this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
237 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59622 readers
2787 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If someone's job inside that company, even publicly owned, depends on the amount of users, they are incentivized to do all the same things. And publicly-owned companies too try to be kinda profitable sometimes. There's also corruption.
EDIT:
Governments don't.
Governments are incentivized to match people to combat declining birth rates. Lower birth rates means fewer productive people to support an aging population. It’s also loss in taxes.
Governments have no incentives. People working in them have some. Having more youngsters questioning what they are doing, working and thus not relying on aid, may be less convenient than all those old people living on pensions voting for something stupid.
By this logic, companies also aren't incentivised to do anything, just the people working in them.
Governments do have incentives. Saying they don't is absurd.
Correct. Companies are not. And what they do makes sense if you look at it this way. You could even notice how this reinforces the leftist positions on economics popular here, if your thinking were just a bit more agile.
This is not very persuasive and seems to lack any elaboration of how would that work. From the ground up, like every good elaboration does.
Which ones then? I'm certain I'll be able to disprove any of them.
Collect taxes.
No, not correct, because your take is insane.
Of course governments, companies, and other institutions have incentives. Maybe if your thinking we're just a bit more agile (translation: if you were a bit less stupid), you'd recognise that.
A structure of humans does not possess the same traits as a human. Are you going to argue with that?
Insults can't fix your inability to reason.
I don't see any arguments from you to recognize. "Of course" is not one, just like "I assure you", and "your take is insane" is the same. Shouldn't have considered Star Trek a smart show in your childhood, judging by the nickname.
It's not even worth explaining because it's so obvious that they do. If you said that eating chicken raw is good for you I also wouldn't bother explaining why that's not true. I'd just call it out as nonsense.
You insulted me first, dipshit. Quit advertising to the world how stupid you are. I don't know what kind of brainrot you're experiencing, but you should get it looked at.
You're honestly arguing that companies aren't incentivised to do things like make profit? Or retain employees? You are brain-dead lmao
Do you think tone makes for an argument?
Companies don't think and thus don't have incentives.
Just go away. Another confirmation that identifying with something Star Trek connected usually marks an idiot.
Didn't say tone was an argument. I said you're a fucking idiot.
Wow you actually don't think companies have a profit motive. HAHAHAHA. You are mentally deficient.
Aww nooo I like a TV programme you don't like and that huwts your wittle feewings. Struggle to see what kind of argument that is, but if that's what you want to latch onto then be my guest.
And I didn't say you are a fucking idiot, but this is a clear case of projection.
I remember you coming at me with similarly buttfuck dumb opinions on Unix.
So now I'm saying that you are a fucking idiot, ignorant and arrogant at that.
Now stop talking, please.