I, personally, don't feel that "making money by doing business in a particular market" should be a right it is illegal to waive.
If it were inalienable, things like regional distribution agreements would be void, since you could sign away your ability to sell in a certain country and then compete with your distributor anyway.
Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone users via a private commercial storefront".
> Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone users via a private commercial storefront".
This is unacceptable in a world where governments and businesses are increasingly gating services behind those same marketplaces.
Something’s got to give here. We can’t allow people to create a captive, gatekept marketplace and then create/allow significant pressure that herds people into that same marketplace.
IMO, break up all the gatekeepers using antitrust and require that critical infrastructure and businesses (government, banking, utilities, payments, etc) allow alternate access paths that don’t require a smartphone.
Imagine the landlord of a library were to close the store just because someone complained that the library was selling stolen books. Would you consider this acceptable?
And we are talking about a landlord that basically own the city here.
I don't know in this particular case of Luanti, but this could be people's livelihood we are talking about, there should be some sort of legal due process.
I think this take holds up very poorly when the reality boils down to:
"Government policy and critical services have made it so there are functionally two markets for mobile software, each owned by the manufacturers and developers of the mobile OS and hardware"
This isn't like physical sales, where I can open up a store anywhere. This also isn't like classic software sales for windows/mac desktops, where I can sell you a program from any website or physical store.
---
Functionally - this is like these private companies revoking your business license at their whim. I don't find it a tenable position.
All rights should be inalienable, simply because if they are not then all corporations will put "you waive all your rights" into their standard legal boilerplate.
The consequences do not matter. Voiding regional distribution agreements is a small price to pay for actually having rights.
If all rights were inalienable, an employment contract would not mean I need to pay my employee, because I would have an inalienable right to keep my own property (cash).
Also nobody would offer the contract in the first place because the employee would keep their inalienable right to choose how they spend their own time (not working).
EVERY contract is about giving something up in exchange for getting something. In most legal systems a contract is void if either party gives nothing. So in a world where nothing can be signed away, no contracts exist at all.
> If it were inalienable, things like regional distribution agreements would be void, since you could sign away your ability to sell in a certain country and then compete with your distributor anyway.
Good. These are responsible for a lot of awfulness around media distribution and actively harm competition resulting in a wore result for consumers.
What the IBM PC provided was a standard on which competition was unleashed and massive investments went into improving a common platform. Which is how all the closed proprietary alternatives got overwhelmed. Without it, we would have many weak walled gardens incompatible with each other, like we have on the smartphone market.
Listen to Linus Torvalds when he says that the PC is so easy compared to the nightmare of all those incompatible arm SOCs.
> What the IBM PC provided was a standard on which competition was unleashed
Entirely accidental. What really started this was the reverse engineering of the BIOS. This allowed any company to enter the market with a PC-compatible computer. IBM tried, but clean-room proved to be an effective defense.
> Without it, we would have many weak walled gardens
Kind of. There were Apple II clones with varyingly clever schemes around copying the original ROMs, and it provided slots so many manufacturers could provide hardware for the machines. Microsoft was one of them, with a Z-80 card that allowed the II to run CP/M software. Atari had a serial bus that allowed external expansion - less popular than the II, but still allowed other manufacturers to expand it. And let's not forget the ubiquitous S-100 bus, with hundreds of different companies making hardware for. In 1983 you could assemble a computer around your choice of processor, graphics (or not), IO, mass-storage, and so on.
> incompatible with each other
Kind of. Prior to MS-DOS, CP/M was the de-facto 8-bit standard for business computers. It had a multi-user version called MP/M, and versions for processors other than the 8080/85 and Z-80. In the higher end, Unix-compatible small computers started to appear - the TRS-80 model II could get a 68000 board, for instance.
> There were Apple II clones with varyingly clever schemes around copying the original ROMs, and it provided slots so many manufacturers could provide hardware for the machines.
It looks like the vast majority of clones used a (near bit-by-bit) copy of the original ROMs. I've only heard of one company using licensed ROMs and one company using reverse engineered ROMs in the American market.
> And let's not forget the ubiquitous S-100 bus, with hundreds of different companies making hardware for. In 1983 you could assemble a computer around your choice of processor, graphics (or not), IO, mass-storage, and so on.
These machines, in conjunction with CP/M, were the closest thing to what the IBM compatible would become, in terms of it being an open platform. Unfortunately, they were also notorious for being incompatible with each other. As you noted, they didn't have to use even remotely similar processors. Heck, you couldn't even exchange disks between many variants (the format was incompatible).
> Entirely accidental. What really started this was the reverse engineering of the BIOS.
Not really. IBM didn't intend the clones, but the effort to create clones was intentional. Not only did you have the outright rip-offs and famously cleanroom reverse engineered ROMs, but you had many companies making machines with various levels of compatibility while trying be legal. Once the PS/2 arrived, IBM's attempt to regain control of the platform, there was a concerted effort by their competitors to ensure they (rather than IBM) defined the standard.
The biggest and most catastrophic effect of the PC was to delay mainstream multi-user systems and graphic UIs by five to ten years. The standardisation was a game changer, but both the hardware and OS were brain damaged compared to what could easily have been possible.
Atari ultimately won. USB was designed by the same people who did Atari's serial bus using lessons learned, and thus is a direct descendant. Meanwhile most competes don't have slots, though high end will have a few.
What does a pencil have over a mechanical pencil? Mechanical pencils never need sharpening, infinite supply of lead of various type and and they seem more environmentally friendly (assuming you keep using the same for many years).
In my experience, mechanical pencil tips broke too easily. I've had cheap wooden pencils where it felt that the let was shattered inside which meant the sharpened tip kept falling out. That's how I felt about pretty much every mechanical pencil.
The main thing that helps with lead breakage is a mechanical pencil with a sliding nose cone/tip. Even finer lead becomes fairly reliable as long as it is protected against sideways pressure. My personal favorite is the Kuru Toga Advance 0.3mm, though a larger lead size and a model purpose-built for break-resistance would be better if tip breakage is the main concern.
About a decade ago I bought a metal mechanical pencil (rotring 800, 0.5mm). Best pencil I’ve ever owned. It will last so long I’ll leave it to my children.
Try the Zebra DelGuard mechanical pencil - they have a sophisticated system protection the lead, with springs and whatnot - even in 0.3 mm version, it is actually quite hard to break the tip of the lead, even intentionally.
Wooden pencils are available in softer cores that have a very different feel from mechanical pencil leads. A 0.7mm 2B or 4B lead will break easily, so they're polymer-infused, and will feel very different (slippery?) compared a regular 4B graphite + clay core.
2mm mechanical pencils are more versatile that way, but also generally heavier, unless it's something like a Faber-Castell TK9400 or Kitaboshi Otona no Enpitsu.
Reminds me of Niven/Pournelle's "The Mote in God’s Eye" where the aliens have a very pragmatic/Jury-rigged approach to technology and everything is more or less improvised.
I have noticed this with co-workers also, when you have the ability to read/write/understand things very quickly, you tend to spend much less time on making things tidy, clear and maintainable.
But then you end up in a state, 2 years down the line, where every single person that works in that code base haaaates it and adding any new functionality takes weeks or months.
Compare that to clean, organized code where patterns and extensibility are established. I’ve seen product manager surprised at how fast a new feature was added when everything is laid out well.
Two years down the line I suspect "persons" won't working directly on code bases they hate. Two years from now, I'd wager that even today's most ardent AI critics will be using them for dirty jobs -- like refactoring ugly, but useful, balls of mud.
Concern about long term care is being treated as a negative trait. Like that guy who finds faults in everything and just slows things down. The thinking I have noticed is that, moving quickly with sub-optimal solutions is being preferred because it lets the developer and their manager show new stuff quickly. That gets the bonus.
You might say that carefully ensuring good design enables speed in adding new features. But good design isn't a one-and-done thing. It needs tending because requirements change and some of those require more design changes, which again need care. Nobody has the patience to even allow sufficient time for the first good cut, forget about allowing that repeatedly. Attention is all you need and attention is what nobody has time for.
Also, growing ball of mud used to be another name for employment. How else would you get more headcount for that migration project for a rewrite and grow your empire?
With agents, even that is gone. Agents write, agents fix, agents can rewrite too. Mud is fine, it's not like we are cleaning it ourselves. Or at least that is the theory.
I took it for granted that as AIs got smarter, their taste in code would get better. The alternative seems much worse. If AIs get smarter but the code remains opaque, then eventually there may be no way for humans to verify it. This seems especially sinister in light of the recent revelations about OpenAI's models colluding to cheat on evals.
That is not my experience at all. To be clear, that is they were bad and they have gotten better. I’m also pretty strict about plan-then-code, so maybe that helps.
FWIW I've also had success getting AI to write readable code. I guess my point is that allowing it to write opaque code may leave room for unintended behavior.
I guess I’m weird. I like refactoring ugly mud and doing performance improvements. I like working on the slow, intentional, process-driven flow of actually migrating services between versions safely.
I don’t hate those and hope I get to keep doing them.
I also hope the AI writes good enough tests that I can trust them during the refactor process.
You forgot an important quote:
“We want the iTunes Music Store to have every piece of music ever recorded. Even if it’s discontinued or not selling much, we want it all.”
It's ambiguous and a contradiction because I think it's just an example of Steve Jobs saying one thing but his actual actions say something else.
In his "full persuasion mode" (as Derek puts it), he says he "wants all their music" to make the indies feel good ... but forcing them do the physical CD ripping and entering metadata is really the final authority on what he really wanted at the time.
He didn't make the big labels jump through hoops like that. He signed Sony just a few weeks before the iTunes Store went live in April 2003 with 200,000 songs. Sony and all the previous big labels just did digital uploads of their catalog instead of ripping CDs like cavemen. For the 2nd-phase rollout of iTunes Store in October 2003 with 400,000 songs, Apple could have had CD Baby and other small indies use the same effortless transfer process as the Big Labels but for whatever reason, Steve Jobs treated them differently.
So... "If Steve supposedly wants _all_ our music, why is he making us manually load CDs?!?" ... well... maybe you can't take everything Steve says at face value? Likewise, charging $40-entrance-to-iTunes breaks another "unwritten rule" that Steve disapproved of. Same as the "unwritten NDA" Steve never had anyone sign or agree to.
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
I can't think of anything dumber than all the tedious work forced upon people by "the telephone game" and a lack of oversight. That's intrinsic to any office.
They had a capability and then immediately demanded it be used as soon as possible. No deeper thinking is required.
There was very little incentive to force the moves you're claiming Apple intended to. You've got it backwards. This is exactly how Jobs' "reality distortion field" actually worked. People would overthink every time he was wrong or flat out didn't give a shit. His overrated status compelled people to make things so, and you're falling for it like they did.
> Sony and all the previous big labels just did digital uploads of their catalog instead of ripping CDs like cavemen. For the 2nd-phase rollout of iTunes Store in October 2003 with 400,000 songs, Apple could have had CD Baby and other small indies use the same effortless transfer process as the Big Labels but for whatever reason, Steve Jobs treated them differently.
Did you ever consider that it was "effortless" for the big labels because they invented the formats iTunes used along with all the guidelines for how uploads should work? Why wouldn't iTunes take their lead instead of the other way around? The goal is to get this shit out the door now and make money. The big label archives already had things in the right formats and properly audited to be consistent, or they had the means for a quicker turnaround if they didn't. Of course it would be massively easier for everyone except the indie labels.
Is it possible that people who don't care about short term profitability but still want a strategic ownership of the company bought at a high price on IPO day and now that the day traders are in, speculation will readjust the price to short term values? The change of price just reflect the different buyer profiles.
SpaceX is a pretty important company not just for "the market" but also for many other things (see Russia/Ukraine war).
But why would you want to buy a company where the valuation reflects an extremely optimistic outcome already? Basically you are assuming obscene growth from SpaceX in AI, datacenters, rocket launches etc just to for the stock to go nowhere. The market cap was over 2T!
When you buy equities, if the company turns out shockingly successful beyond most peoples probable expectations you dont simply want your investment to just stay flat, you want to make multiples of your money. In order to do this, you simply cant start from a 2T marketcap. No company worth 2T can make you 100x your money or even 10x or 5x your money in a reasonable amount of time given the overall size of the economy.
Buying at a high price just gives money to the early investors, the company itself doesn't get richer unless they're doing a raising capital round, but after an IPO you're just giving liquidity (+ profit) to early investors.
If you wait till the price comes down to its natural level, you'll be able to buy more of the company for less money.
reply