knitwitt

joined 1 year ago
[–] knitwitt 1 points 4 months ago

Developers can and almost always do close to offer their games on multiple platforms and can even choose self hosted direct distribution of they do choose. Customers can choose to purchase their games on steam, itch, epic, Microsoft, or any of the many places they're often hosted simultaneously. Steam is more often than not the choice people choose to use of their own free will because they perceive it as being the superior service.

Why do you believe excellence should be punished?

[–] knitwitt 27 points 4 months ago (9 children)

If someone says they're not interested in dating Republicans, it doesn't mean they are any better than the average person at picking one out from a crowd.

[–] knitwitt 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Valve is profitable because of the reputation they've built up over many years as being an incredibly consumer friendly storefront. Avoiding corporate bloat, and focusing their attention on the core aspects of their business consumers care about has allowed them to thrive where many others failed. Valve created and maintained a fantastic product. So yes.

[–] knitwitt 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Stream created and maintains a platform that gamers and developers want to use but more importantly, they've built up a reputation that people believe in and trust.

Gamers and developers are so eager to use steam because in all the years they've been operating, they still support and expand upon family sharing, have a fantastic refund policy (for consumers), don't employ aggressive exclusivity deals, don't limit download speeds behind paywalls, and provide a great review and recommendation system.

They've become successful due to this reputation, why should we punish them for that?

[–] knitwitt 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Valve created a fantastic entertainment product that people voluntarily choose to use. Why would you want to turn something people already love into something completely different? Counterproductive - especially when direct distribution is essentially free and universally accessible.

[–] knitwitt 2 points 4 months ago

Flaked sea salt actually dissolves slower, not faster than standard table salt on account of its larger crystals!

[–] knitwitt 11 points 4 months ago

The pyramids were built over two thousand years before the coliseum. Saying they are of the same time period is like claiming the Eiffel tower and the coliseum are of the same period too!

[–] knitwitt 4 points 4 months ago

Hi! I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that religion, is not a mechanism for creating new knowledge, it is a collection of shared beliefs between people.

A better comparison would be faith VS science, or religion VS scientific understanding.

While most religious beliefs are faith based at their core, it's easy to speculate that certain religious and cultural stigma arose after repeated observation of the natural world (Alice ate shrimp, Alice falls ill -> eating shrimp is against the will of God). Not as efficient as controlled scientific testing, but it ultimately lands you on the true statement "Eating shrimp is unwise and likely to get you sick".

[–] knitwitt 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Another way you could achieve this is by hiring bakers of equal skill level and splitting all the tasks evenly among us!

[–] knitwitt 1 points 5 months ago

The question becomes who determines the size of the stake. Without equal ownership in the business isn't the relationship between me and the other workers more akin to an owner -> employee relationship as opposed to a co-ownership? If I'm the only one who can make execuitive decisions, determine the rates of profit sharing, choose who gets hired and who gets let go, it doesn't seem that much different than how things might look in America today, for instance.

Suppose the contract I draft up is for $5 an hour and 1% of the excess profits, split evenly among all non-owners, I see no difference than hire things look like in Starbucks.

[–] knitwitt 3 points 5 months ago

Thanks for the response! Would the idea then be that over time, the other two workers would eventually have to be given equal ownership over the operation?

As an asside, regarding the unanimous minus one vote policy as well, it seems like all you'd need to ensure that you never got removed was to ally yourself with one other person who would promise to never vote against you.

[–] knitwitt 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the response! In my scenario I consider ownership to be the ability to make executive decisions surrounding the business. This could range from what products we choose to sell, what the sign on the front says, who we buy our ingredients from, how much we charge customers for, how much we spend on cleaning supplies, the color of the wallpaper, when we decide to look for new employees, ect...

If I'm the sole worker at my operation, I have full authority over all these things!

 

Suppose I have studied for years to become a pastry chef. I set up my own bakery, investing my time, energy, and labour into procuring equipment and building up a reputation as a delicious place to eat. I run the entire operation myself as the sole worker. Eventually, after years of turmoil, word of my exceptional pastries spreads and my bakery becomes the number one spot in town. Soon there's a line up around the block, long enough that I have to turn away customers on the regular.

Not wanting to have to send people home hungry, I decide that having someone to wash my dishes and somebody to tend to the counter would buy me enough time to focus on the main reason people come to my shop: my delicious pastries.

I do, however, have an issue. I worked really hard to build my bakery up to where it is today, and don't want to have to give up ownership to the two people I want to bring onboard. They didn't put in any effort into building up my bakery, so why should they have an equal democratic say over how it's run?

Is there a way I can bring on help without having to give away control of my buisness?

Furthermore, what's to stop the two new workers from democratically voting me out of the operation, keeping the store, name, brand, and equipment for themselves?

 

Howdy! I'm new here and was hoping someone might have some insight to a question I've been thinking about for a while:

If I saved up my money and bought a tractor, would it be permissible/ethical to charge others to use it when I didn't need it?

This seems awfully similar to owning the means of production. What if I instead offered to plow their fields for them instead, driving the tractor myself and negotiating fair compensation in exchange?

Sorry if this is basic stuff I'm still learning. 🙏

view more: next ›