@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

escarpment

@escarpment@mastodon.online

Anonymous person. I'm here to read and learn. I like to help people. If someone has a question, consents to receiving advice, and I know the answer, I gladly provide that answer.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

AbandonedAmerica, to random
@AbandonedAmerica@mastodon.social avatar

You can always tell when prolonged exposure to social media has critically damaged a portion of someone's soul by the fact that when they make any statement online there is also an addendum addressing what they know the inevitable misreading or crappy response to that statement will be

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@AbandonedAmerica I have sometimes phrased this as, "Opinions are dangerous things." Even the most "innocuous" opinion can, as you say, set someone off. Being an opinion writer, as some are for a career, carries substantial personal risk. Not sure I have found a mitigation for this danger, other than to bear it in mind and choose carefully which opinions I state and when. Remaining silent isn't an option either, as some unpopular opinions need to be stated.

lauren, to random
@lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org avatar

Many years ago, I watched the relatively rapid disintegration of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), an important and massive firm that I admired greatly -- that even ran a private helicopter between its Mass/NH facilities (I rode it several times, it had its own gate at Logan!). Back then, it seemed impossible, unimaginable that they'd become just a memory due to technical and business decisions that proved to be out of step with the time in various ways.

I seriously and fervently hope that doesn't end up the same way.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@lauren I'm sure Google at some point will be Yahoo. The only constant is change. That's why you never invest in individual stocks (except maybe with a very small "toy amount" if you find that enjoyable). Employees of Google should also watch carefully for when to jump ship, though may make sense to just ride it out as long as possible.

evan, (edited ) to random
@evan@cosocial.ca avatar

It is bad business to start your own protocol when there's an existing open standard.

It's like making a new brand of air.

Open standards are a commons. They're a gift. Some idealists and eggheads have already worked out the hard parts. You get that part of the stack 100% free.

Why in the world would you put any effort whatsoever into replicating the free part?

Work on the other parts. The parts people care about and pay for.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@evan I sometimes agree with this. But I also have a little voice in my head: "it's fine!" HTTP is an open standard, but maybe gRPC can improve on it just a tiny bit. C++ is an open standard, but maybe golang or rust have something to add. In other words, we are blessed/cursed to always have "both", to never fully get a standard. Some of it is ego, people thinking their way is better when it is just different. But some competition and diversity may be beneficial, maybe.

futurebird, to random
@futurebird@sauropods.win avatar

A lot of people don't know the difference between capitalism and ... having markets and shopping and little coops and companies in non-super-essential economic sectors that operate independently.

Markets existed before capitalism and will exist after.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird My current thinking on the issue is that capitalism is default human behavior. Humans naturally buy, sell, and own goods and services. Also, I sometimes suspect that the word capitalism is a pejorative for this behavior (buying, selling, owning things) favored by those who find this behavior distasteful.

The alternative to this default human behavior requires substantial restrictions on human behavior. Someone needs to step in and say "you can't buy this or sell this or own this."

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@ceoln @futurebird What would buying, selling, and owning look like in a non-capitalist system? Is there an example of such an arrangement in a current or historical society?

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln Makes sense. I always go back to this though: what if the employees want to sell their co-op to one person? Are they free to do that?

What if, over the lifetime of the co-op, one by one employees sell of their shares to a colleague until that one person owns it all?

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@ceoln @futurebird Fair enough. I think the key point is "by law"- suddenly the law is intervening substantially in what arrangements consenting adult people can make with each other. So suddenly the workers of the co-op can not enter into an arrangement with another individual to say, give them some money in exchange for the right to make decisions about how the co-op operates.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln Makes sense! I don't have answers either- just lots of questions as hopefully comes across.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@ceoln @futurebird Yes- I agree with most of this. I'm not sure we're so naive about alternatives. We have a testing ground of municipal and state governments in the US to try various alternatives all the time. We have historical regimes in other countries. There is a long track record of trying alternatives and I think the burden of proof that such an alternative is better is quite substantial.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln

1 and 2 make sense, but both of those I view as a responsibility of the government. We have a system for that: those who have means pay taxes. The govt is supposed to use that to benefit the citizens. I worry that "mutual aid" is just a worse implementation of that idea.

  1. Totally on board with that- they are often just lucky. But I wonder if some degree of wealth must be permissible to remain consistent on the right to make exchanges between consenting adults.
escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln That's wonderful and I applaud that.

I guess my concern is that a government that takes in trillions in taxes to create services for those in need (including programs to address food insecurity) is like a formula 1 racecar operating at full speed. To replace that with "mutual aid" would be like replacing that racecar with a foot powered scooter.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln But we have professional emergency services funded, in part or in whole, by tax dollars. We have ambulances patrolling to help with health emergencies and we have people to help with food insecurity emergencies.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln Yep, information sharing is essential in market economies. Websites like Glassdoor and Zillow (not necessarily applauding the corporations themselves, just the idea behind them) are important for that reason. Information is a sort of lubricant.

escarpment,
@escarpment@mastodon.online avatar

@futurebird @ceoln Gotcha. That's all sorts of bad. Seems like people are reaching for workarounds because the societal system is not working as intended at all. My hope would be to fix the system.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • tacticalgear
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • anitta
  • slotface
  • GTA5RPClips
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • osvaldo12
  • Durango
  • khanakhh
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cubers
  • tester
  • ethstaker
  • megavids
  • normalnudes
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •