We want to encourage intellectual endeavors that are desirable to society as a whole but which otherwise face barriers. Making them monetarily favorable is an easy way to accomplish that. Similar to how not speeding is made monetarily favorable, or serving in the military is made monetarily favorable, etc. Surely you don't object to the government using monetary incentives to indirectly shape society? The historical alternatives have been rather brutal.
Right I think we all understand the idea here, its not a misunderstanding. I just think people, reasonably, don't actually see the mechanism working.
It's weird to lump ever other possible idea in one category. These are complex issues with ever changing contexts. The surface of the problem is huge! Surely with anything else we wouldn't be so tunnel visioned, we wouldn't just say: "well we simply _must_ discount everything else, so we can only be happy with what we got." It would literally sound absurd in any other context, but because we are trained to politicize thinking outside of market mechanisms, we see very smart people saying ridiculous things!
Not at all? It's reasonable to point out issues with the implementation as it currently stands (those are abundant and blindingly obvious). However it is also clear that the underlying mechanism works extremely well. A claim to the contrary is quite extraordinary.
Sometimes people do talk about alternatives. State funding and patronage are two of the most common. Both have very obvious drawbacks in terms of quantity and who gets influence over the outcome. Both also have interesting advantages that are well worth examining.
That seems to be the standard argument, "Sure, not everything is ideal but look at longevity & all the cool toys we have now thanks to [money|billionaires|fossil fuels|etc]".
Does it matter? It's their money, and they have needs and wants.
The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.
>when humanity reaches these buzzword state-of-the-art technologies, like AGI, Quantum Computing and Robotics?
It wont.
>What do you think will happen to our society?
If those were to happen, 80% of working people would be left to live in shanty towns and make do however they can, if they can.
Unless we're talking about Star Trek robotics that can do anything, the core activities like mining, farmimg, and so on would still be from the 10-20% of workers, even more underpaid because of the competition with the other 80% for those jobs.
Plus a number of craftsmen, chefs, servants, sex for hires, etc. catering to the elites.
Pretty often, honestly. My friends and i all let each other crash at our places when we're in each other's town, and somebody is in my town visiting probably 3-4 times a year, and then my brother and sister come out 1-2 times a year each. So in a busy year that's almost once a month.
So enough that I'd like to find a good solution, even if it's not super high priority. My sofabaton Bluetooth remote was hopefully the savior but its Bluetooth mode is pretty bad and makes macros unreliable.
Unlikely, Apple TV is itself a "PC", not much different.
An actual PC doesn't cost much for electricity in a year either (say $30/year headless for watching several hours a day and sleep mode the rest). Make it an ARM and it will be quite less.
>It never occurred to me that that's why all the macOS utilities cost money
All macOS utilities absolutely don't cost money. There are countless free macOS utilities in the Mac App Store, as well as open source utilities for macOS specifically too.
As if the industry needs excuses. They have enshitified all aspects of software with impunity, who will they have to answer to? The same public that accepted regression after regression in software quality?
I'd rather we don't encourage "monetarily favorable" intellectual endeavors...
reply