From: fedora@fea.st
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:46:19 -0800, dart200
wrote:
>On 1/30/26 7:27 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 02:11:00 -0800, dart200
>> wrote:
>>
>>> we finally invented a type of good that has a zero-cost to copy, and we
>>> still can't seem to figure out how to build a production system where
>>> all the products are freely distributed, cause we're so concerned about
>>> getting payment upfront
>>
>> So there you have it. This is why commercialism always fails.
>
>bruh i'm talking about digital goods that are zero-cost to copy
But not zero cost to produce. As a programmer myself, I have always
pushed back against the idea that programmers don't need to get paid.
Damned right we do, exactly like you.
And yizzit that bridge builders aren't constantly coming out with
bridge v2, v3...
Because once an enterprise has produced the final perfect software,
they have put themselves out of business. But not bridge builders.
Essentially, the cost to produce and distribute is not the real issue.
The issue is that everybody must continue paying everybody for
everything.
Why are we trapped in this endless cycle of sending money back and
forth to each other? Couldn't there be a better basis for society and
social order? Maybe, perhaps? Wynot, woncha, wydoncha?
>real goods aren't the same,
>
>tho i might suggest we break out design vs production costs requiring
>that the consumer pay production price upfront ... while the design
>portion can be paid back as the consumer feels warranted
>
>this is moving more towards a gifting economy while dealing with the
>reality that production has actual sunk costs
>
>i mean in the future maybe we will have the energy availability and
>labor efficiency to totally transcend markets entirely, but i don't feel
>we're ready for such a stage
>
>> Everything must be paid for because we all must pay each other for
>> what others do for us with few exceptions. The system depends on us
>> all doing that.
>
>this especially fucks up computing. 99.99% of the industry has devolved
>into bullshit work that is not actually economically beneficial. but
>people need to get paid, and markets just don't have the capability to
>select for universal solutions to problems like we ought to be
>implementing with computing (since they rely on competition and therefor
>competing systems/standards)
>
>computing systems are far more like governing systems than real goods
>production and we haven't collectively recognized that reality yet
>
>>
>> The fault that devolves from that is that some of us get more pay than
>> others, have more status than others, live apart from us in mansions,
>> work apart from us in skyscrapers in corner offices, so we have no
>> access to, never even see those people as far as we know. These are
>> the people who make the decisions in society. Their separateness from
>> us means that they are never held accountable for bad self serving
>> decisions.
>>
>> When shit comes down, the blame goes to the person who enforces those
>> decisions, not to the decider. The enforcer is thrown under the bus,
>> quietly goes away, is fired or moved elsewhere. In rare cases, maybe
>> even get some jail time. But the decision stands.
>>
>> And the rest of us are powerless. Why can't things be different? '
>> 1) because those who have the power like having power, will not allow
>> things to be different.
>> 2) because the rest of us like it that way too. We are powerless, but
>> we are also blameless. The guy in the corner office at the top of a
>> skyscraper did it, not us.
>>
>> Too radical? Of course it is, because this is the way things have
>> always been, since humans stopped being hunter gatherers. This is how
>> we know how to be.
>>
>>> it's silly and entirely anti-consumer. it doesn't cost anything to grant
>>> a consumer access to the digital good, let them have the experience and
>>> decide after if it warrants payment for the experience. and for
>>> continued development by creator. this will create a better feedback
>>> system where people only pay for products they value after they had the
>>> experience, not before...
>>>
>>> will some people cheat the system??? i guess, but that already happens,
>>> and we end up with a worse feedback system where people have to pay
>>> speculatively upfront for the experience rather than paying back for an
>>> experience they valued enough to voluntarily pay for
>>>
>>> never mind all the DRM and platform locking bull crap that just wastes
>>> everyone's time with utter nonsense
>
>you know what will make the rest of us not powerless noah?
Sorry, I am not going to spend the hours of my life constantly
reviewing endless transparent data. I am not even going to go through
all that new epstein stuff. Nuts, I have better things to do.
>
> > consolidating our voice by committed consensus making
> >
> > #god
>
>something the rich are wholly incapable of doing even among themselves
>since they've mostly been selected and filtered by late stage hyper
>capitalism, so tbh they're powerless to set up a competing system of
>consensus making. that's so far off their radar they can't even imagine
>it coming ??
Sorry, it ain't coming.
--
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<>> to <<>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
