EatATaco

It's a thousand times better than this empty garbage. How does this have any upvotes?

Yeah, but it's on a picture and I agree with it, because it's shitting on Americans, so I'm going to mindlessly parrot it!

I was on reddit for a very long time. And this is why I started to bemoan when communities would celebrate that they passed some number of subscribers.

/pardon me as I yell at the clouds. Stop now unless you want to read a completely unnecessary rant.

Two of my favorite niche subreddits were absolutely ruined by getting big: mindfulness and foodporn. The former was primarily a discussion about practicing mindfulness, there were even a couple of buddhists who actually deeply studied the tradition that provided very good non-western insight. It was a good place to go get help, albeit occasionally got a spattering of stupid memes, but you could easily get past them. As it grew it turned more and more into just memes, and then was just over-taken by new-age nonsense and pseudointellectual quotes over pictures. Food porn (while never exactly what I wanted) went from often having well-done pictures of good food, to shitty cell-phone shots of oversized hamburgers, half eaten food, and plates of food sitting on counters with all of this shit in the background.

Pedestrian justifications should probably be sophomoric lest the justification be inaccessible and easily confused.

Simple arguments that people can understand and sophomoric arguments where people act and argue like children are not one in the same.

i was requested or offered no consent on the issue from the large companies claiming that not purchasing a revocable license is theft

Then sue them because you would have a strong case.

Or pirate like I do, but don't pretend that it's something that it isn't.

Sony is a dispensible broker/manager who no one likely assigns credit to for a work

Pedanticism that totally avoids the point. Whether they provide the product or create it, the logic still obviously applies.

You also seem to be implying they have good metrics on black market activity and useful feedback from that.

This also defeats the point that it is some duty to pirate it, because if they have no idea the scope then how many people doing it is not going to affect their decisions there either

Can you explain further why grabbing an unlicensed work helps Sony?

If we're being pedantic, I never said it helps them. I said it let's them know there is demand there and that not consuming it would be better for the goal.

Some would say it’s our ethical duty to do everything possible to boycott, divest, and punish Sony until they are buried.

If that's the goal, the better approach would be to not consume the media at all, and being vocal as to why you are doing this. Pirating it just shows them that the demand will still be there, despite how bad they supposedly are as a company, so that they just need to learn how to bone you too. It's like saying "you're a bad company. . .but damn do I like your product and will consume it anyway!" it doesn't make much sense, logically or morally.

it’s clever but doesn’t really give a solid grounds for ethically driven actions.

Clever? Maybe. Sophomoric? Absolutely. By misrepresenting why they are losing access to this media, they are effectively admitting that piracy is actually stealing. As I've said elsewhere, piracy is not the action of a neutral/chaotic good character, as many among piracy circles like to pretend, but the actions of a chaotic neutral character.

But make no mistake about my position. People losing access to stuff they purchased (and probably thought was now theirs) is just another in a long list of reasons I say "fuck those bitches" and have really no moral qualm with pirating content.

I assume when the purchase happened there was an agreement that said something like this might happen. If not, then people can sue Sony for the stealing. If so, then trying to argue that this means piracy isn't stealing is sophomoric at best.

I don't get why my fellow pirates try so hard to justify what they're doing. We want something and we don't want to pay the price for it because it's either too expensive or too difficult, so we go the cheaper, easier route. And because these are large corporations trying to fuck everyone out of every last dime, we don't feel guilt about it.

Embrace the reality instead of using twisted logic to try and convince yourself that it's something else.

You're contradicting the top level commenters point that they relentlessly pursue efficiency. Now it's that the pursue shareholder happiness. I wonder why you didn't correct them, but me.

It's almost like we're throwing explanations against the wall looking for something to stick.

But the simple counter is the simple explanation: we didn't know a pandemic was coming and couldn't foresee what no one was able to foresee: a rapid shift to WFH. We held the offices as we didn't know that WFH could be a long term solution. Now that we are pretty confident our workforce is more productive at home, we've decided to cut our office space losses.

No one would bat an eye at this.

Thats plausible, but pretty complicated. I would absolutely invoke Occam's razor here tho

I can't come up with a care where making their employees less productivity is better for the shareholders simply because they are paying for space somewhere. you'll have to explain this.

This is self reporting productivity, not actual productivity.

You've already moved the goalposts from:

There isn’t any reason for you to believe what I’m saying,

To

What do you call somebody who admits they have no data or evidence to back up what they believe

The change in your language already admits one of my points landed, so thanks for the indirect admission.

That being said, I don't have the data to prove that when I walk down the sidewalk I'm not going to fall through the ground...although I have reason to believe that this won't happen. Does this make me a religious fundamentalist? Of course not. We don't need data for everything in order to come to reasonable conclusions based on past experience. Even if those conclusions are wrong and one day I do fall through the ground, that doesn't make me unreasonable or equivalent to a religious fanatic.

I think that WFH should be up to the employee.

Sorry, but this is painfully naive. I absolutely agree that this is what is best for the worker, but it's not necessarily what's best for the business for a few reasons. One, mainly because of what the guy said in the article that there are many reasons why being in the office is better: collaboration being the big one. Additionally if workers always were making that decision based on how they work best then that would be one thing, but we know that is not how people work and they are going to be making decisions on what's best for them. I mean, just go and look at the over employed subreddits. It's filled with people figuring out ways to make it look like you're working without actually working.

I think flexibility is important, but my experience is that our team works better when people are in the office. Im sure WFH is better for a tiny subset of workers (from a productivity standpoint) but in all the places I've worked it seems almost like wilful ignorance to ignore the benefits of people working in the same space.