:)
Lettuceeatlettuce
joined 1 year ago
Super rich and powerful people hate anything they can't have or control. They are used to getting everything they want if they pay enough money or pull enough strings.
The idea of a successful thing being completely beyond their reach torments them, they seethe with rage at anything their blood-stained, filthy dollars can't buy, it galls them and I am absolutely filled with glee at the thought.
They actually do get paid what they do largely because they are lucky; lucky to have the privileges that allow them to get a high-end education, get into fancy business schools, make connections, have layers of safety nets for all the times their ideas fail, and then finally get lucky with their company, right place and time for it to take off and become extremely profitable, etc.
It's a lot more scarce a skill because it's manufactured to be that way. Imagine how many people would be able to test out their ideas in the market if they had rich parents and friends that propped them up for years until they finally succeeded.
Or are you a subscriber to the Ayn Randian, "Great Man" theory? Which is bogus BTW.
"The developers just did the work on the ground..." yeah...as in making the CEO's vision a reality, the only action that directly results in material creation.
You're arguing all this against a strawman anyways. Nobody is saying that having vision, ideation, and compelling leadership aren't valuable skills worth compensating well for. People object to the idea that those skills are hundreds and hundreds of times more valuable than any other skills that literally make those ideas reality and allow that monetary value to be captured. Nobody ever became a billionaire by sitting on a bench all day, dreaming incredible ideas into existence.
To a degree, yes. I can believe that somebody's labor could be worth 5-10x another person, but 200-300-400x? No, at a certain point, your labor tops out in value.
Making successful choices is not by itself sufficient to determine the "value" created. If I choose winning lottery numbers and win 100 million dollars, that doesn't mean my decision on those numbers is worth 100 million dollars, it was luck.
There is more to value than just how much money results from a decision. And also, the value is generated and enabled by the workers at the company, not just the CEO.
If I tell a group of 10 people to build a piece of software that I think will be really profitable, and those 10 developers build it. Then I sell the software to another company for 10 million dollars, take 9 million of it for myself, and give the rest of the developers 100k, is that fair and right? When without their labor, I would have zero dollars? My idea and leadership isn't worth anything without the labor of the people I am leading and who make my idea reality.
Now you can say that the devs also wouldn't have 100k because they wouldn't be smart enough or have the vision to write that software themselves, which is dubious, but even if we grant that, I can understand that being worth more, maybe an extra 50-100k. Not millions more.
At a certain point, it becomes egregious and disgusting.
Bullshit, so many things incorrect and nonsensical about what you just said.
Louis Rossman has a video on it, you can search it on his channel, "Why I deleted GrapheneOS."
Basically, the lead dev for GrapheneOS started acting erratic and eventually left the project a few months ago handing it off to other devs.
I still use GrapheneOS happily and personally still trust it.
Credentials? What are you talking about? There is not sign in or signup required for the app at all.
The issue becomes moderation at that point, not a big problem for a larger community, but small communities tend to struggle with moderation with just one hub of communications.
Also, the hardliners wouldn't be interested in co-existing, that's against their ethics generally.
I agree to an extent, but usability is not a sufficient condition for mass adoption. I think Lemmy for end users is just as usable as Reddit was, at least for me it is. But people don't want to leave their communities.
That's why personally I have a Discord still. There are too many communities I am an active part of on there to abandon Discord outright. Plus all of my friends and family are on there, and I've already approached some them about switching and they all have said the same thing I just did.
I wasn't ever super invested in Reddit, so it was easy for me to abandon it for Lemmy, and I vastly prefer the communities here. Discord though is a different story for now, unfortunately.
We all compromise somewhere, it's just a question of where the line is. Even Richard Stallman makes concessions for things like Firmware and hardware being closed source.
It's the timeless debate between accessibility and exclusivity. Do you want more people in your community by compromising some values? Or would you rather be a hardliner but never reach those people?
Most of the time you have to pick somewhere on that spectrum. It's a question of pragmatism and utilitarianism.
Does it do more good for lots of people to be slightly more privacy-aware, or is it better to have a very small portion of the population that are super privacy-aware?
You have to decide, and the debate rages on all the time.
One of the original enemies of free software it seems.