Consumers are like water seeking the path of least resistance. It takes lots of engineers to reduce the resistance. Someone pays these engineers. That money comes from the users. Users don't like to actually pay for things if there is a free alternative, so users pay indirectly with their information.
A Facebook clone wouldn't pull many users due to network effects. I think decentralization is opposed to network effects in this case.
The article mentions the somewhat current but certainly future problem of decisions being made by algorithms which "casually crush" users without any human being able to determine why it happened (and in many cases unable to fix it).
They could fix this problem by hiring more people and giving them more power to correct the system, but it will probably never be a big enough problem to affect the bottom line.
Increasing awareness of the problem and technical skill among users would probably cause users to become more autonomous and less like water. This is a long term possibility, but it strikes me as an unappealing fight. It’s like trying to convince an entire generation to take bitter medicine without any parents to assist.
I’ll assume users won’t be getting better. Perhaps we just need to focus on building better ways to protect ourselves from the almighty algorithm, so there are options when the system fails. We can protect our data from online shopping sites by having nodes that process purchases for a large number of users and perhaps ship to a network of local points where pickup is by some type of PKI based system. Social networks seem like a lost cause. A return to blogs with lots of links rather than a replacement network may be the answer.
Ha! I can assure you that by the time Urbit is ready to compete with Facebook, it'll be as easy to sign up for as Facebook. That's a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. It ain't happening any time soon, neither.
Metcalfe's law is an impossible problem in theory, but not necessarily in practice.
For instance, one way for a new system to get around Metcalfe's law is to steal the network effect of the existing network. This is the same principle as in Tantek Celik's POSSE (publish on self, syndicate elsewhere) design, but a little more general.
Concretely, it's very hard to compete with Facebook, but relatively easy to let a user control their own Facebook account from their own general-purpose computer. Especially if you can get them to bring their own API key ("BYOK").
From controlling your own data in Facebook, you may move to mirroring it; from one-way mirroring, to two-way sync; from two-way sync, to discarding the silo. So it's not even necessary to replace Facebook in one impossible step; you can build a stepladder for users to migrate off gradually.
Of course, that this is possible doesn't make it easy!
But, it is possible to make distributed systems that are interopable. In that case, the standard, not a system itself is what gains the network effect.
I like the way Richard Hamming stated a similar sentiment:
" I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn't. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not."
You identified a separate problem from the parent post rather than refuting it.
#1: Big corporations can push small guys out of business by tying up their products in patent disputes.
#2: Patent trolls can bleed corporations big and small while producing nothing of value.
These problems are specific to the patent industry.
Are there similar problems in other areas of the law? If so, we may be able to identify and try to solve the larger problem. If not, we just need to focus on patent reform which is an easier problem.
#1 is a problem in any area of the law with complex and/or lengthy litigation, the financial ability to run out the clock and outlast (possibly literally) and/or out-lawyer the other party is an effective and powerful one throughout.
Your comment made me think about how Waze could direct many people on slightly sub-optimal routes to clear the main routes for some class of premium users.
I wanted it originally because Amazon didn't have a Kindle app for Linux. I could read in browser, but I thought this would be the easiest way to download and read.
I think the organic material idea is good, but not at a distant collection point. If you throw organic material away --> transport to site --> sort it --> delay --> transport to stores --> transport back to garden
I think you lose the energy battle.
If you created local dump sites where trash could be sorted and composted, it could work. You also cut down on the amount (and as a result the energy) of trash that gets thrown in the dump. Obvious obstacles are the inability to get people to use the local sites, the initial costs / availability of land, and the resistance to dumps in neighborhoods.
A potential 2nd level effect would be the long term state of trash dumps. At least some dumps are eventually reclaimed. Would reducing or eliminating the organic content prevent that from happening?
It takes a lot of cultural engineering to get people to be that diligent. I'm from an ultra liberal college town and I'll never forget going away to college and spending 15 minutes looking for the compost bin in my freshman dorm. No dice.
Then you have places like Florida, where nobody recycles. Trash is trash. Throw it away and take it to the curb. Even the most elegant and energy-efficient local dump system would go nowhere with a culture that would rather throw away and forget about it, and this is coming from a state that is most vulnerable to climate change yet is full of beach house-owning republicans who think climate change is a hoax.
Very soon here they're not going to accept garbage with compostable material in it. It'll be interesting how big of a push back that gets, but there is definitely ways to make people feel a bit of pain for living a throwaway culture.
As a Floridian, I'm curious how it works elsewhere. In what ways are systems in other places better? I live in Seminole County and we have recycling bins. It sounds like you think it should go further.
It varies by far more then on a state to state basis. I also grew up in Florida, and we had 2 bins of recycling, one for plastic/metal, one for paper. Moved to NC, we had just 1 can for all recycling, and then they decided that the recycling wasn't worth it, and stopped picking it up. Now everything goes in the trash, which is rather sad.
Some people that grew up being told that they were smart tend to think of themselves as that kind of master polymath type and end up ignoring that detail.
I consider a progressive tax code to be justified by supporting the system which permits large gains.
There is also an argument about holding onto large amounts of wealth being difficult without expending some of your resources to protect it. If nothing else, taxes spread the burden of the security apparatus around. If you have more to lose, you pay more to protect it.
That's fair, and pretty earning-method-agnostic. Although resting strictly on that would seem to lack a justification for most tax-funded social welfare programs.
I trust the average person to give safe haircuts 100/100 times.
If the hairdresser is noticeably disturbed or drugged, I'll be moving on. I can leave at any point in the process if I feel I am in danger.
Out of curiosity, I searched for haircut related deaths and they were all customers killing the hairdresser because they were upset about how they looked. Based on the actual danger, I would suggest licensing someone to receive a haircut may be the more effective method of increasing haircut safety.
You're basically arguing that incidents don't occur when pretty much everyone practicing professionally is licensed. Sounds like the desired end state to me.
I've never heard about any hairdresser related incidents in my third-world homeland either. The professional licensing leads to the same end state as a bear-repelling rock.
I've never heard of an actual bear attack either. But I still know that interacting with wild bears is a potentially dangerous situation. And I will certainly want that bear-repelling rock if there's a bear looking at me with murderous intent.
My day job is pretty all consuming. My plan is to make enough money in the first half of my career that I could afford to teach (either high school or adjunct in college) while still living the lifestyle I'm happy with.
I've been participating in Hour of Code stuff, and still try to find ways to volunteer when possible.
A Facebook clone wouldn't pull many users due to network effects. I think decentralization is opposed to network effects in this case.
The article mentions the somewhat current but certainly future problem of decisions being made by algorithms which "casually crush" users without any human being able to determine why it happened (and in many cases unable to fix it).
They could fix this problem by hiring more people and giving them more power to correct the system, but it will probably never be a big enough problem to affect the bottom line.
Increasing awareness of the problem and technical skill among users would probably cause users to become more autonomous and less like water. This is a long term possibility, but it strikes me as an unappealing fight. It’s like trying to convince an entire generation to take bitter medicine without any parents to assist. I’ll assume users won’t be getting better. Perhaps we just need to focus on building better ways to protect ourselves from the almighty algorithm, so there are options when the system fails. We can protect our data from online shopping sites by having nodes that process purchases for a large number of users and perhaps ship to a network of local points where pickup is by some type of PKI based system. Social networks seem like a lost cause. A return to blogs with lots of links rather than a replacement network may be the answer.