forward1

> Firstly, there is no such thing as objective reality for humans

What? This is just silly. You don't know the difference between hypothetical fantasy and real life, or are you just being hyperbolic?

> Secondly, the principles that underpin this scenario are highly active in the world today

Still, it is irrelevant since I asked for a real world example.

> Not too long ago my neighbor cleaned the carburetor on my lawn mower, and I fixed his router config in exchange

Another contrived example which excludes the entire world. Who made the lawn mower? Who made the router? Literal slaves in a third world country. Surely you are not so ignorant you know this?

> whether Person B can get enough protein from coconuts is entirely irrelevant

It is not irrelevant; it is hilarious you don't know this simple nutritional fact.

I do. I also happen to know people use Chrome because it's quality.

I'm sorry you're insulted by your own inability to answer a simple question about your own entitlement. It must be very difficult for your to engage in difficult conversations, and I hope this wasn't too stressful for your frail and fragile ego.

So you're not aware of an ethical business, and cannot provide examples here. I understand, thank you for helping me drive my point home!

"I have no counter-argument, so I'm just going to call the person I disagree with a silly name, because I'm upset and it is all I can do"

> It should be very difficult to fire people, especially if you're making a massive profit.

What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)?

> The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale.

Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong.

> The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.

According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?

Hedge funds trail index funds? What a hilariously and confidently incorrect take.

I guess that's why hedge fund managers have billions in assets and are paid millions of dollars, to deliver sub-market returns. Yep, makes total sense.

> But you shouldn’t be surprised when people are operating under a different framework when engaging with the world.

The majory of people are idiots, so this part is almost certainly expected and acceptable.

> If everything is unethical then nothing matters, but people don’t want nothing to matter so they construct shades of grey to make choices and judgements on. Your “um actually everything is unethical” is irrelevant to the game they’re playing.

Where did I say everything is unethical? Where did I say nothing matters? This is the way people want to re-frame the conversation because it is too difficult for them to break through their conditioning to apprehend how the world works.

I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means, which somewhat accounts for the difficulty you'd had following this thread.

What is incongruous or dishonest about it? You have provided no counter-argument, no alternative theory, only petulance at my recognition of the facts of your sad life.

How much (less) in profit each year would Google have to make for you to consider them in survival mode? And also, what qualifies you to be the expert on their financial status and needs?

You're right. We must be civilized and restrained from emotion. All anger is to be reserved for "Hate Week".

> legitimate desire for truth or someone just looking to poke holes in the post

What is the difference?

I don't know why they couldn't include it in the article, but it appears to be https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03899

I believe it is you making the false equivalence.

> you did not give me any criteria for a satisfactory "counter-argument".

I had. Many times. I asked for examples of ethical businesses. None were materialized. Therefore my assertion remains unchallenged and likely true.

> ToR exit node

FYI it is spelled Tor, not ToR and not TOR.

Why does recognizing cruelty and injustice the world have to be "useful"?

It does not matter what I think; objectively and indisputably my existence in the world, especially in a first-world country, has an enormously negative impact on the planet. And I'm an individual with a conscience - now imagine a business with diversified shareholders!

Frankly, it is difficult to "address" a subjective opinion without having been given the criteria for a satisfactory answer. But I will try: being a responsible adult includes contributing to national defense.

That is quite the tautology indeed! Well if it pleases you, dig in your heels and howl at the moon.

What will stop me, or anyone for that matter?

But you only quoted the first part of my statement and not the proof, which I did state:

> All business [...] relies on hiding and externalizing costs of production unto the environment, a vulnerable population, or other forms of legal/tax trickery.

Are you aware of a business which does not have any externalized costs of production which have a negative impact on someone or something?

That is precisely my point though. Just to exist in this world is to have a negative impact on other humans, animals and the environment. The effect is magnified when you live outside of humans' ecological tropical niche as well. While I'm not judging or condemning humanity, I believe it is important to recognize it for what it is.

It is telling the only example of an ethical business is a contrived hypothetical scenario entirely removed from objective reality.

What makes it epically hilarious is it is also based on a completely false assertion "person b" needs protein from fish, because they cannot get it from coconut. Be sure to check the following links before you start clamoring about amino acids, too.

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/170169/n...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234922/table/ttt00008/...

Yet the true mental adolescence and gymnastics through this post is the abject failure to furnish even one example of a business which can be considered ethical, instead choosing to believe the false notion we can live, work and shop without consequence.

If it is rubbish, how come you cannot offer a counter-argument, or even an example of an ethical business, as I have asked for?

Individuals are also responsible for their own reading comprehension skills.

You're welcome to make a counter-argument for why an individual is entitled to something in this world, and I would welcome reading it.

You are free to create your own asymmetrically powerful business entity to rebalance the odds, if you find them unfair.

The inability for an individual to guarantee payment for necessities cannot be the fault of any company. Each capable adult must be held accountable and responsible for themselves in this world.