Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vladgur's commentslogin

How does one not engage with the corporate product at all?

Im typing a comment on a website of a corporation whose goal is to grow companies into corporations, via a computer manufactured by a corporation on a keyboard produced by a corporation, staring at a screen produced by a corporation, while connecting to an internet service offered by a corporation. Never mind that im also employed by a corporation, dressed by a corporation, drive a car manufactured by a corporation that takes fuel from a corporate gas station that is extracted and proccessed by a corporation.

What is the alternative exactly


It's basically impossible to not engage with any corporate products at all. It's trivially-easy to not engage with specific corporate products. I don't engage with Twitter, because I won't sign up and that makes it useless to me. I'm not missing out on anything I care about.

Just one example: Facebook is mandatory for school/university in large parts of Asia. You cannot trivially block them. They should be considered an utility.

How did facebook make its way into education like this? Can you explain to an outsider?

> How does one not engage with the corporate product at all?

By not using it. Which is exactly why I don't use X or Facebook, and minimize my use of Google (I use DuckDuckGo for search, and as Maps continues to suck more I use it less).


On some level there is local/small businesses. They are less efficient and hence you usually have to pay more for less, but it avoids the a lot of the "power structure" that people have strong distaste for.

On a deeper level there is none. Overwhelmingly peoples complaint is that they need to do something to get something, which is just how life is, a shared annoyance that is just a fact of reality.


> they need to do something to get something, which is just how life is

FLOSS invalidates that statement.

Many people are happy to contribute to something greater than themselves. They also happily acknowledge they're standing on the shoulders of giants.


I'm not totally dismissive of FLOSS, but it's kind of a unique situation so you can't really extrapolate broad generalities about society from it.

Software basically has zero marginal cost, and is pretty unique in that regard. If baking 1 loaf of bread was identical to baking 10,000,000 loafs, we would have solved hunger centuries ago...

There also is the fact that a large amount of FLOSS is an exercise in resume building (FLOSS contributions is SWE resume building 101), and one rung lower, an exercise in ego building ("my design runs on millions of computers daily" is definitely something a human would value). So I wouldn't call it completely selfless (we are now also at the boundary of the philosophy of "selfless acts").

But in short, there is a reason software is pretty much the only field with a vibrant "free/open source" scene. It falls off a cliff once more than pressing keys on a keyboard a few hours a week/month is involved.


> There also is the fact that a large amount of FLOSS is an exercise in resume building (FLOSS contributions is SWE resume building 101)

Not all of it. Plus, we could say the same thing about the typical worker at the average modern company. Google's product graveyard is a popular example of this. Resume padding, job hopping and ladder climbing are the norm now. In that respect, I can see why you're so pessimistic about the average human.

Much of the dedication often found in modern FLOSS is reminiscent of how companies used to operate: valued employees actually believed in the shared mission they were all striving for, and they took pride in their work as a result.


> valued employees actually believed in the shared mission they were all striving for, and they took pride in their work as a result.

And then it turned out that all that was a long con by the companies, who started reneging on all their promises of lifetime employment, good benefits, and retirement pensions as soon as the costs of those things began to exceed the profits available to them by using those promises to attract employees.


The key thing to address is the near zero marginal cost part.

If the philosophy extended beyond a binary blob, we would have a whole parallel economy of free tangible goods, from workers using their expertise on their own time. But this basically doesn't exist because real costs are involved.


This thread started with me citing a counterexample to your wide sweeping attempt to lump self-interested corporations in with humans who tend to be generous under many circumstances. I've made my point, so I'm done here.

What about books or art or movies?

The electronic version of all those is also near zero marginal cost.


>What is the alternative exactly

There's not supposed to be an alternative.

To fully function within the system you need to be a corporation your dang self.

That doesn't mean you have to be a capital corporation, you can go forward without any of Other Peoples' Money and therefore not be an actual capitalist yourself. Even if you make more money per invested dollar that alone does not make you a capitalist, regardless of how much true capitalists can admire the returns. Without capital you would be merely an entrepreneur, sometimes that's a better choice, sometimes not.

Beyond that you still need to function in a capitalist market either way, no matter what because that's what dominates.

Which could be overwhelming too, and the kind of thing that would make a promising alternative seem very attractive also :\

The system is so totally dominated that you can't enumerate anything that is not . . . corporate-controlled.


You want to read what service XYZ offers, but you dont want to do it within the constraints of service XYZ.

If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.

The market would dictate that if X content consumers found it too inconvenient to consume from X and that would result in a significant drop in demand, the X content producers would stop producing their content on X.

I dont like many things about X -- random ads, bookmark folders being a paid feature, enshittification of the algorithm if you god forbid linger over some controversial video or content.

But i keep coming back to it because its the best way to follow the minds of brilliant techies. The basic sign up flow that i did years ago was basically a no-op.

I suspect that for most people, creating an account is basically a few button clicks (thanks OAuth) and they dont mind creating an account.


Twitter promised an open publishing platform with extensive API access. They're the ones who broke the (social) contract, not us.

Well if you're willing to accept that the extensive API access comes at a price, they at least somewhat fulfilled that promise.

It's just a different kind of gate, though.


> If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.

I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.


> you dont have to consume its content

That's the issue though, it's not Twitter's "content" and I'm not trying to "consume" it. I want to be able to read and see what others including public official and primary sources for ongoing events have to say. That they are on twitter is coincidental and generally only because Twitter has captured the "public square". That doesn't make what's posted on there theirs anymore than the postal service owns the letters you send.


Last time I tried creating a Twitter account, I couldn't even complete the sign-up flow before getting automatically banned pending giving them my phone number. After that, I went to like and follow things. My account was then banned again for suspicious activity.

They want to consume XYZ, written by A,B,C and posted on twitter.

Do A,B,C agree with the changes to loginwall their content ex-post-facto?


Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts. Most brands cannot ignore such a vast network effects and have made the decision to continue despite the changes.

> Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts

I'm not so sure of your claim that one implies the other.

I bet if you just asked them, they'd prefer for the loginwall to be undone.


> I suspect that for most people

Most people do not use X.

X usage is down year over year.

The smartest people I know don't post there anymore.


This is where freedom of choice is great. You can follow the people you want on platforms of your preference.

The smartest people i know, i mostly know because of their X presence.


I won't read anything on twitter as it currently stands, because the product sucks. The "fixed" functionality provided by xCancel is what makes it worth it for me to read. So, if you want me as a customer, you need to provide similar functionality.

Not all customers are as particular as I am, therefore a shitty product continues to thrive, and I can go do other things.


Wow, апельсин - apelsin(Russian) makes total sense now

You dont need a van. You just need to be comfortable at being uncomfortable.

Yes, tickets are expensive. Yes you need to bring survival stuff like water and food. Yes you will be underslept most likely. But it will be worth it.


So what is a good coding model to run on a 128gb m5 max MacBook nowadays


You are mistaking Democratic Socialism (of DSA fame) for Social Democracy practiced by Nordic countries.

Different beasts as I explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49404166


Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are the same thing


Really?

So tell me how Social Democrat parties of Denmark or Sweden views on capitalism same thing as DSA views on it stated in DSA sites I linked elsewhere?

Do these social democrats also want to replace capitalism?


nobody wants to replace capitalism, you're being absurd


I’m observing a pattern - you don’t like to answer questions, provide evidence or context.

Youre statements peak at a single sentence with minimal signal. You’re not interested in conversations or debates


You make outrageously wrong claims with no intention of debate, I'm returning your profound deference in kind.

Skimming through your comments, your only goal is to demonize DSA because they go against your views with respect to Israel.

It doesn't matter to you if what you're saying is true or not, you are not looking for a debate.


I reference direct statements by DSA made on their own websites that they aim to

* replace capitalism [0]

* own means of production [0]

I state the fact that Scandinavian/Nordic countries are Social Democracies (embracing capitalism) and Not Democratic Socialist countries.

You state that Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the same.

I ask you "tell me how Social Democrat parties of Denmark or Sweden views on capitalism same thing as DSA view" [1]

And your response is "nobody wants to replace capitalism, you're being absurd reply" inspite of official DSA statements that i linked to in [0]

My 2 points stand:

* DSA is pretty clear about its desires to replace capitalism [0] and own means of production [0]

* Nordic countries are Social Democracies. THey embrace capitalism, not aim to replace it (as its stated on DSA's own site). Your statement is factually wrong, unless you can find it in your heart to prove me wrong.

I dont know why you felt that bringing Israel discussion about clear socialist goals of DSA will help your argument whatever that is, but try to keep focus about systematic issues with DSA, not geo-political.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49404545

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49405182


Scandinavian countries you are referring to are practicing Social Democracy, they are not Democratic Socialist states.

In other words, Social Democrat != Democratic Socialist

Scandinavian model relies on competitive private enterprise to create wealth, combined with strong labor union collective bargaining, universal public services, and high consumption/income taxes that apply broadly across society.

DSA seeks to move past or dismantle the capitalist economic system, advocating for social, public, or worker ownership of the means of production.[1]

[1] https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism...


No they do not and it doesn't say that anywhere in the linked website.

Why are you lieing?

From what i can read they want the same scandinavian model with strong labor unions, universal public services and so on.


"We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation."

From the linked website. Now, that's not quite "the means of production", explicitly stated. It's just "the key economic drivers", so most of the means of production.

Maybe you ought to be a little less quick to accuse others of lying.


Those still sound like Scandinavia? Energy Production - Vattenfall in Sweden, the Norway oil fund. Transportation? Public transport is mostly publicly owned (trains go back and forth with failed privatization attempts), the road network is wholly state-owned (unlike e.g. Japan where the whole highway network is privatized and tolled)


The largest energy producer in Finland is state-owned and most cities own their own energy production. What’s the big deal?


So what's wrong with that phrase?

Norway collectively owns its 'key economic drivers'.

Is that a bad thing?, they're still capitalistic, just with better respect for its people.

You probably collectively own things via the stock market too.


That doesn’t sound like Hawaii

This does

“ A Solar Boom So Successful, It's Been Halted Photovoltaics proved so successful in Hawaii that the local utility, HECO, has instituted policies to block further expansion”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-s...

As of today Hawai’i rates are at $0.40+ per kWh


Did they criminalize off-grid installations? Some places did.


THIS.

I don't live in Hawaii anymore, but when I last did and HELCO was still allowing homeowners to participate their home solar with a grid tie they had the following limitations: no matter what your balance of power production to consumption differential was, there was no discount for a base 'connection fee' - essentially the lease of the meter.

They would sell each household kWh at full price, and 'purchases' daytime production at a wholesale rate derived from a mainland commercial grid interconnect rate, the difference was about one order of magnitude, and their meter had the ability to cap output from the panels, such that no matter what the purchase price of excess power would never exceed the consumed power price, and every month there was at least $80ish in connection fee.

This kept most of my neighbors from either, a) considering solar for the household, or b) deciding to stay disconnected from the grid when the house finished installation.

My friends with new houses being built mauka (up-country) also faced a Many-KiloUSD per pole cost to run lines along the road to new housing areas, and if even you could get everyone on a road to pitch in for a new run it often was more economical for everyone to just DIY their own selection of solar, wind, generator, batteries and it still was less expensive than just running the lines, even before accounting for kWh costs.

Even in towns down closer to the coast, it still made more economic sense to use wind+solar and a batteries with a backup generator than to pay for HELCO's power... which also came in with such erratic voltage and irregular wave profiles that it routinely toasted anything sensitive, from refrigerators, televisions, washing machines, you name it... which careful reading of the manufacturer warranties shows that for most main brands they specifically exclude Hawaii from any guarantee of service or replacement.

Now, HECO services a different island than where I lived, and the situation is widely variable in each of the islands, with completely different rules and operating practices. So that's not to say my observations have any validity outside of Big Island, and some limited observation from friends' ohana in Maui.

When we lived in town, it was necessary to put UPS inline for everything more complicated than a toaster oven, and when we moved way up mauka to our little goat farm, the answer was solar and at first golf cart batteries, then a whole stack of recycled/reconditioned submarine iron core 1.2v cells and some very heavy duty cycle inverters; combined with extremely conservative electricity consumption: about 10~15 kWh per week.

One of the benefits of using all LED red lighting at night, and living at elevation to never need A/C, plus methane digester powered by goat waste for refrigeration and mostly using a rocket stove for cooking with guava wood. and no TV, no tower PC, hand crank wringer for laundry like most mainland peoples great-grandparents and line dry on the patio where the rain cant soak them and the wind might get them dry before too long. Its not an easy or soft way to live, but in many ways my wife and I wish we sere still there.


Find my phone

Camera remote


100% disagree.

SmartPhones, Cloud, AI.

Just three things that happened in the past 20 years and were brought to the world by US companies.


Another example: the first commercial cell phone network was in Chicago in 1983, brought to us by AT&T and Motorola. What could be more impactful to modern existence than that?


World would be a better place without those inventions.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: