Apple is Dodgy

beiser

Well-known member
It's true. The majority of us don't automatically side with technological progress over quality of life. You're like the scientist in The Thing from Another World who claims it's their duty to let the alien kill them for the sake of science.
come on man this is just bad faith … where is the quality of life question here, what is the counterfactual with better QoL
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

beiser

Well-known member
this is the bizarro syndrome where the european bourgeiosie’s feigned distain for wealth has trickled down to the european middle classes, manifesting as a kind of haughty disregard for material reality, an insistence on an abstract “finer bits of the quality of life” even as the entire continent seizes and groans under a never-ending austerity
 

version

Well-known member
come on man this is just bad faith … where is the quality of life question here, what is the counterfactual with better QoL
I wasn't responding to a specific point, it was a response to Gus forever siding with tech companies on any issue.
 

beiser

Well-known member
this is it—there’s no disagreement, no claim that Gus isn’t right, only that it’s gauche to argue such a true thing as he has, when it means not treating the tech companies with ritual disdain
 

sus

Well-known member
I wasn't responding to a specific point, it was a response to Gus forever siding with tech companies on any issue.
I don't side with anyone, Dissensus sides.

I'm just the mirror that shows Dissensus its face
 

sus

Well-known member
It's not so much about siding, in the post I literally said I had no idea who was in the right. It's about pointing out the ways that ideology closes down what oughta be open cases, makes indeterminacy seem determinate, makes unclear situations seem obvious
 

beiser

Well-known member
on the object-level of supply chain responsibility, I can tell you that Apple is better than the rest of the lot. it’s not clear that they’re good _enough_, just that the focus on them is because they hover as an abstraction above the rest of the industry in our minds, and not due to any particular practices.
 

version

Well-known member
this is it—there’s no disagreement, no claim that Gus isn’t right, only that it’s gauche to argue such a true thing as he has, when it means not treating the tech companies with ritual disdain
What's there to argue about if Gus has already said nobody knows? My response was to Gus often taking the line of the tech companies, or at least giving them the benefit of the doubt.
 

version

Well-known member
on the object-level of supply chain responsibility, I can tell you that Apple is better than the rest of the lot. it’s not clear that they’re good _enough_, just that the focus on them is because they hover as an abstraction above the rest of the industry in our minds, and not due to any particular practices.
I don't view them as any worse than the other companies. I think they're all bad. I think anything that big should be broken up.
 

beiser

Well-known member
I don't view them as any worse than the other companies. I think they're all bad. I think anything that big should be broken up.
if you break them up, you don’t abolish the mobile phone, you just increase dependence on the supply chain, which decreases the capability to audit suppliers. that would surely mean more slave labor in the supply chain. the opposite of a solution.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sus

luka

Well-known member
Yeah best not to say too much you are right, it will be used against you. Also I wanted to apologise for what I said about your Nigerian music thread, you should carry on with it.

This is what the mushrooms told him. You should apologise catalog, that was uncalled for.
 

beiser

Well-known member
I think concentration of wealth has a negative impact on the people who don't have it and monopolies enable even greater corruption than usual.
who is wealth getting concentrated in? isn’t it the shareholders, who are widely distributed? Is it the execs? They make big salaries, but they’re comparatively restrained given the scale of the company. Is it the employees, who typically make less than they would at a competitor?

If you break the company up, and the shareholders remain the same, what does it mean to have broken them up anyway?
 

version

Well-known member
You break all of them up, not just Apple. And you don't allow anyone to get that big again.
 

sus

Well-known member
Drugs are stern moralists. Always telling us to behave better
That's true, when I visit parentals sometimes I smoke a spliff before dinner it reminds me of my responsibilities, the precariousness of life.
 
Top