41–50 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
even if the cost is other people? your last statement is a dangerous stance.
It's a greater good kind of thing. Eisenhower, Patton, Roosevelt won WW2, but were directly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. In most case people no their chances when they decide to work under these kinds of people.
I'm a fan of Steve Jobs for his vision and ability to see things we all blatantly are unaware of. He changed technology, but also advertising, movies, music, etc. But I'm glad to see someone holding him accountable for his life and the consequences of his actions. The iPhone rocks, but the Foxconn factory it was made in is so fucking hard to work in that they have suicide nets on the roof; almost a dozen have killed…
"I'm glad to see someone holding him accountable for […] the consequences of his actions" is what I'd call over-dramatic.
I hope he also avoids products and media made my anyone who has not been an absolute saint their entire life. It's perfectly acceptable to dislike Jobs, no question about that whatsoever. It's also acceptable to stop buying Apple stuff for any reason. But if you're going to put a proverbial line in the sand on moral grounds then you had better stick to your guns and apply that to everything or you just end up looking…
because i don't. i think there's quite a difference. everyone can be an arsehole sometimes, sure. but that doesn't excuse those that are consistently unpleasant. there's a clear difference. so you can distance yourself from the latter without having any problems with the former.
---------------------------------------- From Malcolm Gladwell's "The real genius of Steve Jobs" [1]: Jobs, we learn, was a bully. "He had the uncanny capacity to know exactly what your weak point is, know what will make you feel small, to make you cringe". Jobs gets his girlfriend pregnant, and then denies that the child is his. He parks in handicapped spaces. He screams at subordinates. He cries like a small child…
They needed each other, that's why they split the company 50/50.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should have qualified the last statement. I was mostly thinking about how Jobs' was unequivocally indifferent to hurting people's feelings, taking their opinions into consideration or firing them for being what he deemed incompetent. Specifically I wanted to contrast between populist politicians and business leaders who'd rather save face and avoid admitting to mistakes. As someone mentioned in this post all he did…
Pretty sure the Foxconn suicide casualties didn't just have hurt feelings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
even if the cost is other people? your last statement is a dangerous stance.
(Assuming that his behavior was necessary to the quality of the product (an assumption neither Steve nor his biographer were willing to make)): He didn't "kill" them. He hurt their feelings. Weigh a few bruised egos versus hundreds of millions of people with delightful, time-saving devices. As the book points out, yes, there is a real and measurable cost to wasting people's time with a badly designed device. And ther…
The problem I have is that these attitudes are fragile. If you have a monarch, for example, with complete control over a country and who has tons of money and doesn't need to ask for permission, he can build a great nation of he's a good person.
When he dies and his son, who's an asshole but equally determined and powerful, takes over, now you have a bad situation.
Fortunately Steve Jobs wasn't in such control. But the point is that, yeah, if someone that determined and set in their ways and they're right...awesome!
But when people are like that and they're wrong, which happens a lot...god damn it's not good.
So I guess the question is whether this sort of "riskiness" is good? Like, when you win a horse race it's badass. The other 9 times out of 10 when you lose it sucks. Is that the human behavior we should model ourselves after? Interesting...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should have qualified the last statement. I was mostly thinking about how Jobs' was unequivocally indifferent to hurting people's feelings, taking their opinions into consideration or firing them for being what he deemed incompetent. Specifically I wanted to contrast between populist politicians and business leaders who'd rather save face and avoid admitting to mistakes. As someone mentioned in this post all he did…
Pretty sure the Foxconn suicide casualties didn't just have hurt feelings.
I'm a fan of Steve Jobs for his vision and ability to see things we all blatantly are unaware of. He changed technology, but also advertising, movies, music, etc. But I'm glad to see someone holding him accountable for his life and the consequences of his actions. The iPhone rocks, but the Foxconn factory it was made in is so fucking hard to work in that they have suicide nets on the roof; almost a dozen have killed…
920,000+ employees, "almost a dozen" suicides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra..., China 13.85 per 100,000.
Foxconn should have 127.42 suicides per year. "Almost a dozen" means they have one tenth the per-capita suicide rate of the rest of the country.
Did u know the man personally? NO. But you're happy to denounce him, based on others comments. Do u honestly feel qualified to denounce a man you've never met? Never worked for? Who has contributed more than u ever will, to the world & to individuals quality of life? I'll point u to another quote from the book, where Steve asks a blog editor who is likewise trying to attack him: what have you ever made? I'll leave it…