Sorry if that sounds offensive, but you are being a bit shortsighted here. The theory just says that shareholder value serves both as a guide to what a business should do, and as a measure of how good it has done, because that measure encompasses all others. Which is debatable but far from stupid: do you really think Apple would have sold so many i* had they been ugly? Do you really think that angry people demanding taxes, regulations, etc don't affect how businesses decide to actually go and maximize shareholder value? The actual real absent in Friedman's reasoning is "eventually": externalities always come to haunt the shareholder value, the question is when do they become tangible enough that this aligns with society's perception of those externalities.
No, they didn't build iPhones to be beautiful because they would sell more, they did because they wanted to.
Ferrari didn't design sports cars because he wanted to sell the most cars. Armani doesn't design the most profitable suits. It's all completely absurd to say the point of "a firm" is to "maximize shareholder value". It's just so utterly stupid and inane... like... what about time horizon? At what level of variance? Its a lot like an unfalsifiable claim. You could say anything and say "well it maximizes shareholder value according to me"
Friedmans theory is basically a non-statement. It’s so banal as to be vacuous, except as a justification. It’s like saying the point of life is to procreate. Like no shit, but that’s not all that it is.
To put it in AI terms: you could dimensionality reduce a 1024 dimensional vector into 1 dimension and train a model on it. It may be the case that it’s the best reduction you could compute, but that doesn’t mean your entire idea isn’t shitty.
> And meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate crisis goes unaddressed.
That the climate crisis is the biggest threat to our security is the biggest fallacy of our times. It's not that climate change is unimportant, just that it needs to be evaluated to its fair potential consequences, compared to e.g. an all-out war.
Probably it's because I'm not a quantum physicist, but the argument boiling down to "the wavefunction is an object of a probability space not of physical space" seems to make the whole article moot. Can the "wavefunction" be anything else than a _representation_ of the particule(/wave)?... but then who could ever think that a representation would actually travel in space?
You see the carrot vanishing... OK. But what about the stick?
The whole point of Trump's policy is 'we forgot the stick, let's use it again'. I see this true for international policy but you could probably extend that to that infamous DOGE: Fed agencies must be 'productive' (whatever that means), or else.
CFO's perspective: wanna sell me something, anything? you're out.
However well crafted your email is, you're an unacceptable distraction from the priorities that the company has set, the achievement of which is materialized by projects of varying size and scope. Upon starting any project of any size, people do due diligence: they assess what exactly it is they are looking for, and then research the market for it. For macro-projects, consultants may be hired to help with the process, which may lead to a proper tender.
Either way, the company contacts you, not the other way round.
I don't know what makes you say that. Requiring a bit of market research from project proponents does not mean excluding anything lightweight or just new. What you don't want is some company being contracted because it talked to you first by whatever channel rather than as a result of some reasoned assessment.
How do you research something you don't know exists?
> wanna sell me something, anything? you're out.
Advertise? you're out. Have a website? you're out. Go on the Shark Tank? you're out. Do a "Show HN"? you're out.
Reply to an open call to tender? you're out.
> I don't know what makes you say that
"CFO". IBM is the classic choice of the CFO class - they dont want to get fired so they a) dont make a decision or b) chose IBM because they were not "selling them something" (except for all the sales and marketting they do)
Is your argument that you could only find out about a product or service if it’s advertised to you?
If so, that has not been my experience. In my business I typically select against products or services that cold email/call me. But that’s never been a problem. When I need to find a third party solution I start educating myself on the topic and search for vendors. It’s not that difficult.
It's the reason why it can only work at small scale: it's all or nothing. It wants to be your only communication channel. But, surprise, as soon as you live in a larger organisation, there will already be communication channels that serve part of the same purpose. Then most of the functionality become clutter.
It is. Everything in bluesky that runs on the AT protocol (like 99% of it) is currently public.
So if you as the OP detach your post from the QRT, all you are doing is posting a certificate (akin to a revocation cert) that declares the intent that you don't want their QRT to be connected to your post.
An app can still show it. Or it can show it behind a warning prompt. Or it can hide it entirely.
It's an intent and even if it was controlled entirely, a determined third party could still work around it so there's not much point in trying to stop them. Instead you operate on "Don't be a dick" principles.
But would any other client bother to implement this feature? Helping me not see toxic bullshit helps me as a user and I might opt in to various content curation schemes; but, if I am already looking at something, removing the context for what they are talking about does not help me. It is like, imagine if I was permalinked on HN to a flagged comment, because someone wanted me to see it, but the "parent" button didn't work.
Most people will be using the official app or the web site and if you're really dedicated one of the web archives will probably have the post and the quoted post archived.
It's not about being perfect, it's about cutting off wide masses from abusive behavior.
If BlueSky truly believes that there will even be an "official app (or the web site)" for their decentralized protocol--the one they claim they only even developed a client for at all in order to promote the usage of--then they have already fallen off mission.
The AT protocol is agnostic of Bluesky or Bluesky-specific content.
Different applications using the AT Protocol can publish records that have no relation to Bluesky posts, Bluesky follows, or other Bluesky concepts. For example, https://smokesignal.events/ is an AT protocol app that produces and aggregates its own record types ("events" and "RSVP"s).
So yes, there can't be any meaningful "official protocol client" (because the protocol isn't tied to a specific app).
However, realistically for each app (such as Bluesky or Smoke Signal) there'll usually be the most popular client (and the one we're developing is "official" in the sense that it's one we put on the app store under the Bluesky brand).
People can build other clients for Bluesky, but more importantly, they can build other apps on the protocol which have no relation to Bluesky (but can still ingest Bluesky data if they want to).
> People can build other clients for Bluesky, but more importantly, they can build other apps on the protocol which have no relation to Bluesky (but can still ingest Bluesky data if they want to).
Additionally, these apps can benefit from the distribution, moderation, and data hosting portability. ATProto allows for shared infrastructure across apps.
> If BlueSky truly believes that there will even be an "official app (or the web site)" for their decentralized protocol
The utter majority of people aren't nerds. They go on the App Store, type in "bluesky" and install the first hit, and that assumes they've heard of it in the first place.
Reddit, even before the Great API Crackdown, was just the same. The utter majority used the official client/website no matter how horrible they are/were to use - I'm honestly surprised old.reddit.com (the one with barely any JS) is still alive and kicking, new.reddit.com (the inbetween) for me keeps alternating between "it works" and "it redirects or shows the new UI that fails all the time with graphql errors"...
> why would you tip a barber? because they cut your hair good? what was the base payment for then?
Let me return the question: why would you tip a waiter? because they brought your food to your table? isn't that why they should be paid by the restaurant?
Let me also state that, residing in a European city, I do tip my (cheap) barber every time I go because I feel they do an outstanding job at 20% less the price than most competitors, and that work deserves praise in the form of a tip.
In general, it seems to me that a tip should reflect something outstanding. In addition to my cheap barber, I also usually tip at fancy restaurants where the service has proved very, very high above comparables.
"Let me also state that, residing in a European city, I do tip my (cheap) barber every time I go because I feel they do an outstanding job at 20% less the price than most competitors, and that work deserves praise in the form of a tip."
Do you also tip your local bike shop or computer store when they sell you a computer or bike that is outstanding and costs 20% less than most competitors? Do you tip your car salesman? Do you tip your bus driver when he/she is 20% faster?
I might tip a bike or computer shop for doing a superb job at repairs. Hell, if I were to hire a person to build a computer for me I might tip them if they did an exceptional job. Tips are for services (like a barber provides), not products (like computers, bikes, or cars).
Tipping in the example circumstances I gave isn't typical, but it's something I would consider doing in exceptional circumstances.
