In much the same way that the cashier at McDonalds does what the manager instructs them too, yes. But if the goal of the manager is to get what they want at the expense of the customer, then the restaurant should fail. The same holds true with other businesses; the management serves the ownership, but the ownership should want the business to make the customers happy.
The issue isn't about what's "right and proper" - it's a risky decision to do business with a company with this business model. Even if it's not "wrong" it's better value for a business to work with other businesses that treat them as a valued customer and not as replaceable fodder to fund an unsustainable valuation.
If Stripe want to sacrifice customer experience to chase a higher valuation that's their prerogative. But their current investors better hope they can cut and run before the core business substantially declines.
No, the right and proper management is to grow a business and make it sustainable and profitable long-term.
Your description is exactly how Capitalism goes late stage. Use the profits from the committed work and effort of employees to "buy back" stocks, depriving the company of reinvestments and growth. Jack up the share price, therefore increasing the lauded "shareholder value". Keep going until only a husk of the company is left, and peace out with walkaway money.
This is all great, for those with platinum parachutes and those that know what's going on. These are vulture capitalists, but they infiltrate a company first and then eat away at it from the inside.
This is how America lost GE and Boeing. They served "ownership" very well however.
Note that roads are not neutral in the “net neutrality” sense, since emergency vehicles are prioritized. There’s a cogent argument against net neutrality on similar grounds: i.e., prioritizing traffic with prioritized purpose, especially in the face of congestion.
Networks aren't neutral either, even under net neutrality rules: you might lose your data uplink of the tower is at capacity and someone dials 911.
I'm a proponent of weakening net neutrality for when lives are at stake, but that's hardly ever the case on the internet. The problem is that most non-neutral treatment is the result of business interests rather than the greater good.
In addition to what was noted by a sibling comment (emergency calls are given higher priority than your standard commercial voice or data traffic), there is specifically an exemption listed in California's Net Neutrality law [0] for emergency traffic.
> 3103. (a) Nothing in this title supersedes any obligation or authorization a fixed or mobile Internet service provider may have to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities, consistent with or as permitted by applicable law, or limits the provider’s ability to do so.
In what way is “emergency vehicles need special access” similar to “we need to charge Netflix more because ISPs oversold their networks while failing to upgrade”?
Toll roads charge more for larger vehicles. Vehicle registration may be more expensive for heavier vehicles or vehicles with more wheels. Meanwhile, toll roads may have just as much traffic issues and no guarantee of average velocity.
How is that not similar to ISPs throttling?
Not that I care much either way. I care more about localities and states encouraging or enforcing monopolies.
That’s not similar to ISP throttling because you’re paying for the scale but a flat fee for any use of that same scale.
The toll road doesn’t forbid trucks or cars painted red just because traffic on the toll road is heavy. Paying for the size of your vehicle isn’t like throttling; it’s like paying different amounts for different bandwidths.
It’d only be similar to throttling if the toll roads charged different amounts based on the contents of the vehicles.
As far as I can tell, reading documentation - not in snippets, to remember the details of something you know how to do, but top-to-bottom, to learn capabilities you didn’t know existed.
If you went this route, I’d push it out farther and make the cut steeper. Maybe after 20 years you start doing X%, where X is (Years - 20)*2.
I really don’t want to make it harder for people to survive on their creative output for their whole careers. But that’s the focus: providing for a family, maybe even fabulously, but for one generation only.
I don't see why someone should get to live a lifetime on their creative output. My goal is to make it harder to do that. There is no reason someone should be able to make one hit song and then never work again.
> There is no reason someone should be able to make one hit song and then never work again.
It makes people want to do it, hence providing the incentive for more creation. Frankly, if someone writes a good song then I'm happy they'll do well off it, we need more good songs and that song will last a lifetime for the listeners too.
This is red herring. I doubt you could find a single musician who would tell you that they wouldn't be creating if they don't get a lifetime to exploit the work. Further, you can see proof of this through history. Copyright used to be much shorter and people still created.
Most people who create, especially people who make good music, do it because they love it, not because they will get to exploit it.
Art must be distributed to be appreciated. There will be demand for it: customers, each furiously waving their cash offer.
Someone is going to render that art for consumption in exchange for that cash. My conviction is the artist should have right of first refusal to grow rich with that cash. I confess this conviction is a moral conviction, driven by a sense of fairness, not efficiency. “The suckers compulsively produce it for free,” doesn’t find much purchase with me.
Why not? If the song is that good.
Our put it another way, of person A makes an awesome song, why should person B make a bunch of money off of it 50 years later?
Yes. And dark matter hypothesis contains this possibility. Just add correct amount of dark matter to ever star and you can get almost any rotation curve.
Fzf can be a tremendous time-sink because its credible promise to improve your quality of life in the terminal.
One of my most-frequently-used pry customizations is a keybinding that opens the current backtrace in fzf, with the preview window showing the selected location, allowing me to quickly walk up or down the stack, with tons of context. `enter` takes me to that frame, and `ctrl-v` opens that file location in vim.
The vim integration piece uses the same concepts as the gdb integration. The rest uses some (very ugly) local scripts, cobbled together in 10-minute snatches of time over years. Hopefully, the functionality of the pieces not included here can be inferred from the names.
