- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/317313
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/317313
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
How the fuck can they be so greedy?
They make bazillions of dollars per year (if not per month), and they are unwilling to pay just a bit of money for extras.
Fuck film execs, I hope there is another strike.
We reach a new, comical level of greed, and then they find a way to top it.
This kind of thing isn’t new. [Here’s a clip](https://youtu.be/Zh7eAG2jJkA} from Three Amigos from 1986. The background characters are just a static painting.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/Zh7eAG2jJkA}
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Because we live in a system where paying more for doing the right thing will get fired and sued for lost profits as a CEO. If you run a publicly traded company, you are legally beholden to make the decision that yields the most profit, full stop.
I keep seeing people regurgitate this nonsense.
Source or gtfo.
Bro are you dumb
I’m as cynical as anybody else and there was a time I also would have repeated it as well.
But… show me the law. Show me where it says this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_suit
I don’t know where you live so I can’t quote your local laws to you, but in this age of information you can Google terms and they will present relevant links. You should try it sometime.
Your phrasing was “legally beholden” which suggests to me that a law exists requiring directors and officers to choose the most profitable path. The wikipedia page you linked does not mention any such law. It describes a type of lawsuit that investors can bring against those running the company.
Perhaps they didn’t use the right words. Iirc the correct term is ‘fiduciary duty’. A publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to create value for shareholders.
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fiduciary-duties
They are only legally beholden to do what their shareholders collectively want. While it’s not necessarily just for profit, if the shareholders are only demanding more profits, that’s how the company will behave.
There will be no sources provided because there are no sources to prove it.
I wouldn’t want to deal with additional background characters either even if they played the role for free.
It’s just more contracts to be signed, more people on set, more potential things that don’t go as planned. Its a lot of extra work and organisation needed for something that pretty much no normal viewer would notice if done at least semi professionally.