They can come from a variety of things though. Meteors or just really big conventional explosions. They don’t mean nukes for sure. So don’t panic, at first.

Words don’t mean the same thing to everyone. And there is no real authority. Websters dictionary company or whatever is sometimes seen as one, but they are just a company trying to sell a product. So I don’t think there is a rule on this. Since organized religion is a phrase used in various places, it implies the existance of unorganized religion. This would probably be a group of people who all believe the same thing, but there is no leadership and such. That would be tough to fit under spirituality. But neither interpretation is really wrong.

You can believe in whatever you want, and that would be religion. Lots of people have their own flavor of religion. Even people who go to services often have their own flavor that doesn’t line up with any specific religion. I think there is like a whole religion around simply believing in some form of god. Unitarian I think they call. Not sure if it is actually organized or not. But once you have a human leader and a body that tells all others of a religion what to do, then you are organized. And that leader and body that makes descisions for the rest is the problem.

The more you think about it, the more you come to see that satan is actually the good guy, and God is the one doing all the evil. Think about it, satan rebelled to give adam and eve free choice. God said "Holy shit, you eat my apple. I am kicking you out of paradise and cursing all your decendants for eternity. And by the way, since I am omnipotent and all seeing, I knew you would do that when I made you and when I told you not to. " I mean it’s pretty clear who is evil in that story.

While I mostly agree, it’s really “organized” religion that is the problem. Not religion itself. And of course organized religion is just humans fucking each other over. It’s like the land was taken, so they needed another dimension to form thier group around so they could have power and influence. So they went with religion. It’s much more profitable.

Well business is where the money is at. So that part makes sense. And while it wasn’t completely new, building on something that already exists is still innovation. Most things are built on something else. I’m not sayi g he is an amazing innovator or anything. But what he tried to do was better than just buying more competitors and shutting them down while shoving more and more ads in people’s faces. So, innovation lite. Lol.

Well, zuck wasting the money though wasn’t enshitification. He really believed it was the future. And he wanted in early. Honestly, that kind of leadership is what we need more of. Innovation. He just also enshitifies the rest of the company’s products to pay for it. So we need, the inovative part of zuck, and not the rest.

And on my contract, you are right, it “might” not hold up in court. But they know I won’t have the means to challenge it. I know know one guy who did challenge a big company on an employment issue. He had a lot of money, no kids, and was well past the point when he could have retired. He spent about 10 years, a ton of money, and a ton of his time. He was traveling to various places to attempt to meet with government officials that would take his calls and such. He practically got a law degree for the amount of time he studied law. In the end, he had to take a settlement of some sort. His goal had always been to hold them accountable for ehat they did, not to get money. But it became obvious no matter how much proof he had of age discrimination, he was never going to win the cause. Their pockets were just too deep. And the system itself was made with roadblocks like needing some federal labor board type things review, yet the board didn’t have enough people appointed for quroum becuase they had to be approved by congress. So it litteraly could not do the review or whatever. In the end I think he just got too old to fight anymore, and money was running low.

I think the balancing factor is that customers sometimes identify the executives and latch on to their activites. Like the theranos lady, and the martin guy who raised the price of some medication. Essentially going viral like they did really slows down a career. So they are held a bit in check. And similar before as well. The mechanism was a bit different, but the people and the customers held them in check much more before. That was because most companies had a smaller customer base. So it was easier for customer sentiment to cause them real issues.

The other case is the one you pointed out. Founders. Companies who’s founders still own a majority have limits to how much they will tarnish their creation. Each founder is different, but on the whole, they usually are more constrained than a CEO brought in by non-founders.

And in many cases, they do simply scam people. Usually by selling them a product that takes thier data. So they get paid for the product, and then again for the data. And they also start pushing ads. Take roku. You pay for it, but they have added ads that weren’t there when you first bought it. That is an obvious scam. Take car rental companies. They will take your reservation, make you pay up front sometimes, and they know they won’t have the vehicle you reserved a certain % of the time. But they don’t care. And they won’t compensate you other then to give you something you didn’t reserve (if your lucky) and claim it is an upgrade. Health insurance… you pay them, they do everything they can to intentionally put barriers between you and what you paid for. Airlines… clickbait scam sites. Phone companies, who can know who is really calling you, but won’t bother to stop them from impersonating other numbers because the scammer generate money for the phone company as well. Amazon who raises the price and then claims a thing is on sale when it is actually more expensive during the big sale.

The list goes on and on. Heck, ever read your employment contract. Mine basically says they reserve the right to change the rules unilaterally such that I am in breach of contract. And thats standard apparently (I asked a lawyer). That shouldn’t even be a legal contract.

A company isn’t a person. It will only act like one when it is in it’s own self interest. And the pressure that the populace used to be able to apply to keep it in check is getting less and less effective.

And last, most of them do pay tribute to trump if he takes notice of them. Others just try to stay out of his sight. But how many immediately cancelled all dei training and such as soon as he took office. Without even specifically being asked.

I do agree we seem to be on the same side.
Semantics is a bit of a passion of mine. The question I think we differ on the answer to, is wnat is an executives job. I wish it was what you appear to believe. But at the nd of the day, they are there to make money. And helping the stock price makes money for the people above them, who in turn will ensure they are employed in the future. Including at a different company.

And true, a falling stock price does not but a company put of business, that was a poor choice of words. It causes it to get bought by someone else, and either disolved or absorbed. So I guess maybe extinct is a better word. It certainly is more fun.

I was thinking the same. Some people just enjoy a fight. Triggers adrenaline and such. I do feel bad for them that they don’t have better ways to get happy feels.

In general yes. But is the desire to be “rescued” from the patriachy or is it somehow a leftover instinct from a bygone era that the patriachery reinforces?

So saying both can be true now equals only one is true? I guess 2 + 2 = 5 as well.

I actually expected far more defenders than I am seeing. Mostly I see some forms of victum blaming, though not directly defending the men’s actions. I do see some discussion too, which is pretty rare on subjects like this. Still a long way to go, but it’s a baby step forward I guess.

Society is very fucking sexist. In my experience (which is a small dataset), unprepared women are more likely to go on a hike with a man than the other way around. Men like to play the provider/protecter role. Women know that. Society has taught women to put themselves in a vulnerable position to appeal to men (movies… constantly). Some women seem to actually want to be “rescued” by thier man as well. Dunno if that is social training or something else. So yeah, it’s very sexist, but it is also a breaking of the social contract, and it is unacceptable. Even is the roles are reversed it would be unacceptable. It’s just less likely to happen.

A person can do both. But my words of don’t be shitty won’t carry as much weight as them not getting laid. So both is a far more effective choice then only one.
I will also add two more. Women should stop having babies with shitty men, as they don’t teach thier sons not to be shitty, and men who get women pregnant need to step up and make sure thier son’s don’t grow up to be shitty men.

I think sharing is fine, and the actions of these boys are deplorable. But the story makes it out to be a major trend, instead of just sharing the stories. And to me, that is likely to make it happen more often, not less. So that bothers me.

There is no alternative, but that doesn’t mean we can reasonably expect our governments to do it. History says they won’t. Humans need to evolve more in some directions before any group larger than can truely know each other can sustain working for the common good.

I agree with you about the circular networks of leadership on boards. But they do still have to answer to the hedge funds and such that have large stakes in the company, and can tank the stock price by selling suddenly. And they also have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, who can and do sue. But my point was that the boards chose CEOs that favor the short term. And because of that, more people who want to be ceos try to follow that pattern.

As for the replacing humans. I just don’t think they care about that as much as making money. Myevidence is that they aren’t idiots. They know AI as it is today isn’t going to replace humans. But saying it will boosts thier stock price.

Unfortunately, that just isn’t true. The board of directors have a legal fiduciary responsibility to the share holders. And they hire or fire the ceo. If they don’t chase that virtual pennies, the shareholder can, and do sue them.

And as I said, if they don’t do things that at least make it appear they are attempting to increase profits, shareholder will sell, and they will go out of business.

It’s a race to the bottom. And the system is to blame. The system has rewarded people who enshitify products, and thus it has shapped who gets hired to make those decisions.

It’s tough, the companies can’t change unless the people do. Meaning customers refusing to do business with companies that have bad customer service or refusing to buy stocks in such companies. But there will always be people who see that they can make money off of other people doing that. And it doesn’t work if some people get rich bucking the trend.