I don't want to go into details, but basically it was we actually used component brand X to build an application with when the customer wanted brand Y. I never learned why they were picky about such, for as far as I could tell it didn't matter much. Either way, there was not enough time to recode it and rather than tell the customer, my boss & owner wanted me to lie with them.

In that case, show me the "proper" complex model and explain, with evidence, why it is correct, and perhaps I'll start to agree with you. I'm open to good old-fashioned logic, science, and reason.

You are putting words into my mouth. Basically I'm saying that IF you want to change behavior on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the reward system(s) on a large scale.

Nagging people to "be good" and accept the down-sides of honesty for altruistic reasons alone will not work well in the longer run. I'm not saying whether asking them to do such is good or bad, I am only saying it won't work on a large scale. I'm trying to explain it in terms of cause and effect rather than give it a good/bad value judgement.

X will change Z but Y won't change Z. Whether doing Y is "good" even though it won't change Z is another issue that I didn't address either way.

Those options don't scale. Honest people will receive less resources and have less influence and perhaps have less children, leaving the world full of slimebags and enablers of slimebags.

It's probably why so many slimebags exist today. If you want to solve the issue on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the system(s) to not reward slimebags, not rely on futile individual volunteerism.

Smells like a sneaky way to bring back Clippy: "It looks like the page is missing. Would you like me to run a Bing search for you?"

Let's see if he retains that skill in the Hague.

It seems to mostly apply to men also. Congressmen as a whole look like a Crypt Keeper gathering.

These extremists must be stopped at all costs!!!

Spot the contradiction in the above sentence.

Why do investors think they are entitled to growth?

It's the sociopathic religion of Ayn Rand, or the Christian-influenced variation: "God wants me to be rich because I'm special and thus entitled to step on the lazy slothful poor".

I've been in a situation where I pretty much had to lie or lose my job. This was just after the dot-com crash in California and new gigs were hard to find and I had a family to support. If I were single, I'd tell them to shove it and find a gig in the north east, which still had "legacy" openings at the time. But that wasn't a real option.

I had knots in my stomach over that conundrum; it's not pleasant. I could relate a little bit with the dude in Les Miserables who had to choose between theft or starvation.

Even now I have to often live with foolish choices by PHB's simply because they are the boss. It may not be "unethical", but often it's bone-headed unprofessionalism. I try to CYA as much as possible, but sometimes you just have to shut up and play the game if you want the rewards of the game. The work world is messy Dilbertism in most orgs.

Never knew math was so political...

Sure it is, remember when W said, "Make the pi higher"?

Fine, but doing the Macarena well is much more profitable for a monkey.

Another thing that struck me* is that metal and metal working was relatively expensive in the olden days. Deflective wing-like doo-dads may improve safety, but perhaps at the cost of more metal and/or metal-working effort. Remember, they didn't value individual lives as much back then: life was brutal and short and they accepted that. (Besides, if you put an eye out, you always had a second career as a pirate :-)

* No pun intended

But we don't know if Earth's path to complex life is the only viable path. There may be "other angles" to get to complex life. We only have one sample to judge on.

Babies are people

So:

babies = people
corporations = people

Therefore:

corporations = babies

Does this mean we can spank corporations and give them time-outs?