• Most votes
  • Most comments
  • Newest
  • Activity
  • Showing only topics in ~talk with the tag "responsibility". Back to normal view / Search all groups
    1. Businesses, especially in tech industry, sometimes have some okay support for clients, but in general the crucial things are walled off. A simple example: someone in a company decides to place an...

      Businesses, especially in tech industry, sometimes have some okay support for clients, but in general the crucial things are walled off.

      A simple example: someone in a company decides to place an ad and does that, people see that ad on YouTube, find it obnoxious, but cannot confront the original decision maker directly - they are unknown, unreachable.

      Another example: many people used Google Inbox app and then Google discontinued it. Users are unsatisfied. Someone in Google, a person, made the decision. But they are unknown. A user cannot come up and ask them, "Hey you, why did you do that?" and at least get a clear honest answer. There are sugary press releases and damage control in such cases.

      I understand that if many of us started a business we would want to wall our decisions off the external environment (users) too. It's a dilemma. But still, what do you think about that? How would you deal with this problem in a different way?

      12 votes
    2. I've had part of this discussion today with a work colleague: under our country's laws a judge (there's no jury) may take into consideration the condition and general being of a victim of a crime...

      I've had part of this discussion today with a work colleague: under our country's laws a judge (there's no jury) may take into consideration the condition and general being of a victim of a crime when judging the perpetrator. For example an conviction of assault and battery may be higher of the victim was disabled/had a fragile constitution compared to a more "normative" able-bodied person.

      My colleague maintained that this was unfair if there is no way the perpetrator realizes the victim's fragility, as it means unequal punishment for equal actions. Specifically he takes issue with the Eggshell Skull rule. In effect his argument seemed to be that what should be judged is the action and intent of the crime itself.

      I maintained that is was fair because the judgement should be proportional to the effect caused on the world.

      What do other users think?

      12 votes