- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/317313
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/317313
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
How the fuck can they be so greedy?
They make bazillions of dollars per year (if not per month), and they are unwilling to pay just a bit of money for extras.
Fuck film execs, I hope there is another strike.
We reach a new, comical level of greed, and then they find a way to top it.
This kind of thing isn’t new. [Here’s a clip](https://youtu.be/Zh7eAG2jJkA} from Three Amigos from 1986. The background characters are just a static painting.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/Zh7eAG2jJkA}
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Because we live in a system where paying more for doing the right thing will get fired and sued for lost profits as a CEO. If you run a publicly traded company, you are legally beholden to make the decision that yields the most profit, full stop.
I keep seeing people regurgitate this nonsense.
edit: It would appear u/cagi has deleted all posts and comments, not just this chain.
Source or gtfo.
Bro are you dumb
I’m as cynical as anybody else and there was a time I also would have repeated it as well.
But… show me the law. Show me where it says this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_suit
I don’t know where you live so I can’t quote your local laws to you, but in this age of information you can Google terms and they will return relevant links. You should try it sometime.
Your phrasing was “legally beholden” which suggests to me that a law exists requiring directors and officers to choose the most profitable path. The wikipedia page you linked does not mention any such law. It describes a type of lawsuit that investors can bring against those running the company.
Perhaps they didn’t use the right words. Iirc the correct term is ‘fiduciary duty’. A publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to create value for shareholders.
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fiduciary-duties
Good find. I did some quick googling on this (so take it a grain of salt) and found the following:
I have not dug too deeply, but what little I’ve found says that the fiduciary must act in the best interests of the company and shareholders. As a cynic it is easy to interpret this to mean ‘make as much profit as possible’, which is kind of the point of investing. A look back at history sadly reenforces this.
But fiduciary duty doesn’t give one a free pass to break other laws like child labor or slavery. Yes many companies still do as evidenced by sweatshops around the world. But if one is acting in the best interests of the company, one should not be doing such things even though they are obviously profitable.
Permanently Deleted
They are only legally beholden to do what their shareholders collectively want. While it’s not necessarily just for profit, if the shareholders are only demanding more profits, that’s how the company will behave.
There will be no sources provided because there are no sources to prove it.
I wouldn’t want to deal with additional background characters either even if they played the role for free.
It’s just more contracts to be signed, more people on set, more potential things that don’t go as planned. Its a lot of extra work and organisation needed for something that pretty much no normal viewer would notice if done at least semi professionally.