> Why do we always bring up CEO compensations, but never Hollywood actors',
Do you mean that whenever we discuss CEO remuneration we must also add a parenthetical remark to the effect that the discussion most likely also applies to a list of other categories of person?
If so then I think we can simply petition HN to add such a declaration to the terms and conditions of the web site, for instance:
- Any discussion of remuneration of any entity receiving more than 1MUSD per year is deemed to include all other categories of entity where at least one member of that category receives at least that amount.
If not then we must litter our discussions with pointless qualifications. Perhaps it doesn't matter, a lot of the comments, this one included, do not advance the discussion so their content doesn't matter.
Do you mean that whenever we discuss CEO remuneration we must also add a parenthetical remark to the effect that the discussion most likely also applies to a list of other categories of person?
If so then I think we can simply petition HN to add such a declaration to the terms and conditions of the web site, for instance:
- Any discussion of remuneration of any entity receiving more than 1MUSD per year is deemed to include all other categories of entity where at least one member of that category receives at least that amount.
If not then we must litter our discussions with pointless qualifications. Perhaps it doesn't matter, a lot of the comments, this one included, do not advance the discussion so their content doesn't matter.