nothing. But to hurt me because you don't like my ideology.
I'm going to f** you up. Logically I mean. In debate I mean. I don't think you have the balls to end this conversation with me. It will take more blood sweat and tears than you have in your body. And I will beat you effortlessly. Cuz I'm everything you think of when you think of a hateful human. A human that doesn't deserve to exist who continues to claw there body against the fabric of reality and exist. You hate me. And I will defeat you. Let's talk. Debate. Not afraid of you.
Okay okay. If you actually troll crypto folks maybe you're not so f*** awful as I think you are.
But that's if. And that's it. If you're not also on Marxist, arguing that AI companies need to be paying more than the market rate, and making the workers part of the company. Then I think you need to leave the conversation because I have won.
PS I'm not a subdiagnosed whatever you say it is. I'm just autistic. Had to run my own company without a boss to boss me. Because I'm so disabled I can only work two or three days a week and otherwise your type would fire me. Now you want to think you can sass me. I will destroy you in this conversation. Keep coming at me bro.
Also I'm not going to respect the mental health assessments - which you continue to persist in - and which I call gas lighting - of some ableist who thinks that subclinical pathology is a bad thing or relevant to this conversation. What you are engaging in is character assassination and ad hominem reasoning, while addressing my arguments with gross mischaracterization. You're approaching with an immoral and disgusting approach to business, where if I don't exploit the cheapest poorest labor in a way that won't lift them up, then I'm evil. I find you creepy and disturbing.
But I'm not scared of you.
How could we chat voice to voice? I'm curious to see how your abusive unethics, illogic, and harassment tactics will unfold in a voice chat. The benefit is that it will help me harden myself against counter-revolutionaries and pro-capitalists. Considered doing me the honor!
And my merit is amazing bro. I have been studying computer graphics for over 20 years. I only just now started the company where it depends on that. I had to steal the company idea from a capitalist who refused to develop the idea, and wanted to hire low paid workers to do our work for us so we can get rich.
You would have loved him. Maybe you are him
Chris is that you?
Too bad I buried him. Long ago in my heart.
The business is mine today. Operating like I wanted to. You hate me. It Ain't that I took it from you. It's that it was mine all along.
You want to call me crazy because I run a company and I don't exploit labor.
What's your name what's your name what's your name what's your name what's your name is your name Chris?
Talk to me
Talk to me
The more information u reveal the more information u talk to me.
So tired of dealing with people like you. So tired of people wanting to attack me just cuz wanting to do good business
Is there? Every time I've looked into this the numbers don't tell that story.
What we do see is landlords (corporate and private) taking things off the market on purpose to keep prices up, in addition to the collusion this thread is actively talking about.
By every conceivable metric housing has kept up with population.
Shortage? No.
Constructed scenarios that force people to lower their standard of living so landlords can make more money? Yes.
It is not a real supply shortage: number of families has not gone up and number of homes has not decreased. It is just increase of demand side, probably due to the printed new money and income increase. People could just live as before but their appetite has grown and it pushes demand up.
This is basically an artificial concern. Waste from fossil fuel is massively more huge in scale - in my country we dump 12 million tonnes of toxic coal fly ash per year [1]. Wind turbine blades will never be anywhere near that order or magnitude… And that’s just the solid stuff you can see, not counting anything (like fine particulate matter, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, etc.) put straight into the air burning coal, gas and oil…
We need to be considering the impact of any big changes we make in regards to our energy. But the thing is, we already know the answers to most of these "but what about" questions and they've been answered time and time again, yet they keep being brought up and used in an effort to slow progress.
Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent?
THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS WORSE, most of the time.
Can we at least start at a place of the carbon dioxide is worse and go from there? I'm not against listening to reason, I'm just against people looking for every reason not to change how we gain and consume our energy.
Exactly, it's not that we shouldn't be striving to mitigate the issue of handling components over their lifetime, but if we're to have any hope at all of this being a conversation that grows in sophistication over time, these shouldn't be dangled with an open-ended implication that they may or may not pose a fundamental challenge to the whole project of renewable energt. Such suggestions should be dismissed as punch drunk nonsense.
I straight up do not care a about plastic use at all anymore.
Specifically: provided the plastic is going to well-managed landfill, and not being washed into the oceans or waterways, then really, what is the problem? Once in landfill it's CO2 which won't end up in the atmosphere, or water, or really doing much of anything while it just sits there.
And every bit of it is oil production which won't be burned.
Yes, it's an environmental red herring. I do outdoor events and I do not allow plastic straws there because they end up in nature. Plastic in nature is obviously bad. Landfills are cheap, plentiful, and safe (even tested regularly for leachate) in the industrialized world.
And more importantly, the people who actually DO pollute by the ton want you to be more worried about your straws than the laws that allow them to do it. Don't fall for it.
> provided the plastic is going to well-managed landfill
Hence this qualifier. In my region, my trash goes to landfill. I've been to landfill! It's a modern design with stabilized storage cells, you can see them excavating it as they expand.
Is it preferable to burn coal and natural gas then? I'm not saying you're wrong (you could be right) but let's not forget why we are pushing for renewable energy.
We do need to disassemble them and move them somewhere, so those costs should be included. Perhaps they should be made to where they can be broken down into sections and reused as durable seawall filler or as construction filler in levees or dams.
This not a battle between nuclear and wind. Why not use both? Nuclear has dangers (which people are learning to mitigate) but wind, solar, and geothermal cannot be used in every situation. When no better choice exists we should embrace nuclear.
I wasn't arguing against nuclear. I was responding to the comment regarding "What's the harm in piling it up on empty land until someone finds use for it" as applying to nuclear waste.
Regarding your point, though, I'm certainly no expert but I believe at this point people aren't investing in new nuclear capacity because they don't believe that long term it will be cost competitive with renewables + storage.
When "SEO" first became a trendy buzzword decades ago, I immediately thought "these are fraudulent efforts to artificially appear more relevant than you actually are to the search algo" - and then it became a multi billion dollar industry.
