3 ms·

If it doesn't then it's drifting off topic, which I don't actually think was your intent, but let's follow along a bit anyway. What does motivate people to inno

If it doesn't then it's drifting off topic, which I don't actually think was your intent, but let's follow along a bit anyway. What does motivate people to innovate? Obviously one motivation is internal, basically curiosity (which someone not trying to be so argumentative might have considered equivalent to persuasion). And another is profit. But what if a innovation in a particular area would only be necessary to maintain profitability, because current methods are already cheaper but damaging (e.g. environment) or otherwise unacceptable (e.g. privacy)? Then we're back to making that activity as it is currently done more expensive. "That's a bad way to motivate innovation" still begs the question of what would actually be better in the real world for cases where sufficient motivation is currently lacking. The case where no "spur" is needed isn't even interesting in this context.

robertlagrant 4y ago
You're welcome to retroactively apply a test for whether you find something interesting. I wasn't talking in that context, though. I just took the statement as written and wrote a brief comment on it, without reading anything else into it.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > I wasn't talking in that context, though. Yes, you were, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can't just ignore the existing context and expect everyone to follow you into a new one that you supposedly created out of nowhere. That's not only the height of hubris, but it's also not how curious conversation works. Please see the guidelines.
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    Although his rhetorical gymnastics attempting to dodge and avoid answering those obvious questions are certainly telling and amusing, and he helps make your point by ignoring the context and not being willing to address your straightforward questions.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I didn't create a new context; doing so would not have been the height of hubris; and I didn't expect people to follow me, other than in the most basic (or so I thought) comprehension sense. You and DonHopkins are the only ones behaving badly enough to be accused of annihilating curious conversation. My few words cannot be accused of that. I have seen the guidelines, and nowhere do I see DonHopkins' mouth-frothing or your arbitrary rule-setting there. I appreciate that now you've read my comment in its correct context (that of the previous comment) you understand it and aren't trying to say anything in response other than some brand new iron laws of conversation and DonHopkins' gossipy nastiness, as that hopefully means you've at least accepted it for what it is. A simple truthful statement, designed to modify the predecessor which was not, in my opinion, sufficiently caveated.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

robertlagrant 4y ago

You're welcome to retroactively apply a test for whether you find something interesting. I wasn't talking in that context, though. I just took the statement as written and wrote a brief comment on it, without reading anything else into it.

notacoward 4y ago
> I wasn't talking in that context, though. Yes, you were, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can't just ignore the existing context and expect everyone to follow you into a new one that you supposedly created out of nowhere. That's not only the height of hubris, but it's also not how curious conversation works. Please see the guidelines.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  Although his rhetorical gymnastics attempting to dodge and avoid answering those obvious questions are certainly telling and amusing, and he helps make your point by ignoring the context and not being willing to address your straightforward questions.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I didn't create a new context; doing so would not have been the height of hubris; and I didn't expect people to follow me, other than in the most basic (or so I thought) comprehension sense. You and DonHopkins are the only ones behaving badly enough to be accused of annihilating curious conversation. My few words cannot be accused of that. I have seen the guidelines, and nowhere do I see DonHopkins' mouth-frothing or your arbitrary rule-setting there. I appreciate that now you've read my comment in its correct context (that of the previous comment) you understand it and aren't trying to say anything in response other than some brand new iron laws of conversation and DonHopkins' gossipy nastiness, as that hopefully means you've at least accepted it for what it is. A simple truthful statement, designed to modify the predecessor which was not, in my opinion, sufficiently caveated.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]