• he/him

I make poor decisions, I like weird stuff, I have alright taste.


masklayer
@masklayer

Why does literally every single thing have to be a Business making money through Subscriptions now
This is literally a browser extension that lets you click and hold to preview a page in an overlay. Why does it need to be a business. Why does it need AI


punky-trans
@punky-trans

the tech industry is just eating itself whole trying to continue the growth it saw as a new industry. we pass the diminishing returns of useful new tech from waves of cash flowing into the tech industry and now they are trying to squeeze more money out of a system they already monopolized so the only option is to wring more out of the customers they already have.

the tech industry stopped innovating new useful things to make money and started innovating new ways of making money regardless of consequences.


IkomaTanomori
@IkomaTanomori

Honestly the useful tech was all invented already by the time it started to be called "the tech industry." I'm the time since then, we've only seen the gradual improvements in efficiency of economies of scale. Moore's Conjecture (shouldn't call it a law anymore) hit the wall of quantum physics a decade and change ago.

The money stopped correlating to innovation around the time the first dot com bubble burst. That was when the screws started to tighten. Vulture capital worked to pump and dump start-ups, and the proceeds of the cannibalistic financial rituals sunk into the housing market to inflate the bubble that would burst in 2008 - and leave big banks through their deregulated investment arms owning the big agribusinesses that owned and operated most of the farmland in the USA. The ones for whom aggressive immigration control to the point of genocide is useful because it lets them get defacto slave labor from "illegal immigrants."

We're now looking at a market structured more hostile to actual innovation than anyone could've designed on purpose. Actual innovation is risky. Big investors always want to eliminate risks - so the money never goes to real innovation. It goes to new ways to play finance games (cryptocurrency) and new excuses to underpay by claiming skilled labor is replaced or deskilled (stochastic parrots known erroneously as AI). If you want funding, you've got to be totally sure how it'll make money when you make your thing. That means only ideas already easily understood by the kind of stupid old white men who have control of billions of dollars can be pursued. You can try to pursue other things, but you won't get big investment, so you'll lack resources constantly.


robotmascot
@robotmascot

Note that your idea of how to make money at no point needs to make sense (or not have obvious "but that will never turn a Profit tho?") to anyone other than wealth-addled vcs though- snake oil is king now


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @masklayer's post:

okay but really I can't remember the last time I actually read a book (let alone for enjoyment/fulfillment), and this question sucks but: how long/dense is (any part of) Das Kapital? Is it something I can try to read? (I have a STEM degree and I feel like I've alienated myself along the way to getting a piece of paper so I can pay a sham corporation money for the privilege of academia ruining my life) Like, I can't find info on how many pages it could be described as, and that's worrying because capitalism and my abysmal confidence in my ability to do Serious Reading. If this is too stupid a comment, I understand. Thank you.

hey, I really fucking appreciate this. I feel so lost lately, and I really need something that I can pour my time and energy into that doesn't feel completely useless. so fucking tired of myself and others constantly saying, "it is what it is" about everything without acknowledging there's no physical/metaphysical force binding us to cyclical politics/philosophy (again I don't know shit about anything)

My pleasure!!

Stalin and Mao are the best entry points to marxism, imo, because both intentionally wrote to a broad audience, and their writing is clear and their language simple because of this. Dialectical and Historical Materialism and Combat Liberalism are some of my favorites. Individuals who come to the left from rightist perspectives (such as libertarianism), and have a focus on individual rights, tend to enjoy Lenin's State and Revolution, but Lenin tends to refer to contemporaneous events people and groups enough that you can end up doing a lot of off-the-page reading just to know what he's going on about.

"The leaders come and go, but the people remain. Only the people are immortal, everything else is ephemeral. That is why it is necessary to appreciate the full value of the confidence of the people." Josef Stalin, a man who tried to retire from his post as General Secretary 3 times but was refused by the party on each occasion.

so cohost really doesn't seem to be built for reply chains like this, so I'm commenting here:

I get that history is a big messy knot that none of us have figured out, or ever will be able to. What I really REALLY don't get is giving credit to a guy, who at least to me, really feels like one of The Most Horrible Villains, even if I've been propagandized to hell and back (probably), like, what reason to I have to consider that he might have been good, when (from what I can tell), his ideas and approaches to governance fundamentally go against so much of what I've come to believe? Yeah, you could say I think "evil" is real, but it's not metaphysical or physical, it's human but it isn't inherent. "Disagreement", as much as western capitalism has utterly butchered its meaning and utility (hi I live in the US and it fucking sucks), is still a good thing, I think. The issue I see is when (read: all the time) such flimsy language is used to describe the horrid notion that ruthless partisan assaults on the concept of humanity pertaining to: public health practices, socioeconomic desolation, ultimate authority (there shouldn't be any), the level of "humanity" certain people possess, the idea that it's okay to treat people worse if they were born elsewhere, etc., is something that can be resolved through "debate" and a 4 year-old's understanding of "compromise". <--- THAT'S SO FUCKED UP AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. So...

You've hardly given me any reason to seriously consider that I might be utterly, completely, 100% Wrong about Stalin. I can not deny there's a chance that literally everything I've heard about him is a lie, but that's not enough for me to think, "oh, this is worthy of serious research". I don't want any dictators, anymore, ever. I don't want endless wars, conflict of scales I'm unable to comprehend in a lifetime's worth of time, this notion that we're all different and therefore alone. What does reading Stalin uncritically do for any of that? If there's something there, it has to be more than just vague language about my not understanding what is good about killing your political opponents and stifling the development of art and humanitarian study. Please?

so this comment chain turned into...something. I'm not proud of it, but I'm not certain I should delete my comments either. Maybe there's some sense in my grandstanding below, but I could not tell you if that's the case. I don't want to burden cohost (the one actually good social media site) with whatever you call this. I'm still mad about having to try to think critically about stalin (which should probably still be done for some aspects of communism, but like Hyper-Hypercritically (though I don't even know where I fit beyond that it's at least socialism-ish)). I want to be educated about the things I claim I believe and do something about it, but I don't want to throw out and burn my (perhaps flailing) attempts at developing some form of compassion. It didn't feel right, to me, to just keep the chain going here.

in reply to @IkomaTanomori's post:

Honestly the useful tech was all invented already

even worse, now we're breaking things that work so that we can then re-invent them for money again

i.e. getting rid of the headphone jack to sell new worse wireless headphones

in reply to @robotmascot's post:

Specifically it needs to have a built in risk free channel by which rents are remitted to the lordly billionaires. Like the servers that the not-AI mechanical Turks welded to stochastic parrots all have to rent from Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.