Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#91

Post by SixSigma » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 1:45 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #14

sheetjs wrote: post #4

> "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." While I agree with his sentiment, I wish he took a moment to explain that pursuing environmental sustainability may actually help the top line (rather than insinuating that those goals are net negative to shareholders)

That's a rathole to avoid if you can. It may sound dismissive, but these guys are cranks, and their time in the spotlight is rightly to be minimized. 97%+ of shareholders understand that Apple goes the extra mile in sustainability and agrees with that approach.

Pfft, the extra mile. Transporting your goods around the world on coal burning ships does not an environmentalist make.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#92

Post by paul_f » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 1:54 PM UTC

keeshawn wrote: post #90

smsm42 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tim Cook would actually say "yes, our green energy project has costed us N dollars so far, and it is a good thing because that's what we do and because government actually pays us back M dollars of it with that sweet taxpayer money" - that would be free market. Well, except for the taxpayer money part, but that's hardly Tim Cook's fault. Instead, no actual information was given, and people asking wrong questions w…

These are climate change deniers... I don't think they are really interested in statements of fact.

Can't decide if I want to respond to this by pointing out that it is argumentum ad populum or as an ad hominem (poisoning the well) argument.

Hmmm, after much consideration, gonna go with ad hominem.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#93

Post by paul_f » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:01 PM UTC

"The representative asked Mr. Cook if that was the case only because of government subsidies on green energy.

Mr. Cook didn't directly answer that question"

It's a shareholder meeting. Answer the question. Unless the answer is embarrassing, which, without more data, we have to assume it is.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#94

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:09 PM UTC

keeshawn wrote: post #90

smsm42 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tim Cook would actually say "yes, our green energy project has costed us N dollars so far, and it is a good thing because that's what we do and because government actually pays us back M dollars of it with that sweet taxpayer money" - that would be free market. Well, except for the taxpayer money part, but that's hardly Tim Cook's fault. Instead, no actual information was given, and people asking wrong questions w…

These are climate change deniers... I don't think they are really interested in statements of fact.

Of course, you should argue with facts and numbers only to people that agree with you. If they don't agree, it's obvious that they are stupid and evil, and thus beyond arguing. They should be just called names and told to STFU. Because nothing makes your position more compelling than refusing to address legitimate concerns - like how much the company spends on certain policy.

Maybe to see if somebody is interested in statements of fact, you should first try having the statement of fact. And not just say "well, I could drown you in facts, but since you're not worth it, I'd just resort to name calling". That looks rather unconvincing to me.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#95

Post by keeshawn » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:12 PM UTC

paul_f wrote: post #92

keeshawn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are climate change deniers... I don't think they are really interested in statements of fact.

Can't decide if I want to respond to this by pointing out that it is argumentum ad populum or as an ad hominem (poisoning the well) argument. Hmmm, after much consideration, gonna go with ad hominem.

What's your point?

Incidentally, what logical arguments would you recommend one use against people who have rejected science as a legitimate world view?

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#96

Post by m0a0t0 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:14 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #94

keeshawn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are climate change deniers... I don't think they are really interested in statements of fact.

Of course, you should argue with facts and numbers only to people that agree with you. If they don't agree, it's obvious that they are stupid and evil, and thus beyond arguing. They should be just called names and told to STFU. Because nothing makes your position more compelling than refusing to address legitimate concerns - like how much the company spends on certain policy. Maybe to see if somebody is interested in…

Why bother if someone else who knows more than you has tried? Clearly climate change scientists will have tried to convince them and if they can't what hope does the Apple CEO have?

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#97

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:23 PM UTC

dgreensp wrote: post #41

monkeyspaw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, mostly because you presented your opinion as black and white. Apple has, what, > 10k workers? If it cost them $100 billion to prevent one software worker from getting carpal tunnel, your statement suggests that cost should be born by Apple. Similarly, if it cost the cumulative GDP of the US to prevent N amount of pollution, your statement suggests that Apple should go bankrupt preventing that pollution. B…

Not all good decisions can be rationalized as having a known, positive ROI. I think it is a pretty safe statement to say that many big decisions must be made for other reasons.

When you take the decision, you may not have enough information to know if it's going to be good or not. But when you took the decision and still refusing to know how much it costed you and how it influenced company finances - it's just willful ignorance and unwillingness to face the facts. That is never good. For the sake of Apple shareholders I hope Cook actually knows the figures he was asked for, and refusing to publish them just as a PR move, to gain some fanboy love from bashing an unpopular target. Because if they genuinely spend money and refuse to count them, it's not good for the company.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#98

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:26 PM UTC

m0a0t0 wrote: post #96

smsm42 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, you should argue with facts and numbers only to people that agree with you. If they don't agree, it's obvious that they are stupid and evil, and thus beyond arguing. They should be just called names and told to STFU. Because nothing makes your position more compelling than refusing to address legitimate concerns - like how much the company spends on certain policy. Maybe to see if somebody is interested in…

Why bother if someone else who knows more than you has tried? Clearly climate change scientists will have tried to convince them and if they can't what hope does the Apple CEO have?

Climate change scientists never tried to publish Apple financial data. And that's what we are talking about here. Nobody asked Cook to predict temperatures in Arctica in 2030. He was asked for the effect of the specific policy on company bottom line - the thing which is the job of the CEO to know. He did not give the facts, and you say that because people who asked that legitimate question are disagreeing with you on some other question it's OK to dismiss them. That's classic ad hominem, and that's exactly what's wrong with modern political discourse - instead of seeking to convince and prove, people seek to dismiss and make the opponent shut up, because there's no talking to those people anyway.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#99

Post by lotsofmangos » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:32 PM UTC

SixSigma wrote: post #91

Zigurd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a rathole to avoid if you can. It may sound dismissive, but these guys are cranks, and their time in the spotlight is rightly to be minimized. 97%+ of shareholders understand that Apple goes the extra mile in sustainability and agrees with that approach.

Pfft, the extra mile. Transporting your goods around the world on coal burning ships does not an environmentalist make.

The only large commercial ships left that I am aware of that are still coal burning, transport coal. Very few ports are equipped to refuel coal.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#100

Post by nikster » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 2:32 PM UTC

spacehome wrote: post #49

Steko wrote: post #6

Came for the comic sans, stayed for the delicious irony of a think tank run on outside donations complaining to the most profitable company in the world that they aren't focused enough on ROI.

The think tank is pushing somebody's agenda, and even though the think tank as an organization isn't profiting, I'm sure the officers are doing quite well for themselves.

Isn't a think tank basically the same as lobbyists, e.g. legalized corruption? Think tanks push an agenda, which creates laws beneficial to the business interests of the think tank's backers, which creates $Bns in profits.

In that view, think tanks are probably the most profitable business there is. Certainly the highest ROI when it works out. Politics can be bought for hundreds of thousands, but bring in billions.