Absolutely.

Bad, rushed software that wires together 200 different giant libraries just to use a fraction of them and then run it in a sandboxed container with three daemons it needs for some reason doesn’t mean “8 Gb isn’t enough”, it means write tighter, better software.

This is less of a brag and more a question for the philosoraptor.

All of that is completely true and also irrelevant. The point isn’t the specific details, the point is the idea that “perpetual control” is not the default modus operandi of the structure of our system. As to the specific details of where that line is drawn, that’s something that’s up for debate. All we need as a starting point is to acknowledge that unquestioned, perpetual individual control of an entity that can create and destroy the lives of millions has at least the POTENTIAL to be a dangerous social ill, and the specific details of how we address that can come from there. If you cannot see or acknowledge that at any level, then we’re not even looking at reality from the same perspective, and we’re not starting from the same priors, so there’s no point in discussing it any further - there’s no point of agreement we’ll be able to reach.

Look, this isn’t even the standard operating procedure of society. Corporations are the ONLY situation where we seem to have decided providing the seed of creation equates to perpetual ownership.

ANYTHING else you create comes with a time limit before it takes on a life of its own beyond you.

You wrote a book? Your copyright WILL expire and it WILL be out of your control.

You invented something? That’s great. Eventually your patent expires and it becomes publicly usable.

Hell, the closest equivalent to a company? Is having a BABY. You put in a seed to create something, you do a ton of work to raise it to function. Are you going to suggest that a parent should have perpetual control over their children and the things they produce as well? And it has been established by LEGAL PRECEDENT that a corporation IS a person.

ALL of these things are accepted default procedure in our society. In NO other situation do we consider creation to be equivalent to perpetual ownership of all aspects of a thing. YOU are arguing the exception, not us.

There is a significant difference between “lose control of the company” and “not being the exclusive beneficiary of the success of the company”, and it’s a strawman argument to suggest otherwise.

Even with a 1 billion dollar cap, the vast majority of companies are not worth nearly a billion dollars, and of those that are, you would have to double that before that owner would not have a controlling interest, and while I acknowledge that the owner losing control of the company is not necessarily an intentional result of this kind of rule, by the time a company reaches a value where that would even be a threat, they have such an outsized impact on society through their operation that it is actually irresponsible for any single person or small group of people to have such control. Organizations can grow to have outsized impact on millions of lives, entire communities, or even the direction of history. What is reprehensible isn’t capping their control of such an organization - it’s allowing that control to impact the world with absolutely no check by those its operation affects. I don’t know your country of origin, but if you are American you at least pay lip service to the idea that power derives from the consent of those over whom it is wielded. I would suggest to you the radical interpretation is that that should only apply to government when extremely large companies have much, much more power to impact peoples’ daily lives.

do they start losing control of shares until they’re below that threshold?

Sounds good to me. Dole them out to employees.

I hope for everyone’s sake you’re right, but if that does come to pass it will come as a surprise to me.

I agree with your conclusion, but I don’t agree that it’s feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you’d just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I’d love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.

Okay, I can see how you got that from my post. I was a bit hyperbolic in my original post, and I apologize.

I’m not REALLY making a moral equivalence argument or saying anything about comparing the horrors of slavery to work… I’m saying getting rid of slavery was easier to enact because there was an alternative system that happened to be ultimately profitable for the rich at the same time. Yes, wars have been fought to stop abolition, but at the end of the day, after slavery was abolished, the rich found a way to stay rich almost everywhere - abolition came at very little real change to the wealth structure of society. They had a supply of labor to exploit for profit during slavery, and they had one after. The fact is that the moral and financial interests both aligned on making abolition happen - it wasn’t caused by pure strength of willpower. And yes, the system we have now is MUCH MUCH better than true slavery, but it’s still a stretch to use the current system as a beacon of hope.

On climate change the moral and financial interests are NOT aligned in a clear way. There are always still going to be financial incentives to screw the climate for extra money. By comparison, if slavery were somehow legal again TODAY, it’s not clear it would be profitable for anybody to actually do it. That difference will make climate goals harder to enact.

Not to be defeatist, but…

We didn’t abolish slavery… we just replaced it with wage slavery. Sure, the workers are free to leave - and try to survive with no other job opportunities and no money. In fact, for the employers, this is actually preferable to real slavery, because there are lower upfront costs for your slaves, they don’t try to run away or rebel, you don’t have to pay for their healthcare or long term care, and in many places government tax dollars will subsidize their living expenses. Employers have it WAY better with wage slaves than real slaves.

Child labour is still alive and well in many countries, and even there the ball is rolling on rolling THAT back in the US at least.

I admire your positivity, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Untrue. I grew up on the Super Mario Brothers Super Show.

There is no way anybody would shut him down as long as he’s not violating the conditions imposed by the judgement. As long as he is working, every dime he’s making is going to pay his victims. It wouldn’t make ANY sense whatsoever to shut him down.

Possibly. But it’s also pretty common in many instances of technology adoption that as more users come, the quality gets worse, and while open source doesn’t have to worry about a shareholder-driven profit motive driving it, it’s still easy to wind up with a muddled focus. I wouldn’t expect that Linux and all of the associated software projects that make the functional desktop are going to be an exception overall. If you’re an open source developer working on a project now, basically any user is some form of power user, and it’s easier to find consensus of what to prioritize on a project not only because Linux users tend to be better about understanding how their software works and are actually helpful in further development, they’re also likely to direct development towards features that make software more open, compatible, and useful.

Now fast forward to a future where Linux is the majority desktop OS, those power users are maybe 5% of the software’s user base, and every major project’s forum is inundated with thousands of users screaming about how hard the software is to use and, when bug reports and feature requests are actually coherent, they mostly boil down to demands for simpler, easier to understand UIs. I can easily imagine the noise alone could lead to an exodus of frustrated developers.

Some things are better for NOT trying to be the answer for everyone.

I can see the point in theory, but when this would’ve been really helpful, my experience is 80% of the time the video maker’s hand is obscuring the important stuff, and the video is often out of focus or frame anyway, and a red circle on a photo as an alternative will usually do just fine. The nice thing about still photos is, the photographer REALLY has to think about each shot, and if it is showing the important thing they want to reveal in that shot. If it isn’t, they’re forced to either retake it or take extra photos to get the point across.

With a video, the videographer is distracted by talking and doing a thing at the same time, and they just think “Yeah, it’s video. I got it.” and they often don’t even rewatch the footage.

Absolutely. You usually don’t need a whole step-by-step 40 minute walkthrough anyway. You need help with a SPECIFIC step and it’s MUCH easier to scroll through a page or CTRL+F the part you need than try to scroll around a freaking youtube video that you can’t search unless you run it through a text transcriber. Not to mention the bandwidth and storage waste, the annoying, unclear voices, the sponsor ads…

I swear people learning most things from youtube videos either have COMPLETELY different brain wiring, or are just straight up insane.

Well, I guess that’s not fair… the might ALSO be lying about learning. That’s the hustle culture, I guess. Learning things is less important than the APPEARANCE of learning things.

It’s easy to say that when you’re an outside party who doesn’t understand or care about the underlying issues. Not to minimize the issue with the metaphor, but have you ever fought with a sibling or someone else at school and your disinterested parent our authority figure told you to both to stop without addressing any of either of your underlying problems? How well did it work?

Pretending that “just stop it” deals with the realities of a complex history of real grievances and legitimate causes for anger and retribution on both sides is the most magical of magical thinking, and it doesn’t help that third party negotiators usually start their peace proceedings by learning NOTHING about the history of distrust and anger building up over decades, picking a side to ride or die with, and then declaring the issue fixed as soon as someone signs an agreement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhbvnIEMxSA

But hey, at least they’re compatible with Windows 11, right?

/s

Maybe the Saudi investors who own him have finally called in the favor and told him it’s time to put an end to the EV transition…

That dog wouldn’t even ask. It is CLEARLY using OSX.