News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Unpleasant Design. Parent comment

Re:Unpleasant Design by ranko on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:02AM (#12042303)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Unpleasant Design by s_kilk on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:11AM (#12042330)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Unpleasant Design by eutectic on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:26AM (#12042371)
It's more a lamentation than a mistake.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Unpleasant Design by ranko on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @08:21AM (#12042569)
That's not "win-win" - the corporation wins, but nobody else really does.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Unpleasant Design by PeterisP on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @08:28AM (#12042601)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Unpleasant Design by ranko on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @08:47AM (#12042680)
The comment I replied to used the term "win-win" when I replied, but it has since been edited.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Unpleasant Design by s_kilk on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @10:00AM (#12043075)
I assure you, my comment was not edited.
[ Parent | on HN ]