forward1

> Firstly, there is no such thing as objective reality for humans

What? This is just silly. You don't know the difference between hypothetical fantasy and real life, or are you just being hyperbolic?

> Secondly, the principles that underpin this scenario are highly active in the world today

Still, it is irrelevant since I asked for a real world example.

> Not too long ago my neighbor cleaned the carburetor on my lawn mower, and I fixed his router config in exchange

Another contrived example which excludes the entire world. Who made the lawn mower? Who made the router? Literal slaves in a third world country. Surely you are not so ignorant you know this?

> whether Person B can get enough protein from coconuts is entirely irrelevant

It is not irrelevant; it is hilarious you don't know this simple nutritional fact.

I do. I also happen to know people use Chrome because it's quality.

I'm sorry you're insulted by your own inability to answer a simple question about your own entitlement. It must be very difficult for your to engage in difficult conversations, and I hope this wasn't too stressful for your frail and fragile ego.

So you're not aware of an ethical business, and cannot provide examples here. I understand, thank you for helping me drive my point home!

"I have no counter-argument, so I'm just going to call the person I disagree with a silly name, because I'm upset and it is all I can do"

> It should be very difficult to fire people, especially if you're making a massive profit.

What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)?

> The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale.

Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong.

> The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.

According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?

Hedge funds trail index funds? What a hilariously and confidently incorrect take.

I guess that's why hedge fund managers have billions in assets and are paid millions of dollars, to deliver sub-market returns. Yep, makes total sense.

> But you shouldn’t be surprised when people are operating under a different framework when engaging with the world.

The majory of people are idiots, so this part is almost certainly expected and acceptable.

> If everything is unethical then nothing matters, but people don’t want nothing to matter so they construct shades of grey to make choices and judgements on. Your “um actually everything is unethical” is irrelevant to the game they’re playing.

Where did I say everything is unethical? Where did I say nothing matters? This is the way people want to re-frame the conversation because it is too difficult for them to break through their conditioning to apprehend how the world works.

I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means, which somewhat accounts for the difficulty you'd had following this thread.

What is incongruous or dishonest about it? You have provided no counter-argument, no alternative theory, only petulance at my recognition of the facts of your sad life.

How much (less) in profit each year would Google have to make for you to consider them in survival mode? And also, what qualifies you to be the expert on their financial status and needs?