> the author lost me when he implied socialism is synonymous with authoritarianism.
To enforce the socialist cause at the 100+M level, a stricter level of enforcement is required in order to forbade a breakout of inter-party bartering & thus the subversion of the socialist cause.
Such bartering is allowed under capitalism as it is considered arbitrage for at least one of the parties involved, but under mainstream understandings of socialism, such value surplus is disallowed to be kept to the private parties involved as it should be given out to the benefit of the wider population.
Caveat: There are variations of socialism that still allow for private bartering & exchanges, but they're typically disallowed at larger scales as they allow for the subversion of the socialist cause through the accumulation of private means of production, even if the "private" means "my town, not yours"
> I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial.
An orbital DC makes fiscal sense when the cost to launch one to space is lower than the cost to build one on Earth.
Key point: The cost of building on Earth will inevitably trend upwards as more restrictions & costs are (~80% rightfully) placed onto Earth-bound datacenters.
More restrictions and costs are going to have to be placed on satellites, too.
At present it's like railroad building across the Wild West; get some notional national 'permission' and then chuck them up there into a globally-shared space. That's not sustainable as the important orbits become crowded.
> And that will never be true, so it’s meaningless.
The math is simple: The total cost for building on Earth is X, the total cost for building in space is Y.
If X > Y, building in space makes fiscal sense.
To say that it never happens, MagicMoonlight, requires X to always be less than Y, which cannot hold true forever. Eventually, X will grow to be more than Y, simply due to (rightfully placed) increased regulations for building on Earth.
> It would also be cheaper to build one on the moon, if it was free to build them on the moon.
Arguably, that should be the original goal: Build the DC on the moon.
> The earlier F2I scheme instead had a contest where the party that is the most ambitious in fabricating lab notebooks to backdate their invention gets the patent.
The implementation of F2I is then the issue. It should be the first to fulfill all of the following requirements:
(1) physically show at least 2 patent clerks the invention,
(2) that the invention works & operates as outlined, with the clerks being the ones to operate the machine, and
(3) a detailed step-by-step guide to the clerk about how the machine works
The date that the patent is awarded should be the date where the last of the 3 actions occurred.
Logistically & brand-wise, they're messy to deal with, but they result in a "filter" of sorts that the original project can pick & choose to upstream back into their code.
No one's going to be trusting forks or new projects for a while. The bar for merely generating new code is now too low to give a meaningful signal. Reputation and longevity will likely be useful metrics, hence the AI pull-requests will continue to be opened against high-reputation projects that have strong brands. Not unlike Ethereums the switch from proof of work to proof if stake
> Should the barrier of entry be someone who knows how to code? or should the barrier of entry be someone who is motivated to help with open-source software.
The motivation to help the OSS project should also come with the obligation to learn how the software operates, at least on a conceptual level. The desire to help does not grant people the pass to sledgehammer their way into adding in a feature.
> If someone can’t write their own Agent.md for a project how are they going to validate the auto-completed text?
> This strikes me as the ideal LLM first contribution/PR, a file explaining the projects standards and testing and structure.
Why should the project maintainers write such a file, when the info already exists within the README? It is duplicated work at best, and a definitive sign of the incapabilities of the agent to properly parse the project's contribution guidelines.
> Is it that if you write enough buggy code you get banned as a contributor?
If this is a consistent issue, your contribution would (ideally) be continuously put into a backlog until someone else with no connection to you verifies that it's as bug-free as it appears to be. (Excluding non-obvious security & performance issues)
> Is it that you're not allowed to say Claude ate my homework?
Yes. As the contributor, you should be the first one to look over the code, not someone else.
> what is the appeal of blindly blasting open source projects with high-volume PRs?
The prestige of being "the one that added feature X to OSS project Y". The things that would've been actually useful (bug diagnostics/troubleshooting, merging duplicate issues & PRs) do not offer the same level of prestige.
> It's surprising that Visa and Mastercard are even private companies.
Asianometry provides a great summary as to how both of them came to be: For Visa, a 1976 rebranding of the BankAmericard program. For Mastercard, a 1966 meeting of banks as opposition to BankAmericard.
> Indoctrination via decades of advertisements in clear demonstration. The imagery from this description are taken directly from coke advertisements. Either that or this is a parody.
How can you be so sure you've broken free of the indoctrination, when what you have written is also the product of indoctrination? The only practical difference is the banner under which the indoctrination happened under.
To enforce the socialist cause at the 100+M level, a stricter level of enforcement is required in order to forbade a breakout of inter-party bartering & thus the subversion of the socialist cause.
Such bartering is allowed under capitalism as it is considered arbitrage for at least one of the parties involved, but under mainstream understandings of socialism, such value surplus is disallowed to be kept to the private parties involved as it should be given out to the benefit of the wider population.
Caveat: There are variations of socialism that still allow for private bartering & exchanges, but they're typically disallowed at larger scales as they allow for the subversion of the socialist cause through the accumulation of private means of production, even if the "private" means "my town, not yours"
reply