• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 3rd, 2024

help-circle
  • It’s as if Toyota and Samsung are adjectives just as the word “dangerous” and “mortal” can be used as an adjective.

    The image of asian women in their traditional clothing hints of them gossiping. They are probably talking about some event and one of them comment “Toyota, Samsung, even” to remark the positive/negative significance of the event.



  • You’re saying there’s plenty of homes as if they are natural resources to be distributed. They aren’t. Someone who spends money to build the homes and covers the costs necessary to even start building the homes need to get their return.

    Even if they are natural resources to be distributed and enough houses already exists, what are you proposing? Just give the homes away?

    You’re paying a house and now its worth is more than double the amount you paid 17 years. Sorry, you’re an idiot if you think there’s a “correct” price of anything. That’s the point of prices in market economy. They rise and fall depends on countless economic circumstances. I don’t think your old house lives in a vacuum not affected by the economic changes surrounding your town/city or neighborhood.

    If you’re thinking about housing price cap, let’s even stop this discussion because clearly you are not familiar about macroeconomic causes and effects.




  • Ideal reality: Google doesn’t buy advantage from browsers to make their search engine the default. This way, other search engines can compete at the same level, right?

    Reality: browser developers will have their income cut down because now their main source of income is dead (see recent news on Mozilla).

    Usually these kinds of policies that may or may not come up out of goodwill results in unintended consequences that negatively affect others.

    The winner here are the politicians.


  • I’m with you on this.

    In this thread are people who screams monopoly, thinking they know what it means. One comment said Google is a monopoly, followed by “along with <other giant companies>”

    They’re giants because they’re successful and good at what they do. They’re successful because people are benefiting and find values from the products they use. The moment these giants stops “exploiting” people will be when they stop bringing values to society.

    They’ve confused economic reality with their own ideal reality.














  • But open-source doesn’t always mean working for free, nor does it mean people do it for purely ethical (or socialist?) reason.

    There are lots of reason why open-source is attractive after discounting ethics and money. I imagine being credited for being a major contributor to a popular open-source project would mean better job opportunity in the competitive tech job market. The gig doesn’t directly offer you money, but it does gravitate the right company that has the money to fund your work they find very valuable. In a sense, this isn’t that far from how capitalism work – credits are due to the people who brings most value to the society, whether the source of the software are open to all or not.

    This is of course a very superficial statement to make, but I remember Eric Raymond wrote about this in more a detailed (and more convincing!) manner in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.