Ive never seen someone put together a well formed argument that is rich in depth and play it through - I get that this requires vision and most don’t have it - but at the same time I’d wish people would shut up if they have nothing new to contribute.
Not to mention the bizarro economists were completely wrong about prediction re. The impact of the web.
Our naivete back in 1996 could be forgiven. Not applying the lessons since then and anticipating how subsequent technologies will be captured and used against us is irresponsible.
Example: Finance, file-sharing, recorders, AI vs. libraries, SaaS vs. Software libraries/standalone deployments.
>If investors are involved, kiss any altruistic intent goodbye. Bait-&-switch->enshittification is a matter of when, not if.
>Solutions are not the goal of work in the United States. Attracting capital, and leaving someone else holding the bag is.
Dot coms, 2008, end of ZIRP.
>You cannot fix the system from within. (Or as Einstein said, problems cannot be solved by thinking on the same level that created them)
FLOSS is architecturally unsound as evidenced by the existence of AI models, and the relative impossibility to seemingly maintain development efforts without eventual corporate co-option. GPL, AGPL have managed to carve out some minimal system stacks for the public, but with AI companies, the time has come where the System (the judiciary of the U.S. at least, is signalling that Copyright only exists if a corporate actor's legal team is sufficiently funded to argue it does. Altruism, as noble as it is; cannot persist forever without nourishment.
If you can't recognize these things, this is more indicative of a problem to observe than a lack of data to learn from.