I'm an ant. I want to tell you how the chemical trails work. Here is how the pheromones work....
Except. The main point of chemical trails, money or other implementations of the messaging bus of a complex adaptive system is THE COMMUNITY it creates. Think the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but instead of language determines what you think, expand that to "your messaging bus language determines how your community functions". Yeah there is lots of stuff about money, but how it determines the form and function of the community (as in CAS) is the important part.
The other primary thing to think about money - once you get that it is a messaging bus - is the idea of making money from money. When you understand the function of the system you can then understand that making money from money is not a good idea. This is not a new idea. The concept of throwing the money lenders out of the temple has been around for a long time.
If you understand money, then you will be able to answer this question:
why is making money from money a bad (dysfunctional) idea?
Oh look. Something works. Lets not break it? How crazy is that?
I sometimes wonder if what happens is like this:
1. Have problem. Need higher level computer language.
2. Think about problem.
3. Solve problem - 'C'
4. Think about problems with 'C'
5. Attempt to fix problems with 'C' - get C++
6. Think about problems with C & C++
7. Get: Go, F#, Rust, Java, JavaScript, Python, PHP, ...other
etc.
I tend to do this. The problem is obvious, that I do not repeat step #2.
So then I move to the next step.
8. Thinking about how to fix C, C++, Go, F#, Rust, Java, JavaScript, Python, PHP, ...other is too hard.
9. Stop thinking.
Although Mozilla's reason to pay for Rust R&D was because of problems with C++ it's probably not most helpful to think of Rust (let alone F#) as an attempt to specifically fix those problems.
C is a Worse is Better language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better). The bet is that if it's simpler to implement then the fact that what you're implementing isn't great will be dwarfed by that ease of implementation. And it worked for decades which is definitely a success.
You can make a similar argument for Go, but not really for Rust. The other side of the Worse is Better coin is that maybe you could make the Right Thing™ instead.
Because implementing C is so easy and implementing the Right Thing™ is very difficult, the only way this would compete is if almost nobody needs to implement the Right Thing™ themselves. In 1970 that's crazy, each Computer is fairly custom. But by 1995 it feels a lot less "out there", the Intel x86 ISA is everywhere, Tim's crap hypermedia experiment is really taking off. And when Rust 1.0 shipped in 2015 most people were able to use it without doing any implementation work, and the Right Thing™ is just better so why not?
Now, for an existing successful project the calculation is very different, though note that Fish is an example of this working in terms of full throated RIIR. But in terms of whether you should use C for new work it comes out pretty strongly against C in my opinion as a fairly expert C programmer who hasn't written any C for years because Rust is better.
There is the smoke part - worth seeing, the shader part - well worth exploring (shaders make you see the world in a different way , then there is the learning part. The site is very interactive so it allows you to see one, do one and maybe teach one.
Many people are stuck in html land. I was. Webgl, threejs, @react-three/{fiber/drei} provide another dimension and shaders are the gateway.
Very highly recommended as a skill worth understanding (at least).
This is really cool thinking. The fundamental concept I got out of it, was fracturing something means that it can fit together again, so there is a constraint. Of course, but cool. Thanks!
Factory work began when people could use other people as machines. For example, mechanized looms could weave cloth but each cloth weaving machine needed a machine to run it. So use people. Children, real slaves anyone. Slave labor. Thus began the Factory Age.
Now AI can replace people for repetitive labor. AI Can run the machines, it is the new Slave Labor. The problem now is what to do with all the freed slaves? If AI can make us the things that are needed, then how are we needed? We are not. As freed slaves, suddenly we are out of work. We are obsolete.
Unfortunately, for corporations that are now rushing to free themselves from the old, difficult, demanding, contentious slaves, they have missed one gigantic element of the equation. Hmmm. What could it be? Can you guess? What could possibly go wrong here?
Fortunately, for us - the freed slaves and factory workers - it turns out we are not just slaves after all. We were just trained to be slaves. So we have a future. If we can adapt to being free. And that is not a joke.
<End joke. I just made this up, nothing about it is true or even remotely serious. />
If Bill Bryson is to be trusted, the loom actually replaced a massive amount of labor. Prior to invention of labor-savings devices, Britain made 32x less cotton fibre. The inventions in this space put tens of thousands out of work, in what was already a difficult job market due to automation. I’m not sure your first paragraph makes sense.
People were dirt cheap, but machines were vastly more productive (and some inventions were stolen so that no royalties had to be paid).
The issue is good, the thought is good. But things happen for reasons. Those reasons are often how systems work. Unless we understand how those complex systems work, we cannot change anything. We end up with cargo cult thinking. You need to understand the function that produces the result.
Why does the internet function the way it does? It is really pretty simple. The internet is primarily characterized by very-high-volume-very-low-value transactions.
How much does it cost to send an email? When I send a real letter, I buy a stamp $0.78. So if I can send an email instead, it will save me a lot of money. You can try to calculate how many email transactions you can provide on one VPS costing $5.00 per month.
Here is a great business opportunity! You sell people email stamps at $0.01 per letter for 10k bytes. Cool. And 1,000,000 people each buy 10 stamps. Wow. That is a lot of money for your $5/month VPS, right?
But how do you get the money? You need to find a way for the one million people to each send you a dime. You cannot do it. If they put a dime in envelope and mail it to you, it will cost them $0.78. Etc.
So you have another idea. Why not let scammers include details of their scam in all emails send and they pay for the email. Oops, I should have used the term "advertisers". Now the people who email pay nothing and the scamm.... oops advertisers pay for the cost.
And you surprisingly find many, many people and corporations from all over the world are eager to exploit, oops target with advertising users. Especially if you can identify what kind of target they are.
Yes, the core issue underlying the rot as described in TFA is the funding model for the internet. But that cancerous idea is older than the internet -- adversing, hawkers and scammers, they've been around since forever. It's an unfortunate side effect of "business" and if you turn the sanitation dial far enough, you'll get professions like Sales and Marketing.
So to fix the internet, you'd have to decouple the content from the toll to access it.
There is no context here for most obvious and important differences between Windows and Linux. Nor does this article note the furor over the forced obsolesce of millions of PC's because of (drum roll) Windows 11.
Responsible articles and journals note these things.
The real practical and immediate help would be ground water contamination. How many bad chemicals now permeate the water supplies around farming communities. Can this be used to treat the drinking water supply?
I think it is time that open source => community source. Where community is NOT corporations making tons of money without royalties. And where community is NOT AI.
As someone said these are fair uses of Open source. But it would not be fair use of Community Open Source.
Many people will reject such an effort for good reason. Open Source is something of great value. But should only Corporations profit from it. Why not the developers, maintainers, etc?
So the question is whether there is some way to retain the benefits and goodness of Open Source while expelling the "Embrace, extend, extinguish" corporations?
It's called the GPL, and it's what Open Source was created afterwards to undermine. It would be nice if people just used it, rather than appealing to spirits to make Open Source into what it explicitly is not.
It is already entirely clear that LLMs have absolutely no permission to use GPL code for something that is being redistributed without full source, before they were even invented. AI companies are arguing fair use, as another top level comment emphasizes, in order to make an end run around any licensing at all. Dithering about coming up with magic words that will make the AI go away, or creating new communities while ignoring the original community around the GPL, is just silly.
reply