Next, Minecraft by the hour!
But that means it's no longer a market as we understand it, and no longer capitalism as it was envisioned.
When the money seeking other fortune is on a scale where it can't behave like micro-economics, it's time to observe the behaviors and ask how the system's working. Think of it as scalability issues. This has to be designed for. That's what the Fifth Silicon Valley might do, if they can be a little 'meta' about it.
We've already got many countries in the world where the capitalization of the country's private banks completely dwarfs the GDP of the actual country. When the market capitalization of companies expand to completely dwarf the GDP of all countries, the companies are now the world's government for good or ill. At that point (hopefully before that point!) you start asking what the purpose of the system is, what its dependencies are.
If market capitalization is the only thing, does it still exist in the absence of humans? If it requires humans to matter (it might not, you can have automated systems weighing the values of these things), what kind of humans does it require?
Would you say that it's a keen interest to replace systems based on human intervention, with systems based on algorithm and automation?
This can go two ways, it seems. On the one hand you can have automated systems competing to supplant entire industries while also maximizing their valuation as corporate entities: which means, taking all the money and keeping it, while putting entire industries out of work. For instance, transportation of goods. Truckers are a significant industry for employment and for the many subsystems that support them, but if you automate the whole thing with truck-sized robots (or national/global hypersonic cargo capsule networks) you can compel entire countries to turn to the automated solution by relying on its native efficiencies.
This quickly heads toward total collapse of society, as you've got very efficient goods distribution but only a few hundred kazillionaires who don't really need to buy many goods.
On the other hand, you can use the automation and efficiency gains to produce a world of leisure, and then deal with the problems of that as they arise. You have to sacrifice the score-keeping factor of capital, which also means the process of corporate valuation has to be re-thought: if nobody gets to win the grand prize that whole game changes. But, if feeding a human for a day (all agriculture, storage, foodmaking, transportation) used to cost $20 and with everything automated it costs $0.20, the nature of society changes radically. If letting a human ride any imaginable roller coaster requires the maintenance of expensive theme parks at $200 a day, but you can deliver exactly the same experience in VR for $0.002, reality starts to look like a mighty lame deal.
What I'm seeing is a keen interest to corner every possible market by automating it and starving it until it dies, in order to persuade Wall Street that you're a unicorn. This seems not quite ecologically sound, systemically, though I can't fault the accuracy of the perception. YES that's how the world works. We might want to have a look at all that. All of these systems, right down to markets and capitalism, are only human inventions
You're quite sure that turning the lights off is still up to you? An electric circuit has switches at both ends
I suspect you're being sarcastic but you might as well be sincere for all the difference it makes. It's the system of continually ramping up the jackpots and pay-outs that is failing. It might be a natural consequence of market capitalism where people cannot fully inform themselves about all things.
In fact, with regard to public valuation, it's impossible for people to accurately inform themselves about this because it's purely a feedback loop of what other people think, making outright lying a winning strategy (especially when combined with bailing out before the thing crashes, like Enron did).
When you couple that with a culture that mandates socializing the losses from these games, to reward the wealthy people willing to play them and encourage them to play more and harder, truthfulness becomes completely unworkable and is at a devastating disadvantage. Basically you can't do that, it's a guarantee of tanking your valuation. Even if a person believes you, they're likely to conclude that other dumb investors will be tricked into acting against you, and therefore game theory says you've already lost.
So, literally, we do need to look at rewarding failures and low achievers simply in order to keep the wheels turning and the lights on at all. Making conscious decisions to reward the big winners inevitably means rewarding only the biggest liars, plus they're typically making a cash grab and running rather than building industries for the betterment of all.
Silicon Valley doesn't EMPLOY. The highest aspiration is to have a massive server farm minded by the CEO and one hapless sysadmin, replacing worldwide industries with millions of employees. You're right: it is over and people are gradually figuring that out. Whatever does end up replacing the system won't look like Silicon Valley. It's sort of a cancerous growth, diverting the resources of market capitalism into a feedback loop.
Perhaps it's because you are looking to become rich beyond the dreams of avarice selling people an address book, to-do lists and email mass marketing, using a splashy website with big excited-looking people from stock photography. I see that
By using the Site and Application, you agree to comply with and be legally bound by the terms and conditions of these Terms of Service ("Terms"), whether or not you become a registered user of the Services.
and further that
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT, BY ACCESSING OR USING THE SITE, APPLICATION OR SERVICES OR BY DOWNLOADING OR POSTING ANY CONTENT FROM OR ON THE SITE, VIA THE APPLICATION OR THROUGH THE SERVICES, OR BY PARTICIPATING IN THE REFERRAL PROGRAM, YOU ARE INDICATING THAT YOU HAVE READ, AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH THE SITE AND APPLICATION. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ACCESS OR USE THE SITE, APPLICATION, SERVICES, OR COLLECTIVE CONTENT OR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REFERRAL PROGRAM.
I'm looking for content-acquiring behaviors but mostly what I'm seeing is a pattern where your company connects a service with a customer and is then paid instead of paying the service provider: plus if there are disputes, the service provider can skip arbitration or legal process and make the customer pay, not them for the damages, but pay your company instead. I guess that might be a hook for service providers, especially if they intend to file fraudulent damage reports. I'm not sure what you do about things like chargebacks: in my business I've found I'm relatively helpless against the things as credit card companies will do as they please.
Oh wait, I found the boilerplate:
you hereby grant to Bizlifter a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, view, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content on, through, or by means of the Site, Application and Services.
Transferable, huh? Sublicense, adapt?
Me, I just code DSP plugins for people. I don't advertise and my approach is rather the opposite of yours: far from jockeying into position for an IPO, I think mostly in terms of cash flow and living frugally so I can continue while living up to my principles. I don't need to recruit anybody and in fact it's sort of useful for me to fly under the radar: I've even been shouted out as a 'great small plugin developer' by a Massive Corporate Industry Leader (who disguises himself as another indie, but he's definitely playing your game and not mine) because I'm unthreatening, too small to be a serious rival in IPO World.
I figure if you have an Evil Hollywood CEO archetype, it's for a reason. And if there's negative GDP this quarter, it's because there are too many of you people doing what you do. You are NOT advancing human civilization. And to the extent that you're trying to paint your Bizlifter business as something Facebook/LinkedIn etc. aren't already doing, you're lying. What you're proposing is not only already happening, it may not be a great thing to be happening.
In that light, the fact that the lie of Silicon Valley is failing, is a good thing.
I do understand the defensive nature of all that legalese: it's actually dangerous for me to mouth off against you because I'm somewhat vulnerable against incurring the wrath of some internet jerkwad who'll botnet me to death or sink me with massive fraudulent sales and chargebacks. That's the internet for you. That's Silicon Valley for you. The idea is to be not only the biggest jerk on the block, but so aggressive that other sociopaths can't damage you. It doesn't leave a lot of room for little Vermont craftsmen hacker types such as myself (original context for hacker, not 'script kiddy tyrant of all destruction').
This is the reason I'd want to demonize that 1%. Firstly, you're not in it, you just want to be and you're acting like them to fit in. Secondly, they're not advancing human civilization, they're impeding it. I'm afraid you've got things sort of backwards.
Well, not to defend Microsoft, but this behavior is probably the most effective way to get the kinds of people who need to be kicked off of IE to actually be kicked off of IE. You know, the users who probably wouldn't even notice that Edge isn't IE in the first place.
The rest of us can take care of ourselves.
Out of all the stupid, evil or self-centered things Microsoft does, this one's frankly pretty low on my list.
I've been living with Windows 8 because I can work around most of the stupidities, but when I bought my wife a new laptop with 8, she hated it so much she traded it to one of the kids for their Windows 7 machine.
If I could ask for one thing in Windows 10, it would be the ability to make the desktop look like Windows 2000. That's the last version of Windows I thought actually looked good (although 7 wasn't bad). But with this stupid cult of "flat" you can't even do that any more. That was one of Microsoft's stupider and more arrogant moves in the UI field, because you could easily write a book out of all the many reasons why the "flat" look is inferior. The flat look is like reverting back to Windows 2, although at least with Windows 2, the color palette was so small stuff didn't all run together.
Yep. I can't remember the last time I chose to use Internet Explorer.
Well, you need something to download a browser on a clean install of Windows. Is it possible to do that with PowerShell?
So supposably, for all intensive purposes, he meant "case in point", right?
Oh come on.
The sad thing is, people will assume by this that people can't hear a difference between, say, speakers or playback devices. Way to just idiocrafy the world a tiny bit more, guys
Personally I rather liked the 8.1 way, which was kinda similar to how Android does things if you haven't set a preference yet - applications could cause a dialog to appear that showed them the available applications to do X and set one of them as the default.
I'd like Microsoft to change it back to that. Who knows, if we put enough pressure on them, rather than demand they stop beating their wives, they might do it.
Here's to hoping that one day you pass into adulthood.