Quote from: blablahblah on December 31, 2014, 02:48:57 PM

Your graphs use cherry-picked data...

And you accuse ME of lying?

Liar. No they don't. Yes you continue to lie.

Quote from: blablahblah on January 01, 2015, 04:13:59 PM

Quote from: aminorex on December 31, 2014, 04:28:03 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on December 31, 2014, 04:10:18 AM

most of the "real" costs are themselves bullshit and caused by wasteful capitalism:

"wasteful capitalism" is a lot like open source software, or biological evolution.

Actually, FOSS is much like a direct democracy.
--It's a government-like commons that provides a platform from which closed-source software can grow.
--Employees spend their "other projects" time moonlighting for FOSS, much like taxes pay for government workers to share the benefits elsewhere.
--Some users can be accused of being parasites because they just want free ($0) software, without contributing in any obvious way.
--Other poeple can be thought of as capitalists because they eagerly look for opportunities to fork a promising project, add their own special touches and make money from it (e.g.: AOSP vs Google Android).

Yeah I know, that is why I have been working on a solution to that since 2010 at least:

Quote from: contagion on December 29, 2014, 04:03:53 AM

...

For example, I expect the monetization of open source to foster granularity of project modules. So this means instead of contributing to for example Firefox or Linux source code, an open source developer could instead contribute to a module of source code with a much more general but limited scope of functionality (e.g. a HTML rendering engine or an image format rendering engine, i.e. the latter is a sub-module of the former module). These modules would then be funded by a license fee paid by the users of the software. The key here is micropayments, because each module would self-register itself on installation and request a micropayment from the user. The user would be shown an aggregation dialog box of all the micropayments for the all the modules in the software they want to install and use, and click to approve the payments. A huge advantage is then we can upgrade specific modules of a software, so we can customize software to our liking. For example, Mozilla assholes would no longer have the power to do what I warned them would be egregiously unpopular with website developers. You thus see from that Mozilla fiasco that even in open source, the IRON LAW of Political Economics applies. The way open source funding works now is that the key developers of large projects are funded by large corporations. Thus only the core developers receive remuneration. And the synergies and network-effects are highly muted as compared to the new paradigm I describe above.

...

That is my grand hope.

You did not rebut aminorex's point, which is that finely grained (i.e. plurality of autonomous actors thus a high degrees-of-freedom, which btw is the definition of potential energy) adaptation is the only known system for dynamic optimization when the solution space is sufficient generalized (a.k.a. random or high entropy). Rather you identified that open source is currently partially economically bound to the Theory of the Firm collectivism, because the necessary technological paradigm shifts have not yet been put into place.

The Knowledge Age paradigm shift is going to kick all your fucking Statist teeth out. You will learn not to stand behind a horse and not move.

Quote from: blablahblah on January 01, 2015, 04:13:59 PM

Quote from: aminorex on December 31, 2014, 04:28:03 PM

what you perceive as wasteful tax is available energy expressed in diversity, from which selection occurs. it is wasteful in the sense that creativity is wasteful, and search over the solution space has a cost. avoiding those search costs often implies much more catastrophic forms of waste. a species which does not adapt eventually loses its niche, and goes extinct, because it avoided "wasteful" search.

FTFY and I'm throwing it right back at you.

What happens when some selections have been made, but they have become old and stale, and extremely brittle like a large crystal or a ceramic magnet?

Have you considered that all the anti-government hysteria ("oh my god, please don't interfere with our Capitalist darlings, you might break them!") is itself just harmful over-protection??

Why the hell not expose capitalists to meddling governments? Can't they handle the pressure?

Because as an exact copy of the mistake in the bestselling nonsense book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, you propose top-down, collectivized actions, which are the antithesis of adaptation, i.e. optimization. If you tie your shoe laces together, you can't run, you can only hop. Reducing the degrees-of-freedom, reduces the ability of a system to adapt. That this point continues to fly over the heads of you socialist pigs means it is a waste of our time to discuss with y'all and y'all should instead be ignored.

Piketty assumes that government intervention was the source of the growth in the middle class after the 1930s Great Depression. The middle class in the West grew on the back of expanding debt. While the middle class in the developing world was oppressed by this system that kept cronies in power so the developing world could be raped of resources to feed that multi-decade Western debt bubble (which was radically accelerated after Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 as the boomers came into their prime working age). Piketty's analysis totally ignores the plight of the majority of the world's population from after the Great Depression until the 1990s. After the 1990s, the West debt bubble had reached saturation (negative marginal-utility-of-debt) so the only way to keep the party rolling was to pump debt into the developing world. This finally did lift the standard-of-living of the developing world at the cost of declining the real standard-of-living in the West, as real wages stagnated or declined and unemployment increased.

Piketty like Karl Marx is just propaganda bullshit lies.

The State intervention hasn't added anything and has given us a $200 trillion debt bubble. It was only technology and the adaptation of the free market that has added anything to the standard-of-living.