Even in a compromised state, if given the choice between Firefox and Brave, I would choose Firefox 10 out of 10 times. A closed source chromium fork put out by a business that still isn't sure what its business model is and already has a fair number of "whoopsies" under its belt is a complete non-starter for me.
That is, given the choice between Firefox and Brave. For what it's worth, my current browser is Zen, and I'm quite happy with it.
Fair enough. I'd still be very hesitant to use it on account of it being a chrome fork. Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point.
It admittedly is a gut feeling, but Brave started out with a browser and some handwavy crypto magic beans and seemed like it careened from idea to idea looking for a business model, occasionally stepping on toes along the way. They have products like AI integration, a VPN and a firewall, but those aren't particularly stand-out products in a very crowded market.
As a point of comparison, Kagi started out with a product that people were willing to pay for, and grew other services from there. I feel comfortable giving them money, and I'd be willing to at least try their browser - if it ever releases for Windows.
Your points are valid. But what made me finally switch was that it is open source, that it has been out for roughly a decade now, and that Brendan Eich's opinions from 2014 are mostly based on his Catholic faith at the time (which obviously is likely to have changed/evolved now that we're a decade later).
> Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point.
They have a way better merch store than Mozilla. They should expand that.
"MERCHANDISING! Where the real money from the movie is made!"
Every single one of these scoundrels will stand up at a college graduation and exhort the virtues of public service and sacrifice for country. But somehow they all manage to get rich in the midst of their own service and sacrifice.
They shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks. When you do so, corruption is inevitable. It should be an expected price of public service that you remove yourself from most other ambitions.
I'd hope that if they were required to live off of their (rapidly depreciating) savings and income, like most Americans, they might consider some of their legislative choices differently.
> It should be an expected price of public service that you remove yourself from most other ambitions.
Countries like Singapore already figured out that if you pay public servants very well you can attract high quality people to government jobs.
If you make part of the job requirements that you sacrifice your retirement and financial well being for the good of the country you’re just targeting a type of politician you wish existed, not real people.
> I'd hope that if they were required to live off of their (rapidly depreciating) savings and income
The problem with your line of thinking is that “they” is not a fixed set of candidates. If you forced them to have “rapidly depreciating” financial states to take the job, you’d lose a lot of candidates. I know you’d like to imagine they’d be replaced by perfect utopian candidates who only have your best interests in mind, but in reality if you make people financially desperate they’re actually more likely to look for ways to commit fraud for self-benefit. Imagine the desperate lawmaker watching their family’s retirement “rapidly depreciate” who gets a visit from a lobbyist who can get their kid a sweet $200K/yr do-nothing job if they can just slip a little amendment into a law.
The populist movement to punish lawmakers is self-defeating.
Or we can recruit lawmakers how we choose juries: randomly. Every two years we randomly select 435 individuals to serve in the House and 100 random people for the Senate. We pay them well, and they pass a basic literacy test. No money in politics, no parties. You have to for a coalition to govern.
One objection could be this: but what if we hire unqualified people. The counterargument: do you think are current legislators are more or less qualified than an average person?
Another objection: but what if they don’t want to do it? Counterargument: when a juror does not want to be on a case, they are almost always dismissed from it. Doesn’t mean you get to skip jury duty, just that you don’t get to do that one.
One last one: this will disrupt those people’s lives. Counter argument: what Congress is and isn’t doing right now is disrupting everyone’s lives as are lobbyists and special interest groups.
Something similar has been done in Ireland with their assemblies. And I do think that if you cannot convince 535 randomly selected average citizens that a law should be passed, that law is probably not worth passing.
Democracy is a terrible form of government. It’s just that it is about 5x better than anything else we have invented so far. Doesn’t mean we should stop looking for a better system.
As a prosecuting attorney who selects and works to convince the "average" juror 5+ times a year, this is not a good idea. You are vastly overestimating what the average level of competence is. Most people, when given unfamiliar knowledge work to do, are so hopelessly biased and ignorant that I definitely think the average congressperson is more qualified to do that kind of work. We are spoiled by selection bias when extrapolating what "average" means in the USA.
> I definitely think the average congressperson is more qualified to do that kind of work
My sense is that people who advocate for sortition find it attractive not because they believe that the average citizen is more intelligent or better informed than the average career politician, just less corrupt.
Setting aside whether that's even true, I'm not sure whether it would be better to live in a country run by honest idiots or corrupt experts.
Speaking of "average", every political debate moderator should ask the candidates where they shop and how much milk and eggs cost. Ask them how much it is to fill up their car's gas tank. I don't necessarily think sortition is the answer, but I have more faith that the so called "hopelessly biased and ignorant average person" would address issues that affect me than I do with hopelessly biased and ignorant people like Trump, Johnson, Thune, Schumer and Jefferies, because I know they're only looking out for themselves.
So if you are wealthy enough to have house staff to do all the shopping, cooking, and driving, then you are somehow less qualified to be a member of parliament?
For reference, this is referred to as "sortition", and at least the Athenians felt that it was more democratic than elections. The randomization machines they used for picking winners (kleroterion) are quite ingenious.
In modern times, sortition sometimes shows up in some deliberative democracy proposals.
Sure and when the US was founded the majority of residents were similarly not allowed to vote because voting was restricted voting to a minority of property-owning white males over the age of 21. Democracy has evolved from its Athenian origins, presumably sortition would as well.
That was also my interpretation and why I made the point that democratic processes have evolved to account for a changing polity.
The US government could not be managed by Athenian sortition any more than it could be by Athenian direct democracy -- the citizenry is too different, the questions too complex.
However, just as the Romans evolved their original Athenian-style direct democracy into representative democracy as their empire grew and became more heterogeneous, sortition has similarly evolved into deliberative democracy.
There is no historical precedent for our democratic system. Not Romans, Greeks, or 13 colonies. Why cite them?
Nobody has ever had a system with 300 million people having almost direct voting while simultaneously having no definition of a citizen besides “born here”.
I’m skeptical. The Trump/Fetterman/RFK phenomenon is the fruit of this democracy, not an unlikely aberration.
> We elect leaders - people with skills, knowledge, and expertise.
I admire your optimism but saying it doesn't make it so.
We elect people able to convince others they should be elected. Often that means they possess the ability to convince others they have the skills, knowledge, and expertise you describe.
If you think that's the same thing as actually having skills, knowledge, and expertise, well, I have bad news for you...
Do our current elected leaders understand discounted cash flows or opportunity cost? I'm not seeing evidence our current process results in people skill, knowledge, and expertise, especially given the over representation of people from entertainment.
Yes. They just don’t talk about it because the voters don’t understand and feel insulted when they hear politicians talk about stuff they don’t understand.
Literally laughed out loud about this. You might have missed some of the things that prominent leaders with "skill, knowledge, and expertise" have been doing:
Isn’t literally a Kennedy a point against proving merit? Do you think many professors would fail a Bush, Clinton, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc? Do such bloodlines even have to apply for admittance to prestigious institutions?
It is weird that you included Zuckerberg in that list -- Mark, I presume. I'm pretty sure it was not from a famous nor super wealthy family. Although, he did attend a prestigious high school, so his parents are probably upper middle class in US parlance. And Hillary Clinton is brilliant. Look at GW Bush's kids by comparison.
Sounds very interesting, but one more counter-points I'd like to see counter-countered:
These random people will have to rely on experts a lot for knowledge they lack on any topic, because the world is complex. Now, these experts can be biased, bought, influenced etc. Or be accused of being in some sort of "Deep State" if you're into that.
But then again, this can already be the case, now I counter-countered myself.
That’s exactly it: we already have this in the form of the lobby industrial complex. Except it is possibly quite a bit worse because if you stay in Congress for a long time and form a trusting relationship with your lobbyists who by the way also pay to your reelection campaign or support you in other ways, over time you get to accept their expert opinion with less skepticism. If a lobbyist has to start over every 2 years, they can’t sink their teeth as hard into you. And I doubt many congresspeople are experts on most subjects on which they write laws. Some have economics degrees. Some are doctors, some are lawyers. Very few engineers, it seems.
If you wanted an alternative system: you could always have a professional group of law writers and a professional group of law opposers try to present arguments to a large assembly of law jurors. If they can’t get 2/3rds majority on a law, it doesn’t pass. This is better than something like direct democracy where everyone votes on an issue because you can’t get the voters’ attention on any one thing for more than a few minutes or a few hours at the most (except a small fraction for whom it is their life for a while). In this law jury setup you can properly brief them.
You could have some other body of professional governors who do things like emergency resolutions and maybe basic budget stuff but anything beyond that goes to the assembly for approval. You could create a new assembly as often as every 6 weeks and process a batch of laws at once so that you really rotate out the jurors before they can be influenced. And selection of law writers and law opposers can be something that is reviewed by this kind of assembly too, or just some large pool of professionals who are chosen at random for any given period of time and given the power to present before the assembly. A lot of options here for how to amortize bad behavior such that over the long haul it averages out to close to zero.
Assuming, arguendo, that corruption is somehow not a factor in your scenario, it still doesn't account for ignorance. Consider that jurors in jury trials have one binary decision to make based on the facts and law given to them. They don't need to decide if the law is just (in fact that's explicitly NOT what they're supposed to do). They don't need (and are not supposed) to decide if the situation is fair. That happens elsewhere by folks trained to consider these things. Jurors in jury trials literally apply the law they are given to the evidence they are presented. That's it. Even this burden is often more than a lot of folks can wrap their head around.
The legislature, however, is not there just to nod its head when they think something is a good idea and voting no when it's not. Even if we were to create a space for exactly that, all we've done is push the fallibility to those who are doing the work to write and revise law--but now they're pitching to those off the streets who don't know anything about governance! If anything, lay congresspeople would magnify, not reduce, the problems we have with our current system.
I am definitely not going to argue with almost any of what you said. My main point is that democracy as we have it now clearly has flaws and maybe exploring ways to amend it to work better isn’t a terrible idea. Again, Ireland successfully used randomly selected assemblies to decide in major legislation. Perhaps a state like California that loves doing direct referendums and as a result has referendums decided in part by how successfully the campaign around the given issue is can benefit from a longer deliberation by people who are not known ahead of time.
Currently, the Congressional staff is mostly recruited and retained by the congresspeople, and they become the experts in many situations. They can also be retained by the committees, in which case they are often more non-partisan. They do have some ability to influence the debate, but they usually do not frame it.
If we had national assemblies by sortition every 2 years, I would worry that the the tail (the current structure of Congressional support staff) would wag the dog. A better system would need to be designed to enable good decision-making.
>Or we can recruit lawmakers how we choose juries: randomly. Every two years we randomly select 435 individuals to
If anyone doesn't like that number (435), there's already a constitutional amendment to bump it up to 6000ish. It's been ratified by 12 states, so only 26 more needed. Call your state legislator today and ask why they're not ratifying it.
(In seriousness, they'd be forced to explore other solutions, possibly even regional capitols with some sort of high-tech teleconferencing. Anything that decentralizes and claws back power from DC can't be a bad thing if you ask me.)
Many people who are members of parliament are highly educated, usually in law. It sounds like a terrible idea to randomly select people. I want my MPs to be very well educated.
I am honestly curious how many Congresspeople with law degrees could pass the Bar.
But also have you see some of the laws written by them? I am not saying we need to dumb it down, but the fact that an average person who is governed by these laws cannot comprehend these laws is probably not the most desirable quality in a legal system.
Definitely prefer something like Total market, even 500 companies is too much of a bias towards one group. Especially with the S&P500 currently looking like an S&P10...
this feels like a no brainer solution, but just seems like a wonderful wishlist that won't happen, ive heard it a lot.
I am wondering why i don't hear anything like: if a church or group representing a church get involved with politics, through lobbying or any other type of means, their tax free status is revoked and they are treated like a normal entity.
it seems like a similar type of thing that in my eyes at least, is a no brainer, but is just as likely to be chopped down because of how our current system functions.
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature that isn't in session year round. Pay is $12k/year (with travel per diem). This low salary leads to an older cohort of senators, either retired or wealthy enough to work part time. This low salary completely neuters the ability of younger people to enter state politics until they've amassed enough money to survive for four years.
> Countries like Singapore already figured out that if you pay public servants very well you can attract high quality people to government jobs.
And most highly developed, democratic nations don't pay their highest gov't officials very well. Yet, they continue to attract high quality people. The only "proof" that I can offer: Look at G7 and similarly developed democratic nations (the richest per capita on Earth). If they struggled to attract the best and brightest into gov't, eventually things would decline due to economic mismanagement. Instead: They have not. Those nations have been rich for 50 years and will be rich for many more years into the future because they have high quality people in gov't making effective policy.
Countries like Singapore already figured out that if you pay public servants very well
Congressmen get paid 170K/year, get pension after only 5 years (MTG is leaving just after she becomes eligible), plus they only work like 6 months in a year, right? Not sure about healthcare and other benefits. While they can't get rich on this salary, this does seem pretty decent salary and perks, right?
This is untrue. The programme to improve public servant pay started in the 1960s because British businesses were struggling with local corruption. (The Brits didn't do it out of the kindness of their colonizer hearts!) As a result, public servant pay was increased dramatically, then indexed with inflation, to ensure that most public servant roles were middle class and above. This greatly reduced corruption. If you think that having big trials about corruption is a sign that you country has a lot of corruption, I would say just the opposite. Having those big trials is proof that your anti-corruption police force (ICAC) and the court system is working. To be clear, I know if this changing since Hongkong became a single party state in the last few years.
On a similar note, the NHL has a lot of problems with its referee program (they only recruit washed up AHL players with zero passion or experience in officiating), but one thing they seem to get right is that they pay the NHL ref's full time professional salaries up to 250k. Just to ref. With the goal that they're compensated enough to not worry about betting scandals or anything that can ruin the integrity of the game.
> Countries like Singapore already figured out that if you pay public servants very well you can attract high quality people to government jobs.
I see this argument a lot, but I think it treats people as uniform input-output machines. Singapore is successful in this regard because of much more severe and very real penalties for corruption, and because not "everyone does this". You can't bribe immoral people into behaving morally, because in the absence of morals they have no incentive not to just take your bribe and keep doing what they're doing.
A significant number of corrupt public "servants" are multi-millionaires, no amount of money will ever be enough for them.
Alternately: Self-made wealth is so frequently derived from evil that those who are born rich and come good owe penance for the sins of their forebears.
Countries like Singapore figured out that high reward / high risk (e.g. punishment) is the essence of capitalism and thus retaining talent in the public sector.
EDIT: You will notice a lot of talk about high pay. It's important to note that this is not without major punishment for financial mismanagement. You can't have one without the other, it's not just a question of giving politicians a bigger trough to put their snout in.
Singapore pays its public officials high salaries primarily to ensure the integrity and quality of its government. The official justification centers on attracting top talent who could otherwise command high incomes in the private sector, thereby establishing a "clean wage" that reduces the financial incentive for corruption. Salaries are explicitly benchmarked to the median income of the nation's highest earners.
This makes so much sense to me. If the public sector is compensated the same or slightly better than the public, then naturally we’d attract the best people to the public sector.
Personally I never considered a career in the public sector mostly because there is an expectation in my country (US) that I would be poorly compensated.
Or maybe if they do trade, their trades have to be on a month long delay. The transparency should take out any corruption on the duration and it will incentivize their investment on long term gains and allow the public to also participate and make their insider knowledge.
The current lag timed reporting requirement is a decent start, but fact of the matter is that it still allows Reps to take advantage of insider knowledge to profit and thereby basically be bribed in circuitous ways not really all that different than a mobster/teamster accidentally leaving behind a suitcase of cash after they dinner party the politician invited him to, just even more obfuscated and structured.
I would rather congressional representatives be paid more and have much stricter rules (with sufficient oversight and penalties), than what we have now. Also the "revolving door" where congress members become lobbyists when they leave is no good. Not to mention that campaign fundraising starts the day they swear in, so they become beholden to their donors. Bribes, campaign contributions, what's the difference?
Federal US politician incentives are pretty much designed for corruption.
It is instructive to ask why voters are uninterested or incapable of selecting honest politicians?
Or another way to state my point: voters are getting exactly the politicians they voted for. There is no majority-constituency that seeks a different group - because majority voters already have the ballot power to select different politicians.
Indeed, an informed electorate voting in self-beneficial ways is the only perfect answer.
As Milton Friedman said:
What is important is not the particular person who is elected President or the party he belongs to. I have often said we shall not correct the state of affairs by electing the right people; we’ve tried that. The right people before they’re elected become the wrong people after they’re elected. The important thing is to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. If it is not politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either.
maybe capital gains for politicians should be increased to like 80% and redirected entirely to public service funds lol. i'm just throwing random crap out there but haven't thought it thru at all for 2.
That means that you shouldn't vote at all, then. Good luck getting 60 Senate candidates and 218 House candidates who would agree to something like that on ballots all over the country, with a chance in hell of winning.
The idea sounds tempting at first but the founders set it up so congressmen could be voted in for decades or voted out. The real issue in my view is, why are constituents not voting the scoundrels out.
Our first two children were born at the hospital. Both were induced. Everyone was healthy, but looking back each was a miserable, expensive, condescending experience.
After those experiences, my wife then went on a journey to learn everything she could about childbirth and healthcare. The more she learned, the more she became convinced that the entire system is flawed. The pressure to get an epidural, induce (conveniently between 8-5 on a weekday), or to use a C-section is immense. While each intervension is tremendously important in high-risk and edge cases, they are utterly unnecessary in the vast majority of births. But they are used for the majority of births, anyway. Some argue they may even have some damaging effects to the mother and child, but I concede that's not the medical mainstream opinion.
When my wife became pregnant with our third child, the delivery was during the Covid lockdown. Hospitals refused visitors, demanded masks, and were even more impersonal than normal. Although I was initially skeptical, she convinced me that we should use a birth center and a midwife. The birth center was practically next door to a hospital and we talked through how to mitigate risks if something went wrong.
It was a fantastic experience in nearly every way. Our son was born at 7:45 AM and we were home by 11:00 AM. It was substantially more affordable than a hospital birth.
My wife just had our fourth child earlier this year. Once again we used a midwife but this time we had a home birth. You couldn't have paid me to accept a home birth when we were new parents. I wish I knew then what I know now.
I know it's not for everybody (and especially those dealing with high-risk scenarios), but a midwife and home birth is an option if you want to avoid the hospital racket. It's significantly less expensive, more convenient, and every bit as safe for the vast majority of births.
"My wife just had our fourth child earlier this year. Once again we used a midwife but this time we had a home birth. You couldn't have paid me to accept a home birth when we were new parents. I wish I knew then what I know now."
Good for you and the very best wishes.
We had all four of our children at home - two of them breech[1] - and avoided a big basket of unnecessary interventions and complications.
One of the biggest benefits was opting out of the tremendously disempowering culture of medicalized birth fostered by both male and female care providers.
An outsider would not be faulted for thinking that birth care was purpose-designed to disempower, discourage and disenfranchise women giving birth.
[1] Relax. A "frank breech" is considered a normal birth in most of the global north and is not medicalized as it is in the United States - nor does it need to be. (Not to be confused with dangerous conditions like a footling or kneeling presentation).
I don’t think that person is right. If you’re price sensitive and don’t just look at the default [combo] prices then Taco Bell is still elite and known for giving you cheap ways to get calories.
They always have a combo that’s cheap and rotates monthly. And like you said they have a few cheap value food like Bean and rice burrito which is also one of my staples.
Also you’re supposed to use the apps if you’re price sensitive. I work outside all day and couch surf without access to a kitchen. I never look at the actual menu of any place if there’s an app available. Apps also let you see prices between different locations.
However almost everyone I see go to any place in the real world is always buying stuff just looking at the default menu prices.
LLMs are very useful. They are just not reliable. And they can't be held accountable. Being unreliable and unaccountable makes them a poor substitute for people.
Warning, rant ahead. Not sure if it’s the wisdom of a few decades of experience or if I’m just jaded in the latter half of my career. It’s probably some of both.
My heart breaks for new grads. You’ve been dealt a raw deal by an industry that looked at you as an opportunity for financial and ideological exploitation and not a mind to guide and develop. They lowered expectations and made grander and grander promises. But the reality you face is an awful job market without the skills and maturity (which isn’t the same as knowledge) of previous generations.
Even still, that shouldn’t matter. With AI tools, new grads are better equipped to be productive and provide value early in their career ever before. LLMs have enabled productivity in areas where learning curves and complexity would have traditionally been insurmountable.
You should see companies putting the accelerator down on building and trying new things and entering new markets. But no, it’s layoffs and reductions and reorganizations. Everyone is reading from the same script.
Few in the C-suite wax philosophically anymore about how their people are the lifeblood of their companies. Instead, it’s en vogue to plot how to get rid of people. They think making aoftware is just an assembly line. They treat software professionals like bodies to throw at generic problems.
Every business plan is some sort of hand-waiving of “AI” or a strategy that treats customers like blood bags, harvesting value via dark patterns and addiction.
The result is that most software is anti-user garbage. Product teams emphasis strategies to ensure “lock-in”, not delivery of value. So many things feel broken and I struggle to make sense of how we got here.
I want to build software for people. I want to use software built for people. That used to be the recipe for success and employment opportunity. Now, employment as a software professional feels more like a game of musical chairs than an evaluation of one’s value and capability.
I think a lot of tech people feel this way. The feeling of mismatch between my values and the values of leadership is why I left the industry. I'm starting a Master's degree studying birds and it feels like such a weight off of my shoulders to not have to justify corporate decisions to myself.
Yeah, I'm employed as a research assistant as part of the Master's program currently. There are jobs in government, non-profits, and academia potentially after. I've never loved money (except for the flexibility having it gives me) so I have several hundred thousand saved up after a decade of engineering so while grad school is an 82% cut in pre-tax pay I can withdraw 1% a year from my investments and live fine. Even once I'm out of school my pay will never as good as it was in engineering but I'll be happier presumably.
I'm still figuring out exactly what the research will be but the plan is essentially data science applied to bird migration patterns (lots of statistics and modelling currently). Overall if you like birds and don't like money apparently a strong math/tech background is potentially useful for ecology research with the idea that's it's easier to teach me about birds than teach an animal science person data science and programming (though I did take an undergrad ecology class before applying to ecology programs).
People I know in academia are also having a terrible time. Grant funding is in the toilet. The focus is on providing for current staff not hiring. No one is leaving because no one has anywhere to go.
My guess is I'll end up in government or an NGO but I'm probably going to do a PhD before that so getting a real job is at least 5 years away. The previous grad students for my advisor are all employed with decent jobs so I'm not worried, especially since I have a pretty unique skill set for the field and strong stats fundamentals.
Edit: engineers are always skeptical of my career change but my friends actually in the life sciences are more confident I'll be able to figure it out.
The previous grad students came out in a different economic context. Things have changed remarkably for the sciences in just this year alone. Grad schools have actually rescinded offers because they no longer have funding for first years and faculty don’t have funding for taking on students. No one has seen anything like this before.
Seems to be kind of a running theme of the last few years, isn't it? I know some of these major upsets and changes to the way things are done have always been there in some ways, but it feels like there were never quite as many alarm bells ringing of unrelated existing systems catastrophically failing.
Everyone in my age group (early-mid 20s) is sure having a fun time right now.
I'm flexible and I'll have a wide variety of marketable skills so I'm sure I'll figure something out eventually.
I think I come across as a lot less anxious than people expect because I've just accepted these challenges as a cost I'm going to have to pay. Trying to change careers so far has already really sucked in many ways (though in more ways it's been a real joy) but I actually handle this sort of stress okay. Turns out what I handle much worse is not really believing in my job.
Moved from private to government and couldn't be happier. Look for a state position so that lunacy like the current admin can't touch you down the road.
C suites have social networks like everyone else, and their experience is tailored to engagement like everyone else’s.
They are constantly being fed FOMO and panic that due to AI the world will leave them behind.
So they desperately try to avoid that, pushing every lever they have to be part of the club without understanding what it even is. It used to be crypto, it will be something else next.
We'll keep heading towards societal collapse as long as we have all the population addicted to the feeds. If the adults are behaving this way I don’t want to think how those who were exposed from birth will turn out.
This rant is inspiring, it makes me want to find, or be, that company that is putting the accelerator down and building things instead of focusing on limiting costs and replacing people with AI.
The rot is so much deeper than just running what you want on your own machine. And how we got here is easy to explain. There was once money it letting you run what you want on your machine. Now there's money in not letting you run what you want on your machine. And so, that's what we get.
There exists no path where a publicly traded company doesn't eventually view its customers as subjects. Every business school on the planet is teaching their students strategies and tactics that squeeze their customers in pursuit of maximizing revenue. And those strategies and tactics are often at the expense of creativity, ethics, and community. Just last week people's bed didn't work because the company that makes them architected things such that they have absolute control.
Only a reasonably altruistic private company might buck the trend. But the publicly traded companies are allowed, by the government(s), to use their largesse in a predatory fashion to prevent competition. They bundle and bleed and leverage every step of the way. They not only contribute to the politicians that do their bidding, they are frequently asked to write the laws and regulations they're expected to follow. Magically, it has the effect of increasing the costs of their competition to enter the markets they dominate. And so, the odds of an altruistic private company emerging from that muck is low.
Worse still, many of the elected officials (and bureaucrats) actively own stock in the very companies they are responsible for regulating. Widespread corruption and perversion of the market is the inevitable result.
I'm trying to do a better job and redirect my money to the places that better reflect my values. It's not even a drop in the bucket, but it's a lever where I feel like I have a measure of control.
The companies that make stuff could easily be beaten in the market by a non-profit competitor. With no worries about stock market prices and dividends, a non-profit could direct all it's money into making better products.
But the problems are that 1) nobody wants to work for a non-profit and 2) greed redirects the money away from better products into the founder's (or top management's) pockets. Firefox is an example.
Regardless of capability, it's in NASA's best interests and our best interests to encourage others to try. I think we are better off if the rocket industry (and every industry) is not dominated by a single organization, even if we believe that organization is altruistic and excellent.
Well, NASA tried that originally but didn't have the budget, and in that sense it's better late than never to fund something different.
The reasoning as presented just doesn't reflect reality.
reply