@kragen You'd likely have to undermine their business model.
On the positive side, this is a dynamic which can be used to play megacorps (and possibly other interests) off one another.
That notion goes back to IBM's Earthquake Memo, ~1998.
I'm not sure if you were at the LinuxWorld Expo where copies of that were being shown around, probably 1999, NYC.
Tim O'Reilly wrote on that in Open Sources.
@dredmorbius @email@example.com @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid I think it goes back longer than that; IIRC Gumby commented on the fsb list in the mid-1990s that he wasn't worried about other companies contributing code to GCC and GDB because Cygnus could then turn around and sell the improved versions to Cygnus's customers. Of course those customers could get the software without paying, but they found Cygnus's offering valuable enough to pay for, and competitors' contributions just increased that value.
@dredmorbius @firstname.lastname@example.org @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid the big insight Tim had, which took the rest of us a while to appreciate, was how this gave new market power to companies that own piles of data, like Google or the ACM or Knight Capital. And now we have AWS and Azure and Samsung capturing a big part of the value from free software instead.
@kragen Weinsteinomics 101: Monopoly is fundamentally a control dynamic, not a marketshare proposition
...Harvey Weinstein and the Economics of Consent by Brit Marling is one of the more significant economics articles of the past decade, though I'm not sure Ms. Marling recognises this. In it, she clearly articulates the dynamics of power, and re-establishes the element of control so critical to understanding monopoly...
@dredmorbius @kick @zardoz @enkiv2 @kragen @freakazoid This is a very interesting thread you had, but reading it rapidely, none of you has envisionned that changing radicaly of cyberspace architecture was the solution. From what I saw, all your reasonning are still imprisonned by the current norms and standards imposed by the Empire for the current cyberspace architecture.
Yes yes, all what you say is true.
First of all, there are no progress because the Empire is persecuting and plotting with its spies on all those trying to take that route and organize. I know what I am talking about regarding this.
Then yes, we are definitely talking about a major redesign of everything. Because we ended demonstrating that there are no other solution that could do the job at all levels.
@stman @kick @email@example.com @enkiv2 @dredmorbius @freakazoid there's a certain amount of backstabbing and plotting going on, yeah, but ultimately it's kind of futile; you can cut every flower but you cannot stop the spring. And what we have to face today is really tame compared to what, say, MLK Jr. or Solzhenitsyn faced, much less Spinoza or Galileo.
I've progressively went to systemical approaches in my studies. The more I was studying specific matters or issues to solve, the more I was everytime more convinced EVERYTHING had to be rearchitectured fundamentaly. Even the "all turing machine" concept, as a limitation, has been studied and discussed with my
@stman @kick @firstname.lastname@example.org @enkiv2 @dredmorbius @freakazoid I hope your results are correct! The further you stray from well-explored knowledge, the easier it is to spend years working on ideas that turn out to be wrong, in the end. The other day I was reading Gerard 't Hooft's wonderful page, "How to be a BAD Theoretical Physicist," and couldn't help but think of some episodes from my own childhood..
Ask @theruran ... he's been following and participating for long to these talks and studies... I just feel inconfortable right now because there is so much I'd like to say, and I have no paper ready yet to show you, only a long serie of posts on my TL on different social networks along these last years where many matters have been studied and discussed between like minded crypto-anarchist friends.
I am aware of this.
It's a persistent danger, in science, in general.
Genius like Einstein somehow lost himself with his attempts on his general theory. It's always the danger.
I think that all my work on cyber-powers and cyber-rights genesis, cyber-power models, and also my work on the origin of cyber-chaos is okay. My discovery of what I call the paradox of the current cyberspace architecture with the meatspace is also right.
I think I have managed to put cyber-chaos into equation and find its root causes, and now know how to fight it, and how to elaborate digital architecture that don't generate paradox with the meatspace.
@theruran has been following this work, and I think he can testify that some milestones were clearly reached.
But as said before, it will be impossible for me, right now, to resume you all the topics we've been discussing and studying.
The paradox I have identified and I think solved, is the fact that, in the current paradigm, it is impossible to fight both, simultaneously, chaos in the meatspace, and cyber-chaos in the current cyberspace architecture.
I think we now know why, and therefore, how to correct this.
And it goes, mandatorily, through redesigning everything, because it is only a matter of architecture in all know technological layers involved.
I agree with this.
We know what needs to be solved now, and we're trying to find a way to do it, and my current proposal may not be valid, or may not be the only possibility.
Then, back to a question you asked me, for now, I am working on the concept of meta-cyberspace.
This is part of my proposal @theruran can testify about.
@stman @theruran @kick @email@example.com @enkiv2 @dredmorbius @freakazoid also if it's more comfortable to you to write things up in a different language, it might happen to be one I know; technical French, Spanish, and Portuguese are pretty easy for me, and I can manage Italian with slightly more difficulty
All friendly creatures are welcome. Be excellent to each other, live humanism, no nazis, no hate speech. Not only for nerds, but the domain is somewhat cool. ;) No bots in general! (only with prior permission)