throw3141592

1) Nobody can fork it if it gets closed source extensions, gains users, then becomes closed source. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Better product does not matter, advertising and network effects do.

Think about this: with IP you have strictly more options than without. You can literally release under public domain if you want to. People generally don't.

Having strictly more options is always better _by definition_. You're literally saying people will be better off if you take away their choice. Stop and think, man.

2) Don't ignore a point you don't like. Tell me how a small creator can compete with a big corporation. Take into account marketshare and network effects.

3) You were unspecific because you can't control it and you know it. With IP the artist can decide if the money offered is good enough for permission to use his work. Without IP you shift the decision how much to pay entirely to the people with money, artists have 0 say. They can only say "please" and "thank you".

A) How now? I don't see creators giving away their work for free under public domain, citing it's better for them.

B) Ok, let's come up with a system which rewards creators, builders, workers in other professions.

C) Like what?

So what are those alternatives except "give away your work for free and hope to get paid next time"? Because this one is already possible today and creators don't use it because it would suck for them.

1) So you are perfectly happy with somebody else taking over, taking your code, giving it a different name, or not even that, spending a bit of money on advertisement to get more users than you, adding features to drag over your users, then taking development private and enshittifying it? EEE?

You have to understand in this world, advertising and network effects are much stronger than building a good product.

2) Again, advertising, cost of storage, having a better (meaning more addiction inducing) algorithm, etc.

3) You said it yourself, people have to create something first (which will be stolen or as you phrase it, unrestricted) so they can prove themselves so that anybody pays them to produce the next thing. Or would you pay a random guy with no credentials and no portfolio claiming he can create what you want?

Or what if somebody creates something really good but it's a one off. He changes hobbies, has children, has to care for an elderly parent, ... and doesn't have time to create more. Should he not get paid for the value of his existing work?

Your take basically means people will only get paid as long as more value can be extracted from them and then they're no longer economically viable so screw them.

Out of the loop here, how does Bevy compare to Fyrox this year?

Make storing personal data which is not essential to normal operation illegal.

It really is that simple.

If this took decades to get into mainstream languages, makes one wonder what cool tech exists in different programming paradigms now and when the rest of the world will discover it.

The article would benefit greatly from a photo of the cap "deployed".

You can't get rid of essential complexity, only use better tools to manage it. AI is great at dealing with accidental complexity but it does nothing or is harmful against essential complexity.