3 ms·

I agree that, in general, the likely outcome is progress. The question in most cases is how fast progress will "progress" :) Open source has (I think at this

I agree that, in general, the likely outcome is progress. The question in most cases is how fast progress will "progress" :) Open source has (I think at this point) proven that openness and transparency accelerates progress. But openness only thrives when the entire cycle is not fulfilling a single entity's net worth. In fact my theory on the fate of money in general is that accumulating large sums of it will become far less important in the future, and so will the likelihood that a CEO would feel compelled to push their company toward that end. I'm certainly not net-negative on my outlook / perspective on human nature. I am, however, one who would promote a "trust but verify" philosophy.

ci5er 11y ago
Certainly, the weight of the factors of production have changed. Land to factories to paying the salaries of knowledge workers. Who could decide to cooperatively own their own work product and pay themselves out of cash flows. I don't know that I am a "trust but verify" person as much as a "don't solve problems before they occur" person, because: 1) The solution may cause more problems than the problem, 2) We had a different problem than the one expected occur. If anything, the world seems to be progressing at a pretty good clip and not slowing down. In almost every fundamental field - bio, materials, physics etc. And it does so in the presence of a patent system that may or may not be retarding progress, but if it is, it's not doing a very good job of it. Things like Uber and Open Source and the like make me inclined towards: "Leave it alone, and see what happens".
- datashovel 11y ago
  That's an important point. I think (in general) a well-educated population, coupled with transparency of policy, almost certainly negates the possibility of long-term nefarious action. Even bad decisions can be reversed in general (in a properly functioning government). So to a point I definitely agree, but would generally promote a more pro-active philosophy to help ensure slimy situations don't sneak up on you.
  - ci5er 11y ago
    That's fair. I suppose that I am always looking for ulterior motives from the players that you can't see when it comes to massive government/regulatory action. Any large change is sold on a story that sounds about right, but I'm worried that something else is really going on with it. That probably makes me borderline paranoid, but an example would be what's happened with Net Neutrality. We all (mostly) want Net Neutrality - but the regulatory response seemed to be a huge change in regulatory scope. This in response to a problem that really hasn't happened yet, or was being sorted out anyway by the players in the market (Comcast/Netflix). And it leaves the door open for the FCC to weigh in on a lot of things that make me provisionally worried that what we were sold and what we will get aren't necessarily the same thing. Aaand, now I've gone way (way!) off topic of the thread. Thanks for the discussion.

ci5er 11y ago

Certainly, the weight of the factors of production have changed. Land to factories to paying the salaries of knowledge workers. Who could decide to cooperatively own their own work product and pay themselves out of cash flows. I don't know that I am a "trust but verify" person as much as a "don't solve problems before they occur" person, because: 1) The solution may cause more problems than the problem, 2) We had a different problem than the one expected occur. If anything, the world seems to be progressing at a pretty good clip and not slowing down. In almost every fundamental field - bio, materials, physics etc. And it does so in the presence of a patent system that may or may not be retarding progress, but if it is, it's not doing a very good job of it. Things like Uber and Open Source and the like make me inclined towards: "Leave it alone, and see what happens".

datashovel 11y ago
That's an important point. I think (in general) a well-educated population, coupled with transparency of policy, almost certainly negates the possibility of long-term nefarious action. Even bad decisions can be reversed in general (in a properly functioning government). So to a point I definitely agree, but would generally promote a more pro-active philosophy to help ensure slimy situations don't sneak up on you.
- ci5er 11y ago
  That's fair. I suppose that I am always looking for ulterior motives from the players that you can't see when it comes to massive government/regulatory action. Any large change is sold on a story that sounds about right, but I'm worried that something else is really going on with it. That probably makes me borderline paranoid, but an example would be what's happened with Net Neutrality. We all (mostly) want Net Neutrality - but the regulatory response seemed to be a huge change in regulatory scope. This in response to a problem that really hasn't happened yet, or was being sorted out anyway by the players in the market (Comcast/Netflix). And it leaves the door open for the FCC to weigh in on a lot of things that make me provisionally worried that what we were sold and what we will get aren't necessarily the same thing. Aaand, now I've gone way (way!) off topic of the thread. Thanks for the discussion.