Essentially, yes, it's to increase stock value, but generally the courts are to defer to executives' judgment on such decisions as long as the executive is acting in good faith. So in practice you don't have to, like, exploit people or anything as long as you say not exploiting people is good for the long-term health of the company's good will or something.
At this point, I think pirating is more moral than actually paying for your digital media. The digital media scene for shows/movies is so incredibly hostile to consumers that not giving them money feels like the moral position. I don't feel it's necessarily the case for music (Qobuz) and especially games (GOG, hell even Steam). Not sure on books since I mostly read blogs, scientific articles (that definitely _should_ be pirated) and freely available math/crypto texts.
Owning and running a local media server at home doesn’t automatically make one a pirate, there is free content and some laws allow for ripping and streaming your copy to your tv or other device.
There is not a lot of free content out there comparatively. As for ripping yourself, that's fine, but usually it's:
1. Takes a lot more time.
2. Costs _a lot_ more money than streaming services.
3. Is _often_ illegal.
You could say price shouldn't be an issue here, if we're talking about morals, but a single season on BLU-RAY of shows can easily cost ~70 USD (at least here in Denmark), compared to a ~10 USD streaming service. The idea is, of course that the largest fans and collectors are willing to purchase these, but it's not doable for replacing a streaming flow. So practically, it's a large consideration.
And principally I really can't blame pirates when they get their stuff, cheaper, better, faster and more easily. Again, Steam represents a nice counter-balance, Steam is much easier, while still being very affordable, than pirating. I haven't pirated a game in 10 years, even for studios who I would rather not have my money (Disco Elysium), I still purchased the game on sale, just for the convenience.
It's a transition, not a reduction. Human energy usage is going up.
It's just shifting, what types and where, energy is generated.
And those shifts, have tradeoffs.
Want cleaner air in developed urban areas via EVs? ok cool, but the tradeoff is more mines elsewhere to supply those minerals, more batteries and metals for charging infrastructure.
There is no free lunch in the energy world, solar and wind have tradeoffs.
if you say "less humans", surely you mean "less ultra-rich humans", right? because poorer humans usually account for the minority of all the pollution.
The ultra rich can afford EVs, and well insulated homes with solar panels.
Dirt poor people heat and cook with coal or firewood. They burn down forests to plant food. They are sustained by long supply chains by well intentioned NGOs rather than local produce.
It's not simple to say rich people are polluters, and poor people are living naturally.
Although per capita, the middle class consumer may be the worst of them all.
Environmental impact of creating the EVs and giant homes with solar panels. Plus all that jet travel. You have to account for all of that, and then almost certainly they are polluting way more than middle class or poor person.
If that isn’t cynicism, here’s some optimisation thoughts:
- start with the humans that pollute more - which is way more correlated to their consumption that their solar roof surface. Sorry USA, you go first. Others high standard living countries follows.
- Regarding the cows, they have a shorter lifespan and don’t shop much neither do they heat their house or shower water. We could just stop breeding new ones and keep the existant till their death.
The cows also don't really pump up oil.
They participate in a carbon cycle.
Their farts are not a long term issue like so damn many people make it out to be. (and I don't think they don't produce (that much) more than the wildlife and plant rot they replace over the total outsized amount of space they actually take up)
If there's a reason to have less it's because we chop down forests for more grazing space to grow the herd. Environment impact aside these are carbon sinks even if vastly less efficient than kelp forests or bogs or the like.
Also because we use a bit of fossil fuels for fertilizers in part for their feed.
That said the manure they produce is probably invaluable in avoiding famines if we're going to stop utilizing Haber–Bosch or start utilizing more expensive methods without gas.
We need to move past these debates or we’ll slip further behind. China is repeating Japan’s trajectory: early products may have been rough, but Toyota grew into an innovation powerhouse. No one questions the Prius’s impact today.
At some point, we need to stop talking about what we did in high school 10 years ago and start figuring out how to make everything we interact with better by tapping into the collective intelligence of 8 billion people.
There are echo chambers on both ends of the political spectrum (and for various subcultures) but it’s obvious they are real if you are in the centre and find yourself politically homeless between two progressively extreme groups who are doing the same shit with different flavours.
Extreme in their lack of interest or tolerance of opposing viewpoints that drowns out meaningful conversation.
The kind of thing that allowed Biden to get so far into the re-election cycle, etc. My favorite recent example is one ive heard from numerous people in real life, is suggesting that the main reason Kamala lost was because she was a woman. Or confusion at all the Texas border counties flipping to Trump. Dems dropped the ball in so many obvious ways and its deeply frustrating that its still difficult to have serious conversations about it. The reality is many of my left leaning friends are still deep in echo chambers they can barely see; its quite different from my right leaning friends who feel a bit closer to delusional on a few particular issues (ie consistently discard and avoid incorporating relatively mundane facts such as low murder rates vs "this is the most dangerous time ever for a child to be outside").
> Extreme in their lack of interest or tolerance of opposing viewpoints that drowns out meaningful conversation.
Again, this is.. biden or kamala or clinton? Are the people in power in this political power advocating for extreme positions or acting intolerantly?
Is it intolerant to refuse to consider the idea of deporting 65 million american citizens of latino descent? What is the correct response for this in your world?
As for Dems and balldropping, this is an extremely complicated subject that is way too broad and deep for this little text box, but before any discussion took place, I'd have to advance the argument that, given the behaviour of the various major news organisations during the last decade or so, I'd have to ask, were people voting based on what democrats actually did, or what they were told they did?
The state of the left in general, which is effectively what led to Kamala (a bad candidate) leading the Democratic Party instead of someone that had a more legitimate chance of winning. The example I provided was the (otherwise smart) people I know saying "We just can't have a woman candidate" as though _that_ were the reason she lost. It's difficult to have that conversation - they look at you like a complete jerk when you suggest... no that's not the reason she lost. Which is what OP was getting at.
> Is it intolerant to refuse to consider the idea of deporting 65 million american citizens of latino descent? What is the correct response for this in your world?
What is the intent of this exactly? This isn't the issue swing voters I know of reference in thinking Biden / D's were bad on immigration. They would refer to the surge in (illegal) immigration.
> I'd have to ask, were people voting based on what democrats actually did, or what they were told they did?
One of (or the?) Kamala's first network appearance involved her opening with responding to "What would you do different" with "Nothing in particular... and I was involved in a lot of the important decisions". It is difficult to even imagine what would lead to her saying such a thing if not an echo chamber but, certainly that kind of thing impacted a lot of swing voters. 2020-2024 was a very bad time for a lot of people. You need to tackle that head on.
Based on this response I have to assume you spend 100% of your time in your house and can't understand why diesel trucks would ever impact someone in another setting.
So I guess all the cars and trucks should be taken off the road to improve my safety right? How dare they pollute with their engines and break dust, that is harmful to my health! I should not have to wear a mask to bike safety in a city because vehicles emit dangerous emissions and pollution.
FYI the local garage truck is a diesel and I can hear it because my windows are old and crappy
Assuming you mean a bicycle, yes, you absolutely deserve safe segregated infrastructure to keep you away from conflict with vehicles. It's better for everyone and I think many cities are now catching onto that.
And you should also feel entitled to clean, breathable air while walking and cycling. Any local government that cares about the safety of residents would agree, I think.
No, ICE emissions and brake dust from heavy EVs is bad for my health and therefore should be banned for the safety of people without a giant machine that has air filters
"I should have to wear a mask to bike safely in a city because vehicles emit dangerous emissions and pollution" is the most sane libertarian take I've read this week.
Part of the reason the US has a problem with too many people being fat and dropping like flies is because nobody wants to go outside. Outside is hot, outside doesn't have enough shade, outside is actively hostile to humans trying to do human things.
Oh? What's that? You want to go walk and get a cup of coffee? How about you go fuck yourself instead?
You want to sit outside and enjoy your meal? Well guess what, it smells like diesel and you won't be able to hear your own thoughts.
