• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I think marketers should get to take credit for ad campaigns they create, and engineers should get to take credit for technology they create.

    Capitalists just want to take the credit for what others do. Societal leeches. I don’t buy into their false narrative that providing the means of production they hoard out of greed means they deserve most to all of the credit for what they permit talented people to engineer and produce by the swear of their brow and the migraines of their solutions.

    We should be rewarding the Teslas of the world for what they invent, and punishing the Edisons that would claim other’s inventions as their own. But we suck, so we won’t.

    • circuscritic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      179 months ago

      Moving goalpost?

      You said he didn’t contribute to technology, so I pointed out that he’s responsible for Apple becoming what it became, which itself transformed technology.

      Now, you’re saying he shouldn’t get technical credit for…making the iPhone?

      Okay…I never said he should…but it you want to go down that path, he was very hands-on with in the design processes for two of their most pivotal products: the iMac and iPod.

      Again, he was a grade-A douche bag, who died a fucking hilariously stupid death, but that doesn’t erase, or override his impact.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        If you want to congratulate his corpse for what he didn’t engineer or design, go ahead.

        • circuscritic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          119 months ago

          It has nothing to do with congratulating.

          You made a false statement, and then moved the goalpost (motte and bailey) when I pointed it out.

          Simple as that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        49 months ago

        I think the argument is that the motivations society allowed him under capitalism are what drew him to do what he did, not just that he was some brilliant asshole but that he wanted to own the work those beneath him had done.

        Lots of us who have spent our lives being told “yeahuh but that’s how it’s supposed to work!” probably have a hard time grappling the concept that just because it turns out good sometimes doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

        So to the original point of the rebuttal - we’re lucky it only turned out like it did, and not way way worse (and some other high-on-capital folks have been busy proving that lately…)