Expression. Civics. Game design. http://aboutmako.makopool.com
The next level is presumably, resuming offloading only the emotions for which sharing the processing work is beneficial (shockingly few qualify though)
I'd repeat my reply from steemit mentioning the startup Kasita, who were attempting to make relatively small quite delightful movable apartments around that time, but they have since gone defunct, so I'll just say, that was a thing, too bad, hopefully the next contender can reach out to them and learn some things.
Not at all? It is metaphysics.
I've been looking for a word for the community of people who are good at identifying precise, robust, extremely clarifying conceptual frameworks. It seems like a very tight cluster that will grow increasingly defined and self-actualised. "Bayesian" seemed like the best fit for a name. Would you object to that?
Though I don't especially disbelieve it, it would be helpful if you could tell some stories about how and why various platforms would been likely to be killed by (a decent implementation of!) pricing precommitment?
Mm I guess they fail as examples (I am generally bad at coming up with examples of things though)
I think in that case the price commitment would apply to Amazon's (average?) markup, not individual product listing prices.
Reasons within the genre of "capitalism is failing to adhere to capitalist virtues and that is good, because we are living in a very specific political reality where peoples' interests are best served by, channelling power towards illegible, fairly unaccountable people who make things"
The problem is not the price decrease, the price decrease usually doesn't play out. Relatedly, self-determined price commitments aren't intended to prevent the price decrease that render competition non-viable, they would force it to happen.
The problem is the optionality of the price decrease. Situations where the incumbent can afford to reduce prices in order to disincent the creation of cheaper alternatives, the threat works, and so no cheaper alternatives arise, and so they don't.
So the proposal is to take away just the optionality of it. They can do whatever they want, but they must commit to it now, and being the market leaders, I think they often will have enough foresight that they can totally afford to do that. If they don't, maybe we'd all be better off if they weren't the market leaders!
I don't really see the story of Blender as a positive one. Afaik they only started receiving really adequate funding and industry adoption very recently, for the longest time being a fan of blender was kind of depressing, the industry mostly failed (and is probably still failing) to adequately reward its hero. self-determined price commitments would have resulted either in the emergence of a cheaper commercial competitor to maya or faster price decreases from them.
In the former case, Maya might have failed to anticipate competition and been driven bankrupt when it emerged. Whether that's terrible or not might depend mainly on how gracefully we can manage bankruptcy.. for physical assets they simply move into the hands of new owners, for digital assets I guess it must be more destructive, I imagine the fallout would hurt a lot of their customers?
They wont have to go below break-even to crush the competition due to the additional benefits of scale; there are things the incumbent will be able to afford to do that an upstart couldn't.
By what mechanism do you decide who runs the government-owned monopoly-prone productions, and why shouldn't it be a (bidding?) market with price commitments.
Whenever you propose a state-run alternative, you need to think about how they reliably hire competent people to run them. Can they ever really beat a mechanism that allows unknowns to step up and depose the incumbent the moment they can demonstrate that they can provide a more desirable product at a competitive price, because that seems like a pretty cool feature to me.
An argument should probably made that reducing the profitability of tech even in the direction of fairness is bad, for anticapitalist realpolitik technocrat reasons. I'm not making that argument, but someone probably should.