Re:Unpleasant Design
by 746F7475 on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @05:16AM
(#12042017)
Simple cost-benefit. If your problem is that homeless people are sleeping in front of your ads and you can
A) shelter some homeless people for several weeks or
B) install spikes and keep every homeless person away (seemingly) forever.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Installing the spikes moves, but doesn't solve the problem; the homeless people are still homeless. Of course, the people who install the spikes don't (at least directly) bear the societal cost of homelessness.
We're making the mistake of assuming that "move" is not the win-condition in this scenario.
Corporations don't care about solving these problems. Simply moving the problem somewhere else counts as a win for them.
It's more a lamentation than a mistake.
That's not "win-win" - the corporation wins, but nobody else really does.
It is a "win" condition for them. A "win-win" setup could be nice, but it doesn't mean that such result is possible or feasible, and in the absence of solid, realistic "win-win" proposals this is the best option for them.
The comment I replied to used the term "win-win" when I replied, but it has since been edited.