From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/30/26 6:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:02:00 -0800, dart200   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/30/26 2:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>> 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   
   >>   
   >> i feel u just entire missed the point of why i started this thread   
   >>   
   >>> pushed back against the idea that programmers don't need to get paid.   
   >>   
   >> only by donation if people feel it's warranted   
   >   
   > Remember shareware?  A hodge podge of unfinished somethings, thrown   
      
   remember linux??? oh wait, that runs like most of the internet by now,   
   it's impossible to forget   
      
   also like *all* programming infrastructure anyone uses to build anything   
      
   > out there to see if there might be any interest.   
   > 1)  No great rush of interest, so I won't waste my time finishing it   
   > 2)  It is unfinished, so why would I be interested in it?   
      
   look bro, i'm suggesting we *ban* the sale of close sourced software,   
   and remove copyrights for it   
      
   this isn't a competition between paradigms, this is changing the   
   paradigm such that we develop the will to support it   
      
   will some software then not get developed??? sure, but we're drowning in   
   *way* to much software so that's a good thing. more is not better, even   
   if most economists are moronically allergic to the notion that making   
   money =/= societal benefit   
      
   >   
   >> u can choose to not code, that's fine ... 99.99% of the industry is bull   
   >> jobs so the less coders the better   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> which is why we shouldn't have traditional business building and   
   >> maintaining our software. they need to keep producing software   
   >> regardless of whether it makes sense or not, and unfortunately software   
   >> can be made arbitrarily complicated (introducing further problems of   
   >> integrations and inter-dependencies ... which people can get paid to   
   >> "sovled"), so ofc business will because it will get them paid more.   
   >>   
   >> monetary based economics is broken by modern digital goods, and   
   >> especially software, not that it was every particularly great in the   
   >> first place.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)