😈 The Evil Ideas thread
-
But they'll be wanting to most carefully check whether the engines are actually meeting the Euro 6 regulations now, instead of just taking various manufacturers' word for it. Because regulators were caught napping a bit too much, they'll be very keen to show they are awake now.
And, of course, the elephant in the room is that as long as the sky in China's cities is grey with soot, none of this matters.
-
And, of course, the elephant in the room is that as long as the sky in China's cities is grey with soot, none of this matters.
To be honest, (the West Coast of) the USA is more worried about that than Europe is. Prevailing winds are westerlies at those latitudes.
But you don't fix stuff by sitting on your hands while claiming that other people need to fix the equivalent things first; that would just be a recipe for complete inaction.(Smog is mostly a local or regional problem. NOx and particulates wash out of the air relatively quickly.)
-
equivalent things
"equivalent" may be a stretch.
Smog is mostly a local or regional problem. NOx and particulates wash out of the air relatively quickly.
A few years after the great Northeast blackout of '03, I read that someone did some research and found that 24 hours after the plants went offline particulates were down by like 90%. So yeah, pretty quickly.
-
24 hours after the plants went offline particulates were down by like 90%.
Coal is a really grubby way of generating power.
One of the big changes in the UK in my lifetime has been the switch from local (usually coal-fired) power stations to much larger ones that are located in more optimal sites (i.e., near water for cooling). I think that that move has done a lot for local air quality (right up there with banning ordinary coal as a fuel in much of urban Britain) and I suspect that it's easier to filter the crap out of the exhaust with a larger station too.
-
the switch from local (usually coal-fired) power stations to much larger ones that are located in more optimal sites
Of course, nothing exists in isolation. That might be a net good, but it probably means more and longer power lines, which means more power wasted (although I've never heard what the drop is on major overland lines.)
-
although I've never heard what the drop is on major overland lines
The power lost depends on the square of the current in the lines, so major overland lines run at extremely high voltages (250kV or more) to keep the currents as low as possible. The limiting factor tends to be the voltage at which the air gaps between the conductors break down; it's best to keep the voltage well below that. (Fancier insulators could be used, but they're much more expensive.)
-
Audi and Skoda say 3.3m cars have 'cheat' emissions software
Audi and Skoda say they have a total of 3.3 million cars fitted with the software that allowed parent company Volkswagen to cheat US emission tests.
-
The scandal, in which management software detected when cars using the EA 189 motor were undergoing an emission test and put the engines into a low-emission mode, has already cost VW boss Martin Winterkorn his job, leaving him struggling with a €3.2 million severance payment and a €1 million annual pension. ®
-
Pension, ok, he paid into that it kind of makes sense.
Severance? WTF! How does this guy get severance after the stock dropped like 25%!?
-
Probably written into his contract.
-
Board was idiots to sign that contract.
More likely the company is nepotism-central. IMO. But I honestly don't know.
-
Board was idiots to sign that contract.
It's not unusual.
I remember one story (that I'll never locate) at a company that makes personnel armor plates for military. They had a windfall after the public raised a ruckus about the government not providing armor to all the soldiers in Iraq. The board rewarded the CEO with two-thirds of the windfall net profit.
Now they'll tell us that quarterly profit goals are about the stockholders...so then why would the board give two thirds of the entire net profit to one man? It was, as I recall, $75 million of $112 million or thereabouts. For what amounted to a one-time profit.
-
I don't know about the current contracts, but that sort of golden parachute used to be damn near universal. You heard a lot of people talking about it in 2008-09, because more than a few of the greedier CEOes (especially those that bailed just before the crisis) really looked like they had intentionally driven their businesses under with the intention of robbing the company blind, then getting out before the shit hit the fan. Even if it wasn't true (and it probably wasn't, at least not in quite that barefaced a way) it sure as hell looked like it to a lot of people, and it was part of why so many people were so pissed about it - especially since that was exactly what had happened seven years earlier in the Enron fiasco. That, combined with the the collapse of Madoff's pyramid scheme around the same time (2008, I mean), left a lot of very, very angry investors.
-
Board was idiots to sign that contract.
The norm for European executives is to get a US executive salary but EU executive termination protection.
-
You heard a lot of people talking about it in 2008-09, because more than a few of the greedier CEOes (especially those that bailed just before the crisis) really looked like they had intentionally driven their businesses under with the intention of robbing the company blind, then getting out before the shit hit the fan.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was deliberate. A lot of those people believe heavily in the ethical philosophy of Ayn Rand. One of its core ethical tenets, expressed via the character John Gault in Atlas Shrugged, is:
"I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Why would anyone expect a CEO with this philosophy to have the best interests of the company in mind? After all, to promote the success of the company against his own self interest—to "live for the sake" of the other employees and the stockholders—is a blatant violation of the ethic.
-
Why would anyone expect a CEO with this philosophy to have the best interests of the company in mind? After all, to promote the success of the company against his own self interest—to "live for the sake" of the other employees and the stockholders—is a blatant violation of the ethic.
Even if he's being paid handsomely to do so?
-
Pension, ok, he paid into that it kind of makes sense.
Severance? WTF! How does this guy get severance after the stock dropped like 25%!?
However, the office of the district attorney will probably drag him into court for fraud.
In completely unrelated news: You may remember this clusterfuck that is the new Berlin airport? There are serious considerations to simply begin anew because a) they're not sure that the problems are fixable and b) the whole thing is too small anyway.
-
Board was idiots to sign that contract.
Probably true, and yet it happens all the time. It's just that it hasn't made the news lately. In the past--maybe in the 90s?--there were a whole bunch of stories about huge company CEOs getting 7- and 8-figure severance packages.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
Why would anyone expect a CEO with this philosophy to have the best interests of the company in mind? After all, to promote the success of the company against his own self interest—to "live for the sake" of the other employees and the stockholders—is a blatant violation of the ethic.
Even if he's being paid handsomely to do so?
The key, as always, is aligning the incentives of the CEO with those of the other stakeholders. Not easy, of course, since some of those will contradict each other. But the anti-Ayn people never seem to think about this sort of thing. It's all about violence with them.
-
More likely the company is nepotism-central.
According to what I remember from past newspaper, magazine, and Wikipedia articles, most if not all of the top people of Porsche, Volkswagen and related companies are members or in-laws of the Porsche clan. (But my memory may deceive me - I don't want trouble)
-
Even if he's being paid handsomely to do so?
Meh. What's "pay", when you can have all the money?
Added:
I realized a bit later what you probably meant. But you're thinking he should have a "misguided" sense of loyalty. But loyalty—showing constant support or alleigance—is a violation of the ethic, because it implicitly places the person who is loyal in the position of service to another or to a cause.The Ayn Rand ethic insists the only value is loyalty to yourself; to your personal self interest. So I think it's fair to say that no one should expect an adherent to be loyal to any deal—at least not after a betrayal becomes more to self interest than loyalty.
A perfect example was presented on The Good Wife: An Ayn Rand adherent hired by a company had been caught traitorously planning to sell the company trade secrets—industrial espionage—presumably he planned to improve his income. But he was caught and terminated. Then the company became involved in a merger, and the traitor sued the company, alleging racism, and thereby threatening to torpedo the merger. The company could do little but settle to get rid of the lawsuit.
My thought is, what else would you expect an Ayn Rand adherent to do? This story was a perfect example of perfect self-interest on the part of the traitor; who cared for nothing but what benefited him personally.
-
The Ayn Rand ethic insists the only value is loyalty to yourself; to your personal self interest. So I think it's fair to say that no one should expect an adherent to be loyal to any deal—at least not after a betrayal becomes more to self interest than loyalty.
Which is why the right way to deal with even minor betrayals by followers of the Randian principles is to torture them and possibly their families to death, and to tell the followers that that will be done at the point that any agreement to collaborate or otherwise work together is entered into. That enforces that self-interest matches the interests of others in so far as the agreement goes.
I wouldn't be nearly so draconian with non-Randians. This all comes under the heading of pointing out that there are consequences to following an extreme philosophy, and not all are necessarily personally beneficial.
-
My thought is, what else would you expect an Ayn Rand adherent to do? This story was a perfect example of perfect self-interest on the part of the traitor; who cared for nothing but what benefited him personally.
...in the extreme short term. There are people from many philosophical walks of life who have trouble considering long term consequences. That's not necessarily a knock on the philosophy.
-
...in the extreme short term. There are people from many philosophical walks of life who have trouble considering long term consequences. That's not necessarily a knock on the philosophy.
I'm not so sure I agree. I agree that there are a lot of people that lack the wisdom to consider long term consequences; programs written by that type are about 60% of our fodder on this site. But the Randian philosophy suggests that even those who consider the long term would manage things to their own exclusive advantage; wisdom constrained to a goal that harms others.
-
The Ayn Rand ethic insists the only value is loyalty to yourself; to your personal self interest. So I think it's fair to say that no one should expect an adherent to be loyal to any deal—at least not after a betrayal becomes more to self interest than loyalty.
I'm a former objectivist. There are many problems with objectivism, but encouraging violating agreements for immediate personal gain is not one of them. The concept you're missing is enlightened self-interest.
-
The concept you're missing is enlightened self-interest.
If the self-interest is in not being enlightened with a few gallons of gasoline and a match…
-
This reminds me of my preferred response to self-professed anarchists, which is to immediately punch them very hard in the face.
-
The concept you're missing is enlightened self-interest
Without any aspersion to you in particular, I'll simply note that a lot of other objectivists seem to be missing the enlightened part as well.
-
Without any aspersion to you in particular, I'll simply note that a lot of other objectivists seem to be missing the enlightened part as well.
Objectivism does tends to attract the "fuck you I've got mine" type. What I've noticed about objectivism, and libertarianism in general, is an influx of adherents with only the most superficial understanding of the philosophy. That could account for what you're seeing.
-
What I've noticed about
objectivism, and libertarianismall systems of thought in general, is an influx of adherents with only the most superficial understanding of the philosophy
FTFY
-
What I've noticed about
objectivism, and libertarianismbelief systems in general, is an influx of adherents with only the most superficial understanding of the philosophy.WINTFY...
-
yeah, that...
-
@antiquarian said:
What I've noticed about
objectivism, and libertarianismall systems of thought in general, is an influx of adherents with only the most superficial understanding of the philosophy
FTFY
"We take what we want and leave the rest, just like your salad bar." -Egg Shen, Big Trouble in Little ChinaExcept...why is it they (people of the past) seemed to take the best, while these modern adherents always seem to take the worst; for other humans I mean? The most selfish option...whatever happened to altruism?
-
they (people of the past) seemed to take the best, while these modern adherents always seem to take the worst;
This nostalgia, it is not yet ripe: please replace it with some from an earlier batch...
-
This nostalgia, it is not yet ripe: please replace it with some from an earlier batch...
"The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." —Sigmund Freud
Long ago, we formed a human civilization—an advanced stage of social development and organization—that, among other things, required a high degree of cooperation. Today, we seem to have people who want to revert to the period before that time...
(Ripe enough yet? That's about as far as I can go back...)
-
That could account for what you're seeing.
So could this:
"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." --Ayn Rand
-
Objectivism does tends to attract the "fuck you I've got mine" type. What I've noticed about objectivism, and libertarianism in general, is an influx of adherents with only the most superficial understanding of the philosophy. That could account for what you're seeing.
True, but it also (like many other philosophies, to be sure) has accumulated a great many 'followers' who worship the words without considering their meaning. For all her supposed disgust at the sycophancy and cults of personality that she blamed on social morality, Rand herself was all too happy to surround herself with sycophants who were more loyal to her than to themselves, ironically enough - though I suppose that could be just a sign of her taking her own philosophy of 'screw you, it's all about me' to heart.
Then again, for a die-hard materialist, she (like the just as supposedly materialistic Marxists she deplored) was quick to discard scientific evidence as soon as it got in the way of her ideas, such as when she insisted that 'identity' was inherent and that quantum mechanics - which implied the interdependence of material objects on a sub-atomic level and the impossibility of discriminating one electron from another - had to be wrong regardless of the evidence for it because it disagreed with her philosophical view. Hence a little epigram I posted to alt.objectivism once in a puckish mood:
Objectivity is the scientific axiom that an individual is never entirely correct.
Objectivism is the religious dogma that the Group is always entirely wrong.
Try not to confuse the two.(And yes, I used the word 'axiom' advisedly - it is an assumption of the scientific method, and while it is strongly implied by several factors such as the von Neumann Catastrophe of Infinite Regress, it can't actually be proven. A good scientist knows and understands the implications of it.)
-
True, but it also (like many other philosophies, to be sure) has accumulated a great many 'followers' who worship the words without considering their meaning.
How is that different from what I said?
-
epigram I posted to alt.objectivism once in a puckish mood
You forgot to mention what response you got. Not burned at the stake, obviously, but...rough treatment?@antiquarian said:
How is that different from what I said?
Your response was limited to objectivism and libertarianism; @ScholRLEA was generalizing to other philosophies. Which would, of course, include Catholicism, Christianity in general, Islam, ... must I list them all?
All of the five listed so far have heavily cooperative/improvement of humanity aims and goals. Yet all have been perverted to other uses, including violence. Which is what I was complaining about earlier it's like some people are retrogressing back to caveman days, while using and twisting the -isms to justify their brutish behavior.
It's not just that they don't understand the philosophy--they don't want to understand it, because if they did, they might have to give up those behaviors.
-
Your response was limited to objectivism and libertarianism
You also have the reading comprehension of a toaster.
-
You also have the reading comprehension of a toaster.
Ooo...flick. Insult me more, troll.
-
See the transphobia thread for a reference.
-
It was more a reinforcement and clarification, I would say.
I'm not sure if it was quite necessary, though, my main point was about Rand's own hypocrisy, so it was sort of redundant in retrospect.
You forgot to mention what response you got. Not burned at the stake, obviously, but...rough treatment?
Actually, it was pretty much just ignored, though one person did go to thr trouble of dismissing it out of hand with a 'but that's just silly!' kind of response.
-
my main point was about Rand's own hypocrisy
No dispute on that point. In fact, I would say that was one of the major problems with objectivism.
-
whatever happened to altruism?
Best not to rely on it.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. Lewis
Filed Under: Posting that never gets old
-
What you're describing there is not altruism.
An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. - James Fieser
An unwanted action, even if intended for the greater good, is not altruistic. That's more the area of utilitarianism.
-
An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. - James Fieser
Let me quote someone on that:
What you're describing there is not altruism.
An unwanted action, even if intended for the greater good, is not altruistic.
The wantedness of the action is irrelevant:
al·tru·ism
ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/
noun
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
"some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism"
ZOOLOGY
behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.The C.S. Lewis quote is certainly about altruism.
-
You obviously define "well-being" as being solely physical. That is not the case.
Plus, the guy who coined the term also spoke of "happiness". That's not compatible with your quote.
-
You obviously define "well-being" as being solely physical.
How is this obvious from what I said? I certainly never meant anything that specific.
Plus, the guy who coined the term also spoke of "happiness". That's not compatible with your quote.
How so? Does being oppressed make you happy (that's what the quote was talking about)? (There's a German joke in there, but I'll refrain, even though you walked right into that.)
-
You're not getting it. Nothing new here.
German regulator sets VW deadline
