> we’ve had wave after wave of “innovation” that’s the same shit with different paint. I think in most of your examples, you want something different than what

> we’ve had wave after wave of “innovation” that’s the same shit with different paint. I think in most of your examples, you want something different than what the market values, and me too! But our values are different than the average person. I'm willing to fiddle with running a home server to do those things, but most people aren't. > Printers that refuse to print black because you’re out of cyan wouldn’t exist. They do because the crappy business practices let them sell at a lower upfront cost. That appeals to enough people for the company to make money. > Markets blow and aren’t really maximizing productive anything directly. Tangentially, occasionally, when they’re not causing cost savings that cause doors to blow off of planes to save money. Seems tenuous at best. The markets optimize for profit. That generally comes from innovations in something; products, processes, equipment, who knows. I won't pretend the markets are perfect, or efficient. What I will say is that I don't have a better proposal. Planned economies have historically turned out much worse than free markets. I think there are compelling arguments that we're short on regulations in a fair few places. I'm more leery of arguments that the government should be making broad definitions of "innovation", it veers a little too close to central planning for my liking.