Comment Brave new world. . . (Score 1) 59
Of course, this will also increase the public scrutiny of public officials and other powerful individuals, which I can only see as a good thing (as any "House of Cards" fan should be able to agree with. .
isn't compatible with 7+ billion people
I find this type of argument ignores real world trends. Per capita resource requirements in the developed world are trending downward (thanks to tech like LEDs, etc . .
"too small" is relative to your tech and our tech is increasing at an ever faster pace, thanks in no small part to the large number of participants. Malthusianism has been a horrible predictor of the future. Why would it start working now?
"How are open source projects any better"
Obviously, the difference is that you can add features yourself (or pay someone to do so), if you really need those features. This is incredibly important if you are providing a product or service that has dependencies on external tools.
However, if you are a "whiny consumer" type user who feels entitled to software (without contributing anything yourself), I agree there is little difference between closed and open source to you. Your sense of self entitlement and ability to only consume and not contribute anything means you will never be able to take responsibility for your own experience with software. Accordingly, your experience with software will always be a poor one.
Eventually, it all must end
How do we really know, until we give it a try?
Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS device
Think of how much MORE Google would have to pay if Android was not the dominate OS. . . HINT: Companies usually Open Source technologies to reduce costs, not to DIRECTLY increase revenues.
In the days since Adam Smith penned his first thoughts on economics, engineers have taken us to the moon, physicists have split the atom, doctors invented antibiotics, philosophers invented human rights, chemists invented plastics, farmers quadrupled the per-acre food yield, programmers invented the internet, and much *much* more.
Impressive, but let's see smart engineers do all of that without capitalism (like in a country like North Korea).
Seriously, though, all those things you list are easy compared to trying to predict human behavior. I think most people fail at predicting human behavior (whether they are an engineer or economist seems irrelevant. . . ) and those that succeed become crazy rich and never reveal their secret (or, if they do reveal it, it no longer applies since human behavior constantly adopts new knowledge).
To improve its environmental standing, America needs *more* dense urbanized areas like NYC, not less.
As batteries, solar, wind, microgrids, EVs, etc. . . become cheaper and cheaper, I wonder if this still holds true. As we see more and more small communities become self sufficient, the traditional argument for moving towards centralized efficiency will be harder and harder to make. Looking at how decentralized technologies have defined recent history, I would not bet my money on investments that depend on increased centralization at this point. .
assuming electricity prices remain constant.
Which is a big assumption since this technology is going to allow a large portion of the population to greatly reduce their dependence on utilities. With utilities still thinking in terms of 20 ~ 80 years when planning their capacity investments, I think it is pretty certain we will start seeing significant increases in electricity prices as huge, misguided fixed asset investments have to be allocated across a smaller and smaller population. This will just cause more people to defect. So begins the Utility Death Spiral.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion