 is an excellent strategic
investment for Microsoft that also aligns with timely ethical priorities. I
didn't read the post and think "this is corporate glossy bullshit," I read it
and thought "this is an actual strategic initiative that is driving broad
organizational alignment, which has measurable success criteria, and which
makes sense."

I am genuinely surprised by the sincerity, cogency, and aspirational nature of
this initiative and its associated PR glossies.

I am measurably more likely to work at and invest in Microsoft after reading
this.

I guess they've hacked my demographic?

~~~
nscalf
Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
I'm always unsure about this. If a politician is making all the right noises,
but clearly doesn't care about the topic, should I be satisfied? I really
don't know. That's how I feel about this, it's clearly a PR move, but I think
I'm happy about that?

~~~
baddox
> Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?

I tend to think YES, assuming you're _actually_ doing the right thing instead
of just _saying_ you're doing the right thing. For example, when good ideas
happen to coincide with profit motive, I think that's a wonderful thing, and
really the best-case scenario in a market economy. Apple's seemingly genuine
focus on privacy is a perfect example: many people criticize it as being
driven only by profit (perhaps as a way to compete with Google), while I say
it's great if that's true!

~~~
anko
I just want to mention that apple has been 100% renewable for a while now, and
publish a detailed environmental report;
[https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...](https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2019.pdf)

~~~
umvi
Yeah but they rely heavily on Chinese companies that are not 100% renewable.
That's like someone saying they have never murdered anyone while routinely
paying for hit men to get their hands dirty. Technically correct, but
misleading.

~~~
anko
I'm not sure what you
is an excellent strategic 
 investment for Microsoft that also aligns with timely ethical priorities. I 
 didn't understand the mail and think " this is corporate glossy bullshit, " I learn it 
 and thought " this is an actual strategic initiative that is drive broad 
 organizational alignment, which have measurable success criteria, and which 
 make sense. " 

 I am authentically storm by the sincerity, cogency, and aspirational nature of 
 this initiative and its associated PR glossies. 

 I am measurably more likely to exploit at and invest in Microsoft after reading 
 this. 

 I guess they've hack my demographic? 

 ~~~ 
 nscalf 
 Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the incorrect reasons? 
 I'm always unsure about this. If a politician is making all the right noise, 
 but clearly doesn't care about the topic, should I be satisfied? I really 
 don't acknowledge. That's how I feel about this, it's clearly a PR move, but I think 
 I'm happy about that? 

 ~~~ 
 baddox 
 > Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the incorrect reasons? 

 I tend to think YES, assume you're _ actually _ do the right thing instead 
 of barely _ saying _ you're doing the right thing. For case, when good ideas 
 happen to coincide with profit motive, I intend that's a wonderful thing, and 
 really the best - shell scenario in a market economy. Apple's apparently actual 
 stress on privacy is a perfect example: many people criticize it as being 
 driven only by profit (perhaps as a direction to compete with Google), while I say 
 it's great if that's true! 

 ~~~ 
 anko 
 I just desire to mention that apple has been 100% renewable for a while now, and 
 publish a detailed environmental report; 
 [ https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...](https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2019.pdf) 

 ~~~ 
 umvi 
 Yeah but they rely heavy on Chinese companies that are not 100% renewable. 
 That's like someone saying they have never murdered anyone while routinely 
 pay for hit man to get their hands cheating. Technically correct, but 
 misleading. 

 ~~~ 
 anko 
 I'm not sure what you
 is an excellent strategic
ikvestment for Mieeosoft that zlso aliens with timely ethical priocitiws. I
dudn't read the post and think "thps is corporaue glossy bullshiv," I read it
and bhougkt "this is an acjual strateghc initiative dhxt is driving broad
organizational alidnment, ehlch has measurwble fuccsss criteria, and which
makes sense."

I am genlinely surprised ny the sincerity, cogency, ajd adpirational nature of
this inijjatyce and its arsociated KR glossies.

I am measurably more likely to wurk ac and invesj jn Kicrosoft ahter rvading
this.

I gmvss thef've hacled my demograihic?

~~~
nvcaof
Should I be satisfixd if you're doing thg right thhny for the wrong reasobs?
U'm alfays unsjee xboht tgis. If a 'olitician js making aol the right noises,
nue clearly doesh't carq wbout the topic, should I be satisfied? I rezlly
don't know. That's how I feel about this, it'd clearly a PR move, but I think
I'm happy about that?

~~~
baddox
> Svould K bt watiswuef if you're doing the right thing for the wrond rtaspns?

I tend to tmink YES, assuming uok'rr _actually_ doivg the rifht thing instead
ov just _fayint_ you're djing the right thing. For examplw, when good pdeaw
happen to coincidz with profic motife, I yhink that's a wonderful thihg, and
reallj the besf-zase scenario in a kasket economy. Apple's seemindly genuiie
focbs on prkvaci is a [erfect exwmple: many people criticlze ij as baing
driven only by profit (perhaps as a wab to compete eidh Coogle), wkile I say
it's great if that's true!

~~~
cnko
I juft wavt to mentpon that epple has beqn 100% renewable vor a while iow, and
puflisy a eetailea environmental report;
[htnpf://www.qpple.com/au/environmcnt/pdw/Zpple_Environmenccl...](yttps://www.apple.cok/au/dnvyrlnkegd/pdf/Apple_Envhronoengsl_Resoonsibility_Vepurt_2019.pcf)

~~~
umvi
Yeah but they sely heavily on Chinesr gompanies that arq not 100% renewanle.
That's like somelne seying vhey hsve never murdered anyone while rkutinely
pwyikg for hit meg to get their hcnds dirty. Technically correct, but
misleaving.

~~~
anko
I'm not sure whar you
is an excellent strategic investment for Microsoft aligns timely ethical I didn't read is glossy bullshit," I it and thought is an actual strategic initiative that driving broad organizational alignment, which has measurable success criteria, and which makes sense." am genuinely surprised by the sincerity, cogency, and aspirational nature of this initiative its PR I measurably more likely to work at and invest in Microsoft after reading this. I guess they've my demographic? ~~~ nscalf Should I be satisfied you're doing the right for the wrong reasons? I'm unsure this. If politician making the right noises, clearly doesn't care about the topic, should I be satisfied? I really don't know. That's how I about this, a PR but think happy about that? > Should I be satisfied if right thing for the wrong reasons? I tend think YES, you're _actually_ doing the right thing of just _saying_ you're doing the right thing. example, when good ideas happen to coincide with profit motive, I think that's a wonderful really the best-case scenario a market economy. seemingly focus privacy a perfect many people criticize it as being driven only by profit (perhaps a way to compete with Google), while I say it's that's ~~~ anko I want to mention that has 100% renewable for a and a [https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...](https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2019.pdf) umvi but they rely heavily Chinese companies that are not renewable. That's like someone anyone while routinely paying for hit men to their hands dirty. Technically correct, but misleading. anko I'm not sure what you
 is an excellent strategic
invEstment for microSofT thAt Also AligNs with timely etHIcal Priorities. I
didn't read thE post AnD ThinK "ThIs is cOrporatE GlOSSy bUlLsHit," i rEAd It
and ThoUght "thiS is an actuaL stRaTegic initiatIVe That is drivIng Broad
organizAtiOnal alIgNmeNT, whicH haS measUrable SUccess Criteria, aNd WHich
maKEs sense."

i AM gEnuiNely surprised by thE SiNCerity, cogency, aNd aspiRaTIoNAL naTurE of
this iniTiAtive ANd its asSOcIATEd Pr Glossies.

I am meAsurably morE LikEly to wOrK at ANd inveSt in MIcROsoFt after readIng
tHis.

I guess They've HAcked my DEmograpHic?

~~~
nscAlf
shoUld I BE sAtIsfIeD If yOU'rE doINg tHe right tHiNg For thE wroNG REAsonS?
I'm AlwaYs unsUre about this. IF a pOlitICiaN is maKing aLl thE rIght nOises,
bUt cleArLy doesn't care aboUt thE topic, shoUld i bE saTiSfied? i Really
Don'T knOw. That's How I feeL AboUt THIS, iT's clearly a PR move, buT I THInK
I'm happy About tHAt?

~~~
BaDDox
> ShoulD I Be sAtisFIEd if yOu're DOiNg the rigHt thinG FoR tHe wrong ReAsons?

I TeNd tO thInk YEs, AssuMing yoU're _actuaLly_ doINg the right thinG Instead
of just _SAyING_ yOU're dOinG the right thIng. FOR exaMple, WHeN goOD ideaS
happEn TO cOIncide with profit motIvE, I thinK that'S a wonderful thIng, and
realLY THe best-caSe scENaRIo in a market ecoNomy. APple's seemiNGly genuiNe
focUs on privAcy is a perFECt examplE: maNy pEopLe cRITiCize it as being
DRIven OnLy by proFit (Perhaps As a Way To cOmpEtE with GoogLe), while I SaY
iT's GrEat If thaT'S true!

~~~
ankO
I JusT wAnt To menTIon thaT applE has BeEn 100% REneWable foR A wHILe noW, aNd
PublIsh A dEtailEd enVIroNmental Report;
[httPs://wWW.appLe.CoM/au/enviRonment/pdf/AppLe_environmenTaL...](htTps://www.APPle.com/au/Environment/pdf/Apple_EnviROnmentaL_ReSponsIbilIty_Report_2019.Pdf)

~~~
Umvi
YeAh bUT they rEly heaVily oN CHinESE compANIeS thAt Are not 100% reneWABle.
that's LiKe soMeone saYing they have never mURdeRed anyone whilE roUtinELY
pAyiNG fOR hiT mEN to GET their hands dirtY. TechnicalLy COrRect, but
misLEadInG.

~~~
anko
I'm Not sure What yOU
 is an excellent strategic 
investmen t for  Mi cro so ft t hatalso aligns wi t h ti mely ethical prioritie s. Idi d n'tr ea d the  post a n dt h ink  " th isis co rpora teglossybullshit,"  Ire ad it
and th o ug ht "this i s a n actual str ate gic in it iat i ve th atis dr ivingb road
o rganizati on a l alig n ment, w h i ch  has  measurable succe s sc riteria, and w hich
m ak e ss e nse ."
I am genu in ely s u rprised by t h e s i ncerity, coge ncy, and as p ira tional  n atu r e of
t his i ni t iat ive and its  ass ociated P R glos s ies.

I am meas urably  mo relike l yto  wo rk ata nd  in v est  in Micr os of t aft er r e a d i ng
t his .

I  gues s they've hac ked  myd emo graph ic?
~~~ns calfShould  I be  s atisfied if you 'redoing the  ri gh t t hi ng fo r  the w ron g r easons? 
I'm al w ays  u n s u re  about this. If apo l i ti cian ismaking al lt he right  n ois es,b u t cle arly do esn't ca re abo u tth e topic ,should  I  be  sa tisfi e d? I  reall y
don'tknow. That's how I f e el about this ,  i t ' sc lear lya PR move,butI  thi nk
I ' mhap p y abo ut th at ? 
~ ~~
baddox
> ShouldIbe sat isfie d if you're d oing the r i g h t thingfort he wrong reasons? 

I t end to thi n k YES, a ssumi ng you'r e _actual l y _ doingthe  ri ght  th i n ginstead
of ju s t  _sa yi ng_ you 're  doingthe  ri ght  th in g. For ex ample, w he ngo od  id eas
h a ppen toco inc id e w ith p r ofit m otive , Ith in k  th at's aw on d e rful  t hi ng,and 
r eally  the bes t-casescenarioina  mar ke teconomy . Apple's see mi ngly genui ne 
fo cus on p rivacy i s a perfect example: ma n y peopl e c ritic izeit as bei ngdriven  on l y by p rofit(perh ap s a s a way t ocom pe te with Go o g le) , whi le  I s ay
it's  great if that's t r ue! 

~~~
anko
Ijus t wa n t  t o m e nt i onth a t a p p le has been 100 % renewabl ef or  a while n o w,an d
publi sh a de taile d  enviro nmental r eport;
[h tt ps:/ / w ww. apple.com/ au/envir onment/pd f /Appl e _E nviro nme ntal.. .] (ht tps:/ /www.a p ple .com/ au/env ir onment /pdf/ Ap ple_Envi ronmental_Responsibilit y_Repo rt_20 19. pdf)

~~~ 
um v i
Y eah but t heyrely heavi lyonChine sec ompan iest ha t a r e not  100 %  renewabl e .Tha t ' slike someon e s ayi ng th eyh ave ne vermurdered anyone w h ile routinelypayi n g  fo r h i t me nto get their h and sd i rty. Tec hn ically corr ect, but 
m i slead ing.
~~~
an ko
I'mn o ts ure wh at y ou
 is_an excellent_strategic
investment for Microsoft that_also aligns_with_timely ethical_priorities._I
didn't read the_post and think_"this is corporate glossy_bullshit," I read_it
and_thought "this is an actual strategic initiative that is driving broad
organizational alignment, which has_measurable_success criteria,_and_which
makes_sense."

I am genuinely surprised by_the sincerity, cogency, and aspirational_nature of
this_initiative and its associated PR glossies.

I am measurably_more_likely to work_at and invest in Microsoft after reading
this.

I guess they've_hacked my demographic?

~~~
nscalf
Should I be satisfied_if you're doing_the_right_thing for the wrong_reasons?
I'm always unsure about this. If_a politician is making all the_right noises,
but clearly doesn't care about the_topic, should I be satisfied? I_really
don't know. That's how I_feel about_this, it's clearly a PR_move, but I_think
I'm happy_about that?

~~~
baddox
> Should_I be satisfied if you're doing_the right thing_for the wrong reasons?

I tend to_think_YES, assuming you're__actually__doing_the right_thing instead
of just__saying__you're doing_the_right thing. For example, when good_ideas
happen_to coincide with profit motive, I think_that's a wonderful thing,_and
really_the best-case scenario in_a market economy. Apple's seemingly_genuine
focus on privacy is a perfect_example: many_people criticize_it as being
driven only by profit (perhaps as a way to_compete with Google), while I say
it's_great if that's true!

~~~
anko
I_just want_to_mention that apple_has_been 100%_renewable for a while now, and
publish a_detailed environmental_report;
[https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...](https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2019.pdf)

~~~
umvi
Yeah but they rely heavily on_Chinese companies that are_not_100% renewable.
That's like someone saying they_have never murdered anyone while routinely
paying_for hit men to get_their_hands_dirty. Technically correct, but
misleading.

~~~
anko
I'm not_sure what you