“It’s a somewhat depressing evolutionary outcome, but it makes intuitive sense.”
No, it doesn't. Explain how unicellular animals became multicellular without cooperation. Explain how humanity went from hunter-gatherer to landing a probe on a comet without cooperation. No doubt there are exploiters (we have all kinds of infections and parasites), but evolution has given us detectors (immune systems) to combat them.
If someone claims that selfishness is a virtue, demand that they provide actual evolutionary evidence from Mother Nature who has had billions of years of experimental history to investigate their claim. It's time that we collectively responded to Ayn Rand libertarians who would rather live in their imagined apocalyptic hellscape than reality. Demand that they face explain why Mother Nature permits only limited exploitation. Life is relentlessly harsh, sure, but nowhere do I see systems that have evolved in a zero-sum universe. It all seems ever-so-slightly positive-sum, which permits a variety of cooperative strategies to flourish.
Powershell is just a heavily object-oriented scripting language that combines ideas from a number of places - there's nothing particularly new or unusual about that.
Since it's such a trivially unoriginal thing to do, then surely you can name an equivalent on unix systems? I've wanted to explain to people that it's like this, but I've never had a this that I could point to. Your example(s) would help me a lot.
When exactly was the last time Microsoft came up with a new idea that wasn't aping its competitors?
PowerShell. I've spent time on the job writing unix scripts, but I still have a hard time explaining why this script language is so much better than bash or similar alternatives. I have to rely on the explanation that doesn't really explain: pipes pass objects instead of strings. My other name for PowerShell is "the only thing Microsoft ever did right".
If all we're pursuing is optimization of current technologies, then no, we're not going to experience the "magic" of totally new concepts.
Divestiture is unsubtle. That contrast is good, since the harm done by supporting corrupt institutions is often quite subtle.
I avoid shows that I once loved just because they show up on FOX tv channel. I avoid movies at the theater if they come with the FOX studio logo. The misinformation deliberately promulgated by FOX news taints the whole institution. Doing the equivalent of "The More You Know" public service pieces does not erase the harm done by their other programming. You don't get to say harmful things and follow it immediately with "Oh, you know I'm just kidding, right?" You can't play both sides and maintain the high moral ground.
A science show does not counteract Fox News. It's really very important, so it deserves repeating.
Even if I am not personally polled by Nielsen, my participation in the culture that enhances/encourages viewing of FOX products still matters because it has a non-zero influence on the people around me. Eventually that influence does reach Nielsen as the herd slowly moves toward giving attention to any tv program. Higher Nielsen ratings translate to higher advertisement revenue for the institution. Divestiture is an effective political effort because it calls attention to this point of how seemingly unrelated things really do affect each other.
"Certain employees produce chunks of data - whether words or software code - that later pop up in other messages. The people copied most often, Cataphora concludes, are thought leaders."
- quote from the article
"Oh my god! Did you hear what Larry did? He told Mark that our blue-spotted widget is garbage and that hiding behind the good reviews that Mark paid for isn't going to keep our investors in the dark for long. Can you believe it? Do you know if Sarah or the q/a team has heard yet? Can you imagine what the boss is going to say when he gets word of this? Wow!
- email from A.N.Y. corporation
But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei