Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#131

Post by SixSigma » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 7:45 AM UTC

username223 wrote: post #126

SixSigma wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were really not profit centered then the making of electronics wouldn't be in China.

I don't think anyone's claiming Apple's a charity -- at least I'm not. I actually had an honest question about relative environmental impacts, but that's probably not what we're talking about here, so nevermind. "Trying to make money" is not the same as "trying to make money in every possible way, no matter the consequences."

Efficient per mile only in terms of cost of operation. Pollution wise, planes would be less.

The market is not very good at correcting for the future. Regulatory pressure would be the primary mechanism for change.

But again, if Apple wanted to be more regulated they wouldn't be manufacturing in China.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#132

Post by rnprdk » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 5:32 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.

Ad hominem can be completely appropriate if you're making a point about someone's character/credibility. I don't know why people think that ad hominem means you should never make arguments "to the man."

In this case, I think he's saying that because these are politically motivated shareholders, a reasoned answer would be lost on them. Cook could have whipped out a lengthy powerpoint full of charts and figures, or he could have done the chicken dance, or whatever ... he's saying the shareholders are not asking the question in good faith.

edit - Further, saying what you would prefer Cook do if you had asked the question isn't entirely relevant, since presumably you would be asking sincerely. Cook can probably tell those guys are only there to yank his chain and make him look foolish, so unsurprisingly he was somewhat hostile in response.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#133

Post by cmsj » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 5:43 PM UTC

edias wrote: post #35

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.

> 97%+ of shareholders understand that Apple goes the extra mile in sustainability and agrees with that approach. Meh. Over 50% of Apple stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual funds. I for one own Apple stock through index funds and just like every other company held by those funds I don't really give a shit about the specifics.

This is probably the most rigorously honest comment here :)

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#134

Post by username223 » Mon, Mar 03, 2014, 3:12 AM UTC

SixSigma wrote: post #131

username223 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone's claiming Apple's a charity -- at least I'm not. I actually had an honest question about relative environmental impacts, but that's probably not what we're talking about here, so nevermind. "Trying to make money" is not the same as "trying to make money in every possible way, no matter the consequences."

Efficient per mile only in terms of cost of operation. Pollution wise, planes would be less. The market is not very good at correcting for the future. Regulatory pressure would be the primary mechanism for change. But again, if Apple wanted to be more regulated they wouldn't be manufacturing in China.

Planes? A bit of quick searching backs up what I thought -- ships are way less carbon-intensive than planes, though, to my surprise, less efficient than rail: http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate

And while I'm all for regulation, I'm basically pessimistic. Then again, overpopulation and nuclear escalation turned out less bad than I expected, so what do I know?