caramelcustard

So basically: instead of just having what you need, just, like, hope that your neighbour has what you need. Great plan, i also hope that the neighbours are going to always follow me (just in case i'm going to move elsewhere).

"Sure you'd have to logically create 'centers' around town close enough to walk, or have a neighbor maybe deliver if you're elderly or something, but there's convenience in having more options if you don't have a specific tool and only need it once." or just have a garage or a shed for tools.

"Now that you don't need your own tools, lawn mower, 3d printer, printer, atv, weed whacker, you find you could've done without even having a garage, maybe we can start building smaller homes that are cheaper to heat or cool and with less environmental impact." ah yes, the number one reason people get large homes: forget having family or simply enjoying spacious living conditions, i'm storing all of my tools around my house.

"Some sort of share/rental thing maybe for the atv's, and boat/rv storage." Good luck proving that the ding on the ATVs fender was done by your neighbour and not you.

"Commercial kitchens and space for community get together's, I grew up in the 80s and we knew our neighbors back then." Why can't you just invite your neighbours to your house?

"... been conditioned to think we all need to own so much shit, when really we don't..." or perhaps some of us are conditioned to think that we don't need anything, that everything should be rented/lended by a neighbour and basically make your house into a shed because all you do is store tools anyways.

"...we change direction to reshape society, to become more ecological, more sustainable etc." This is literally what the criticized growth-focused system is doing: from recycling waste into new products to carbon-capture technology, sustainable polymers and much more, made and done with private equity.

"Inequality" in percentage but not the actual revenue. Not sure what is the point of adding VAT though. "The rich" does not pay it i presume, just like "average people" are free of capital gains taxes (lmao).

"The latest government data show that in 2018, the top 1% of income earners—those who earned more than $540,000—earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes." https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...

Nice of you to imply that only "the rich" can buy/sell assets, especially in a post-Gamestop world.

"Honestly I think this is obvious to anyone who is not financially motivated to think otherwise." which implies that the interviewer and the economist are acting in good faith and are not financially motivated to push certain ideas.

"The biggest problem is the rich have created a system in which people's future (retirement) is basically linked to "the market" growing over their lifetime." ah so trade and supply/demand that are moved by "standard persons" = rich people, ah yes.

"This system of course is built 100% on governments/employers not wanting to guarantee financial security of elders and offload the risk to the individual." great idea, have people at governments mercy and build a voter block that is going to put the tick where they're going to be told to for some of that extra pension plan dough.

"...the rich benefit insanely more by market movements than a standard person does..." while also contributing the most tax revenue...

Encouraging stagnation among the easily impressionable English-speaking audiences of the economically successful nations i see. Good luck convincing certain Asian countries that they should stop their growth in the name of the "steady-state economy" just because. It's amusing how he goes from "...You can do fantastic computations now with a small material base in the computer..." to criticizing the concept of GDP ("We really don’t know that the standard is going up.") contradicting himself so quickly. The standard doesn't go up, but i sure like me my computer!

"...Does growth, as currently practiced and measured, really increase wealth? Is it making us richer in any aggregate sense, or might it be increasing costs faster than benefits and making us poorer?..." increasing costs of what exactly? Manufacturing? Materials? Servicing? Marketing? Privately held assets? State corporation stocks? The cost of a pint at your local bar?

The interviewer isn't any better. "... to accept the idea of having “enough” and that constraining the ability to pursue “more” is a good thing. Those ideas are basically anathema to modern Western society ..." completely CLUELESS take that implies that the ideas of striving for wealth, growth, luxurious consumption and people wanting things are exclusive to Western countries, but then you read about "Making ecological room" and it becomes clear what is the exact point of all that fancy talk.

But back to the economist: "My duty is to do the best I can and put out some ideas. Whether the seed that I plant is going to grow is not up to me." wink-wink

With all due respect to academia, i don't think that ignoring the harsh reality of how people behave, attempting to lightly enforce a feeling of guilt upon the society thanks to which the academia has the privelege to just "...put out some ideas" is responsible at all. I sure hope that this is just a one off case of a bad interview.

Outside of small scale Etsy-tier tech/non-tech stuff? Nothing. What a garage is good for though is prototyping and prototyping related R&D. Given that you have a 20k-50k USD budget, perhaps you should look for cheap commercial property for rent.

"...they're not rich enough to be deemed an "accredited investor"..." startup investing is not Kickstarter and both the investors and the recipients tend to like knowing that there is some merit behind the money.

"...are of the wrong nationality." not sure what you're trying to imply there but regardless of whether you're investing through a "decentralized" investment system or "traditionally", you're still going to have to abide by the laws of the jurisdiction the company is in.

"...nobody can prevent me for entering into mutually beneficial financial relationships" and nobody can help you if the "mutually beneficial financial relationship" (which is quite a bold thing to imply) is going to turn out to be one way beneficial ;-)

Alternative title: FCC brings an end to an internet meme.

In an act of slight contrarianism, i would add another one to the list: trying way too hard to be the complete opposite of a "self-centered narcissistic control-freak".

Journalism as both an industry and an institution is going through a global "subculture" phase: from the arrogance of "you can't sit with us" attitude of ideologically driven media to those who follow neutrality for the sake of neutrality to please every audience possible.

If only! The "traditional media" bubble is merely getting augumented with the help of "influencers", sketchy Twitter accounts, state-run networks, fringe outlets, social networks, web celebrities and so on. Just because someone thinks that TV isn't "trustworthy", doesn't mean much and chances are they're getting even lower grade reporting under the guise of it being "non-traditional media" (it must mean something...right??).

Thunderbolt and docking are to blame.

No way, i thought laptop manufacturers were running a charity! "...these anti consumer things." except AFAIK it's because of Thunderbolt and docking. Yes, USB 4 is a thing, but it has some differences.

"That is why Macs have wget instead of curl." I got curious and decided to look that up. Did you mean to say "curl instead of wget"? "GPL does not necessarily mean poison, but that is what it has become." don't remember where i heard it first, but "with each iteration, GPL becomes less and less about freedom".

What's more peculiar is that the laptop in question belongs to the Thinkpad lineup. Before reading the article, i expected it to be an Ideapad.

Depends on what tech industry we're talking about. Do you consider car parts to be mainstream? Manufacturing equipment?

Yep, perhaps if Apple/Google decided to be more hesitant to work with more difficult markets all of this wouldn't happen.

I doubt that EU wants companies to leave the market and they don't seem to encourage the growth of profitable European competitors to Google/Apple, so most likely it's the literacy issue and on top of that they're "surveying the grounds" to see how far can they go.

I mean, i would understand if the "gatekeeper" stuff was pushed by countries/organizations that have little to no manufacturing prowess, but it's Europe we're talking about and there's no way that the EU doesn't understand what they're doing (unless...).

The observer astronaut back on Earth: you two weren't supposed to say that!

If someone wants to invest in a startup, wouldn't they prefer to use a system that, you know, isn't going to be decentralized? Traditional (or should i use the term "legacy"?) startup investing already has a huge slew of issues regarding trust, curious to know how decentralized systems are going to mitigate that and AFAIK the blockchain world is no stranger to con artists.

If the innovation is worth something, even if the company is forced out of the market, it can be either reused in further endeavours of the shareholders/company owners or the research can be continued under the guidance of some other company. Businesses don't just "forget" about their past research (unless we're talking trillion dollar companies).

Leg-Ows.

(Sorry).

People say stuff all the time but tech speaks for itself. Capitalism has always been on Joe's side, wanna know why? Because unlike the alternatives, it doesn't try to hide the "means of production" AWAY from them and in fact it does quite the opposite.

"...the power is so imbalanced towards wealth." really? Never ever, in the history of mankind, had the poor have as many opportunities to earn money (and earn money HONESTLY) as today and yet there are still claims like that.

"...no way i can endorse the status quo in any fashion." I would love to hear what the "alternatives" to the "status quo" offer, other than creating government enforced monopolies, unmotivated workforce, punishing innovation through "the plan" or devoiding the people of property rights.

Thanks for clarifying!

I agree on that and i didn't take a whole lot of things into account. In fact, i'll add up another aspect: making a communuty dependent solely on a desalinated water transported either by pipe or vehicles of any kind from far away, while in theory resolves one problem, introduces several extra dependencies on the operators of the supply chain and potential risks associated with fuel prices, waste containment, prices of chemicals used, etc.

"That's to provide for coastal cities..." which is closer to actual viable application, provided that those cities have a backbone to rely on in case the supply chain slows down for whatever reason.

"...Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?" Yeah, sounds pointless, i understand your point now.

I meant the hippies that eventually became high ranks in finances/tech (in terms of pay and Buicks per garage ratio).

There are videogame streamers and YouTubers who easily provide over 4 hours of content on a regular basis, mostly for free. It's going to be either making subscriptions as content rich and cheap as possible or hoping to get a renaissance of movie nuts culture.

I wonder what quote people brought up during the licensing bickerings of way before that "what if we were all to just like rent things lmao" article.

But wouldn't rejecting DRY (in a way) follow another over-rated programming principle called KISS? /s

In all fairness, the best programming principle is: just like with software licenses, know what to use and when.