I've been doing this at my co-op, just as a kind of, I don't know, break from capitalism or something? Or maybe to practice getting users before finding a monetizable project? Most are rinky dink derp projects to let co-op members play around with whatever stack, or to give potential members a project they can get a commit on (requirement to join), but some I think are kinda useful. Some I use every day, like the calorie one.

None of these run ads or make any money so I'm going to share them guiltlessly:

https://calories.508.dev just a simple average calorie tracker over months. I couldn't find anything like this online or on the app store.

https://travelcards.508.dev Generate printable cards with localized allergies or whatever for trips. Apparently a lot of our wedding guests like this. https://github.com/508-dev/travel-cards

http://stuff4friends.508.dev A stuff library for your friends to borrow stuff you aren't using. I'm most excited about this one right now because I have so much stuff, and my friends seem to be enjoying borrowing random stuff they wouldn't have just because they can see it and know it's all being tracked. https://github.com/508-dev/friend-library

neat!

I was thinking about this recently. I was gonna try an experiment where I make AGPL apps, release the source code ofc, but then published a 1-5$ version on the Google play store. There's the compiled version if you want, pay a couple bucks. If not, you're free to compile and sideload on your own.

Seems fair enough, similar to self hosted software that offers managed hosting for a price, or you can try to run the docker containers on your own or whatever. I do a bit of both, self host the non critical stuff, pay for the critical stuff.

I'm sympathetic to FOSS developers but struggle to understand this, maybe because it hasn't happened to me. But, why is this a mental drain? Is there not a simple solution? Reply with the license, "comes with no warranty," "you're free to fork," close issue and move on? I suppose in aggregate it could be draining.

The assholes outnumber the good ones, and it feels like all of humanity is transactional and extractive.

At first all engagement is exciting and validating. You work nights and weekends to please people you’ve never met, sure that one good turn deserves another.

Then you get your first jerk, then your second, then your third, while your father is in the hospital. You feel pressure to ship a feature you never wanted. Your issue tracker is demoralizing. You get a PR! Maybe someone is coming to your rescue. It sucks. Now you need to figure out how to respond. You’re alone. Your passion project has become your albatross.

Encourage forks, not PRs

Sounds like a hard lesson in boundaries. No-one is entitled to your time but you.

> . if you make one tone of tomatoes, one family cannot consume this in a year without becoming red. so should farmers also give it for free?

Now, no, of course not.

Originally though, yes this is how many human economies worked. Surplus was shared in a gift economy.

Huh, having read the book and about Dale Carnegie, I completely disagree with that take. There's plenty of stories where he does the opposite of avoiding conflict and faces it straight on - such as when he just ignores a cop's random order for him to keep his dog on a leash at the park.

Cop’s telling someone to follow the law is the opposite of random.

No, it's the definition of random.

On the road, what percentage of drivers are violating a law? I would say above 50%. Either speeding, windows tinted too much, driving distracted, having something hanging from their rearview, or not having confirmed all their lights work before driving. Now what percentage of those people actually get "told by a cop to follow the law" in any given day?

The same is true for all violations. It's random whether they get enforced - the strongest influence being, where cops are actually deployed, hence why lower income people get snapped up a lot more, since cities tend to put more cops in their neighborhoods.

based

Some of the stories / aphorisms refer to things that just like, don't exist anymore.

I'm not sure why this would be downvoted. I hope that people consider treating women like objects to be outdated and problematic.

The backlash against the MeToo movement shows that that treatment is not as outdated/problematic as it should be.

We can't be sure whether cost came down because of removing regulation or improvements in technology. We can only guess.

> every working citizen could easily afford more expensive airline tickets

You mean every laboring slave.

No free market means corporations are allowed to engage in slavery, chattel or otherwise. Let's be honest about what a free market actually is. Factory towns, lifetime debt bondage.

Ah yes, thank you for correcting me. That is exactly what I meant.

I've yet to hear a successful true free market argument of why slavery won't happen, or monopoly.

You're certainly right. I haven't thought about it that way before, there's no argument that holds up. Of course.

> people and goods would continue to move around the globe as they have done for thousands of years.

Would love to compare the economic throughput in raw dollars of the Oregon trail vs a single flight route.

Don't forget that the whole point of transportation under capitalism is enabling and stimulating economic activity. So sure, get rid of the airlines if you want to collapse a bunch of economic activity. Personally I'd hope for it to get replaced by high speed rail, but kinda hard to do that when economic activity is highly depressed.

> and "rent-seeking", whatever defines that really.

"The act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating public policy or economic conditions without creating new wealth." This is in opposition to profit-seeking, where "entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Friend, with respect, the mental blocks you're coming up against regarding roads, police, and resource distribution, within an American libertarian framework, are outlining exactly why American libertarianism (unregulated capitalism) is an untenable ideology.

Private roads don't make sense in capitalist framing because there's no possibility of competition - no market for a free hand to move in. Furthermore, there's ethical issues around the fact that roads won't be built to people who aren't as instrumentally valuable to capitalism, which is in opposition to the idea that all humans are equally intrinsically valuable. In plain words: poor people won't get roads built to them, won't be able to work, will get poorer. This is bad, and if you want to just be selfish about it, will lead to crime and social discohesion.

This argument extends to all the resources governments typically involve themselves in: electricity, sewage, water. We have direct evidence that when they try to privatize these things, it goes horribly wrong: see, the American healthcare industry, or, what's happening to the UK as it privatizes sewage. See the Texas privatized power grid.

All capitalist entities (corporations) are simple algorithms: Make profit go up. We like to tell ourselves that making profit go up is possibly only through mutually beneficial trades, aka the aformentioned profit-seeking, however that's not true in practice. The most profitable activity is slavery driven labor, and the most profitable state for a corporation to be in is monopoly. All optimized capitalist behavior selects for and trends towards that activity and that state, and literally the only way to stop this is through establishing some kind of hierarchy that allows for the limiting of corporate behavior - governments, and regulations.

Any example you give of a corporation in capitalism not trending towards slavery or monopoly has one of several explanations. 1. It's regulated, 2. It's led by someone who ethically doesn't want to trend towards slavery or monopoly, or isn't intelligent enough to do so. In the case of 2, that company will eventually be surpassed and consumed by someone with less morals, more intelligence, and more capital (more power).

> "We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want" somewhat unironically. I feel that way, the same as anyone else. The difficulty, as observed up the thread, is in working out what's natural, or vital, or wanted and feasible.

I completely agree, and there are other ways to do this other than capitalism, regulated or otherwise. I strongly recommend the most cited economist in history: Karl Marx. Peter Kropotkin is also very good, "The Conquest of Bread" is a great speculation of alternative systems.