From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 31/01/2026 18:32, Wilson wrote:   
   > On 1/31/2026 12:25 PM, Dude wrote:   
   >> On 1/31/2026 8:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:36:16 -0500, Wilson    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/30/2026 4:46 PM, 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   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   > 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 ??   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Late stage capitalism"   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://i.redd.it/6pz3jus402jc1.jpeg   
   >>>   
   >>> "No offense but," offense.   
   >>>   
   >>> The old deny what I am about to say before I say it trick.   
   >>  >   
   >> So, I told them both to invest their money, if they have any, in   
   >> precious metals for economic stability and as a hedge against US   
   >> dollar inflation.   
   >>   
   >> The economic situation is clear:   
   >>   
   >> The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion in fiscal   
   >> 2025 (ended Sept. 30), which sent the national debt to a record high   
   >> of $38.5 trillion.   
   >>   
   >> "Throughout history, governments have opted to increase money supply   
   >> to devalue their domestic currencies in order to make challenging   
   >> fiscal deficits easier to manage. This time probably won't be any   
   >> different, which is why gold soared by a whopping 64% last year.   
   >>   
   >> Bitcoin, however, fell by 5% on the year, which puts into serious   
   >> doubt the idea that it's a digital equivalent to the shiny yellow   
   >> metal. This is concerning in my opinion, because the cryptocurrency   
   >> isn't very useful in any other capacity."   
   >>   
   >> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/better-buy-2026-bitcoin-or-gold-   
   >> answer- couldnt-be-clearer   
   >   
   > Gold dropped this week and will likely fall more in the future,   
   > especially when margin investors need cash to cover their losses. But   
   > I'd bet it won't go much below its 2025 low point. Nation-state buyers   
   > were the big driver in the current run-up. And they're not going to be   
   > selling any time soon because there's nothing safer at the moment.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)