You say this like it is a law of nature, but we can plan and build it directly if we want it. Redundancy is not something that only emerges from an indirect 4d-chess strategy of ownership mixes.

Good point. For example, the TVA and BPA are federal agencies that produce electricity. Clearly publicly owned utilities can be successful.

Exactly — if we want redundancy, we should plan and build it.

That’s why I offered one possible implementation as a hypothesis, not as a law of nature.

If you have a better non-ideal, real-world design in mind, I’d be interested to hear it — it makes the discussion much easier.

Even under capitalism there is a lot of central planning at huge scales. Walmart is one American example. Woolworths and Coles are another couple in Australia. These companies aren’t rocketing up at the market each morning and taking the latest price… they are managing supply and pricing end to end for most of what they do in advanced.

They say transparency is important which is true, but taking accountability would be good too. This is an OpenAI incident and internally they have a subcontractor mixpanel.

Maybe the military should pillage all the places it goes to self-fund?

The moment the military pillages an area, its ability to fight insurgency in that area vanishes. And since most of the US's wars have been of the anti-insurgency variety (barring the first few days, or possibly hours, that it takes for the full might of the US military to topple a middle-eastern govt), that would be a fundamental strategic failure.

Why is this being down voted?

This worked well in Iraq.

?

In Singapore there is no MRT congestion prices only for private cars, right? Trains get crowded but still workable. It’s not clear if people would start working 6am to 3pm or something if you did. Overall I think charging money made more sense when there were more private, profit seeking companies involved as it’s the name of the game… buts it’s cheap enough that it’s hard for someone with an ok job the get bothered about it

> In Singapore there is no MRT congestion prices only for private cars, right?

Singapore charges for MRT rides, but it's not explicitly a congestion charge. Every once in a while they experiment with discounts for off-peak train usage, which can sort-of be interpreted as a congestion charge.

> Trains get crowded but still workable.

At the peak of rush hour you sometimes have to wait three or four trains before one comes that still has standing room. (It's not as bad as it sounds, because during rush hour trains come every three minutes or so.)

IMHO, varying train charges more with congestion would make a lot of sense; but the system as it is works well enough that it's probably not worth for any technocrat to spend the political capital to seriously do anything about it.

In my experience, it’s often the business side - rather than IT - that tries to use a technical change to force change to the business process that they have failed to change politically… and it usually turns out that a technical change isn’t enough either.

Right. But it would help if internal IT wouldn't reinforce the business side in their delusions, and it starts with a mindset problem: IT thinking of itself as a department that delivers products and solutions, instead of a support force of servants meant to run around in the background and respond to immediate needs of people in the field.

You went too far and mixing IT with software development.

Software development delivers products, internal products and solutions that should be leveraged by business to improve rate of growth.

If you have software development department chucked into IT and make them be supporters that run in the background you are wasting potential or wasting money on their salaries.

If you want supporters make it IT only and pay for SaaS solutions that everyone is using.

The trap will work if you are near destitute.

Right, that's the point though - at some point, getting out of that circumstance is the best available move, meaning walking away - dropping everything and just walking away, somewhere different, is going to be better than staying where you're at and continuing to struggle. Bankruptcy, homelessness in big cities, addictions, abusive relationships, there are all sorts of contexts where people get stuck, and they feel compelled to stay and struggle and try to battle through whatever those challenges are. They feel like they have a duty to battle out the hardest, most impossible struggles where nobody reasonable in the entire world would expect them to have to overcome.

Sometimes the best available move is physically escaping, just getting up and walking away and continuing until you find anything better than where you were at. For some weird reason, that move feels like giving up to people, until they actually do it and it works. This move is sometimes appropriate for jobs, relationships, addictions, violent circumstances, toxic social groups, politics, and so on.

If you've got next to nothing, then you have almost nothing to lose, and that can be a profound amount of freedom if it's seized. It's not always the right move, but sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Go find a better game.

Valued by the worker to give meaning and quality of life not by the buyer - so it does carry much weight.

Don’t you also have to consider this just as much without CRDT? Not saying it isn’t a real issue, but this example could easily be a problem with a more traditional style app - maybe users open the record on their web browser at same time and make different updates, or they update the different timestamp fields directly in a list of tasks.

Sure, but you can usually rely on database transactions to handle the hard part.

In Singapore there is a mix, but BYD seems to be a growing quickly - just anecdotal