• 3 Posts
  • 2.41K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • Probaby the only way to do so, is to set up your own criteria for what “ethical” means and then evaluate companies on your own. There’s really nothing more than the ETF’s you’ve already mentioned, and those are usually superiscially about one issue.

    Also, just for the record, I don’t see where Burry is particularly concerned with ethics or social issues, but honestly I don’t know much about him beyond the whole permabear and/or predicting the housing crash.

    Honestly, once a company gets onto the stock market, it’s pretty hard to make an argument that any of them are really as ethical as they should be. Remember, being a publicly traded company means putting short-term profits above all else. (at least, in the US.)



  • which, yeah, I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that they’re actively working against their own interests. Blatantly so. They don’t want to take programs that would give them financial security (or all the other forms of security that would give, like stable housing, access to good and healthy food, a good education, etc.).

    Some of it is that they’re primed to do that. But a lot of it is, they’re lashing out. They don’t want to feel safe, as an example, because then that removes their excuse for lashing out at people they want to harass and torture.






  • First… yes, as far as it goes. That said there’s some problems with it on the whole.

    Keep in mind, this is a thought terminating cliche saying by Vulcans to explain “the logic” of self sacrifice.

    The thing about logic is it can be used to justify all sorts of horrific things. (For example, the us nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

    It’s also important to note that, in general, I don’t really disagree with it here. That doesn’t make it any less of a cliche or problematic when applied to things like social policy.

    Consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Some needs are themselves more weighty than others.

    that guy’s need to get to work on time doesn’t outweigh my need to dress safely, even if there’s a dozen of them behind me- and never will.

    Similarly, if the needs of the many (say, to feel safe) are juxtaposed against the few, whose need is to stay alive…. The needs of the few outweigh the many. One might say “but that doesn’t happen”… but we do. All the time.

    Right now, the most extreme example are all the people that defend Israel’s right to genocide by insisting that Israel has a right to defend itself.

    That said. Billionaires don’t need to make money. And they don’t even need to exist, for that matter.




  • On a general note: IQ means nothing. I mean a lot of IQ tests use pattern recognition tasks that can be helpful but still, having a high IQ says nothing about you ability as developer

    to put this another way… expertise is superior to intelligence. Unfortunately we have this habit of conflating the two. intelligent people some times do some incredibly stupid things because they lack the experience to understand why something is stupid.

    Being a skilled doctor or surgeon doesn’t make you skilled at governance. two different skillsets.



  • So, as someone who’s been cheated on… I can say with certainty that I would never be able to be intimate or vulnerable with my ex. I’m not talking about sex. I’m talking about actual intimacy. It takes trust, and that trust has been broken.

    I wouldn’t give an absolute “don’t do it” because everyone is different and every relationship is unique, and I certainly wouldn’t chime in without being asked, but I doubt very much the relationship you have now will ever be what you had before.

    It doesn’t really matter what you do, or how you’ve changed. The thoughts will still be there, insidiously causing doubt.



  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldtoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    So, you can see how they’ve made rulings on various topics. All of that is public record.

    What really happens is people make lists and say “we like this judge” for various interests, or like news agencies might give an overview of what they found on rulings, etc.

    IMO it is a bit weird since it makes them political, but they’re going to be political anyways, since the alternative in the US is appointing them. (See, for example, SCOTUS nomination hearings.)