rglullis

9 ms·

151.
by rglullis 5mo ago
Baumol's Cost Disease is about relative costs. We are talking about productivity enabling absolute reduction in costs. Don't mix them up.
152.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> So you get more production out of less labor. We don't need "AI" to figure out that technological advances increase productivity. The problem with yout argument is assuming that increased productivity mean overall reduce
153.
by rglullis 5mo ago
"Past performance is not indicative of future results". People stopped being in farms because automation freed manual labor and people could move up in the value chain. We are getting to the point where there will be no chain left
154.
by rglullis 5mo ago
If it's one thing I miss from Twitter, it's to read Taleb tearing new holes on IYIs like your parent's comment.
155.
by rglullis 5mo ago
Doing what, exactly?
156.
by rglullis 5mo ago
There is no guarantee that this transition will lead to any type of desirable or meaningful job. Around the time "Bullshit Jobs" was published, more than a third of people said they believed their job was not meaningfully contri
157.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> where subways cost 1/20th of what they do today. 1) We are talking about reducing the cost of labor , not overall costs. 2) Your logic only applies in the micro, not on the macro. If the cost of producing one thing goes down wh
158.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> In a world where it’s dramatically cheaper to build infrastructure... You can not make things dramatically cheaper by bringing only the cost of labor to zero. Your argument is circular!
159.
by rglullis 5mo ago
"Becoming viable" does not mean "automatically put into execution". You still need to take overall demand in account. Consider this: if demand was not a factor, anyone living in a moderately wealthy country would be prac
160.
by rglullis 5mo ago
What?! The primary resource needed to build a home is land . Do we have infinite availability of land in desirable areas to build on?
161.
by rglullis 5mo ago
Demand and primary resources go way higher on the list.
162.
by rglullis 5mo ago
Labor costs are not the limiting factor on production.
163.
by rglullis 5mo ago
In principle, I don't disagree. The problem is that in practice the large corporations managed to neutralize any chance for independent by commoditizing the software service layers that supported their business and invest all their res
164.
by rglullis 5mo ago
You seem to imply that work on FOSS projects is a second-class activity, meant to be done after companies and employers have secured their revenue sources. This is like trickle-down economics for FOSS and it doesn't work.
165.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> Everything was free by virtue of there being no secure payment mechanism. That and the fact Universities provided free, fast and unmetered internet access. I doubt they would be running anything if they had to pay $1/hour like re
166.
by rglullis 5mo ago
You are arguing GP's (WarmWash) point and not even realizing it.
167.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> The Software Creations BBS was not an amateur effort Yeah, and it was a BBS ran and backed by a software development company that used it as a channel to promote and sell their software. IOW, they were not offering the infrastructure &
168.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> nothing that requires human input is free. TANSTAAFL does not need a qualifier to apply. "Nothing is really free, so whatever you got 'for free' from a community member or some non-commercial effort was bound to have li
169.
by rglullis 5mo ago
You are right, I abused the hyperbole. The IBM investment was not the first thing that propelled Linux to the mainstream. I remember that in 1999 my university was already installing Red Hat with Gnome 1.0 on the workstations for the comput
170.
by rglullis 5mo ago
I apologize for the hyperbole, but you are arguing my point: if something took "lots of federal grant money" to become usable in universities and amount to anything more than a research project, then we are no longer about somethi
171.
by rglullis 5mo ago
I assume that's a good thing?
172.
by rglullis 5mo ago
BBS were only amateur efforts. Linux would not go anywhere if it was not for IBM famously investing 1 billion in 2000. You can get some development and innovations built purely on "free", but without actual professionals who can m
173.
by rglullis 5mo ago
I've been using Brave search since it was first announced. Initially it had to rely a lot on their "fallback mixing" (where it ran an anonymous search on Google to get more results), but after a year or so I disabled it and n
174.
by rglullis 5mo ago
There is a false dichotomy here.
175.
by rglullis 5mo ago
One can use it even while hating it.
176.
by rglullis 5mo ago
Not exactly. NLNet was funding this to get all these different OAuth RFCs nicely integrated with DOT. A lot of my work was already done on separate packages, putting up just another fork without the blessing of the DOT core team would not b
177.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> f I have to trust you to give me back my $10, I'm never contributing to your code. Ever. That's the whole point ! Either you are willing to trust the money to someone you don't know, or you will have to find another way
178.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> You can't just hand wave them away as if this isn't an important factor.. There are plenty of ways to indicate in the project that the Pfand is meant as one way to filter out bad actors, but it doesn't mean that it shoul
179.
by rglullis 5mo ago
> Sounds like bandaids on top of bandaids And a registration system that amounts to a more complicated captcha doesn't? How long until someone starts farming accounts and run bots that jump through these hoops as well? > wonder i
180.
by rglullis 5mo ago
The exchanges are for the people that can send the money, not receive it. And those who are living in countries the USA doesn't like will probably have no issue to learn how to work with crypto. Of all the complex things they need to

More ›