Good point, and we need to recognize that every so-called free market still relies on governments to enforce the rules (to enforce contracts, to issue currency, to protect against fraud, etc). If governments disappeared tomorrow, we would not have a free market utopia spring up in it's place. Instead we'd have a no-rules situation where the powerful could take advantage of the weak. Some other system, potentially worse than what we already have, would fill the power vacuum.
Well I agree that governments can do some beneficial things. But there's a few problems with what you're saying here (and I hope I'm not taking you too literally): firstly, all the rules you list can be handled with alternatives. Secondly, the fact that the sudden disappearance of government would not lead to a utopia doesn't mean that governments are fundamentally needed (although they might be). As an analogy: if crude oil disappeared tomorrow, we would not have a renewable energy utopia - we'd have a disaster. Does that mean that there's no alternative to crude oil? Of course not. Finally, a "situation where the powerful could take advantage of the weak" is really just the situation that we have now, and must always have. It's really a tautology.
I apologize for not being clear enough, and I think I misread your intentions. There are people on HN who believe the government could be abolished tomorrow and replaced with private services, including a private military force, and that this would make everyone more free, since the invisible hand of the market would do the job of protecting the rights of the ordinary people. I mistook you for one of those people.
Governments aren't fundamentally needed per se to create a free market. But rules are needed. And whatever system we have to enforce those rules would resemble a defacto government. How that governments power is distributed, who's interests it represents, and how far it goes in regulating the market may vary.
Without someone enforcing rules to keep monopolies in check, I think those monopolies would become defacto governments. And they wouldn't be democratic. This is what I mean (but did not carefully express) when I said that some government intervention in the markets are needed to prevent the powerful from take advantage of the weak. (And it can go the other way too... governments tilting the scale in favor of existing powerful interests.)
Natural monopolies, by definition, arise from natural market forces, and thus do not rely on government intervention or unfair business practices to suppress competition. (That doesn't mean natural monopolies always compete fairly or never engage in regulatory capture. Only that these are not necessary for them to become monopolies.) Railroads are a commonly cited example. Today, the network effects of digital platforms are thought to give rise to monopolies (or at least high market concentration).
People who usually ask "give me an example of a monopoly not maintained by the government" are usually not asking in good faith. Many laissez faire capitalists explain away natural monopolies, or pretend they don't exist. So perhaps you expected this answer, and are already prepared to dismiss it.
This person had a terrible experience at work, and you telling them "don't vent" is condescending. Our industry has a problem with toxic work environments, and we need to talk about it.
"people need to improve constantly"
No they don't. Plenty of people happy to be as they are. When you're constantly running on this treadmill of self improvement, you'll probably get depressed real quick.
Degradation is Nature's default. Guaranteed by entropy. But for sure you are free to totally ignore how to make good use of an opposing force and get older faster, less healthier, less attractive and less free while "feeling happy".
It's not so much that we don't want to learn from someone we dislike. It's that we don't want to scour the haystack of awful traits to find a needle we can compliment.
There's nothing wrong with making cool woven textiles. I suspect if someone had a problem with your comment, it's because it sounds like you're workshopping a startup idea. I get that this is a very startuppy place, but even other startup founders probably get exhausted by all the business ideas shared on this website. (As the saying goes, ideas are cheap and execution is what matters)
I'm not saying you did anything wrong. Just sharing why I think your comment was downvoted.
I'm sorry - why is Yang entitled to a place in the conversation? I wish his campaign got more attention too. But the lack of coverage he's getting seems related to the fact that he is not well known, he is not as popular as the other candidates, and his ideas are not yet part of the mainstream discourse. You're not entitled to equal time in media coverage because you declared your candidacy.
Ideally, journalists would cover the topics they think are important to their audiences. We know this doesn't play out in practice. But even in an ideal world, I don't see Yang getting more coverage.
>I'm sorry - why is Yang entitled to a place in the conversation?
Overall, he isn't entitled to a place in the conversation, but omitting him from certain parts of the conversation seems very disingenuous.
For a real life example, if they show a list of "all" candidates on screen (including 7 that poll lower than Yang), but exclude Yang from that list, this is not cool at all (which is exactly what happened multiple times, as evidenced by the article the parent comment linked). Same goes for debates, where some candidates got a ton of questions asked, while Andrew got way fewer questions.
This phenomenon is not unique to Yang. In 2016 they did the same kinds of things to Bernie, the highest rated senator in the country by polling. I just don't have a Bernie version of that website showing the corporate media putting their favored candidates in front of candidates that are polling higher. But even if you don't think any of that is true, I think it should be obvious that the corporate press will have an oligopoly over our elections.
Consider the economic value to the Trump campaign that comes from how Fox News talks about him. Consider the economic value the Dem candidate will get based on how MSNBC talks about them compared to Trump. It's a huge campaign contributions that aren't accounted for by the FEC but are surely an important part of campaigns.
During the 2016 primary, I'd argue Bernie Sanders got more coverage than normal. He was behind in polling and in delegate count. He should have been getting none. But he got more than what I think his candidacy deserved, since a horse race is good for ratings, and the story of him vs Clinton made for the perfect one. This is all based on my observations, and no empirical data however.
I do think Sanders was shortchanged of some press coverage in this primary. I think that's changing as his chances of winning go up. I hope he's covered extensively, because I don't think most people are aware of some of his negatives, and as a front funner, his candidacy deserves our scrutiny.
You make a good point that there is an oligopoly of corporate press. I think that's something harmful to our democracy, and something we should be concerned about. I'm not sure what the solution is. For now, I just donate to public radio.
I would agree, re: rough edges, if we were talking about Ardour 2 or 3, which both missed some important features and weren't as stable as I'd like. But in the last few years, ardour has improved. I do most of my work in it now. Would recommend it to anyone who wants a FLOSS DAW and isn't too dependent on mental models from other audio software.
If anything, LMMS has the rough edges. The interface lacks polish and consistency. There are some awkward things about using it (why do I have to make a blank bar before I copy and paste a bar into it?). And I've noticed some glitchy behavior - for instance, I just made a ZynAddSubFX patch that sounded different as a plugin in LMMS than when I used it in Zyn's own application. Strange behavior like that, but fortunately it's rare.
But all that considered, LMMS is still great, and I appreciate the work it's authors put into it. I don't think of it as a daw; more of a sequencer. But if your music is 100% digital synths and samples, it serves all your needs.
Right now I'm using: LMMS (sequencer), Ardour (daw), JAMin (mastering suite), and Audacity (swiss army knife). I like Reaper. I've used ableton live many times, and I still don't get it - I guess the workflow is optimized for live mixing? I found it less than ideal for recording in a studio.
>> "Would recommend it to anyone who wants a FLOSS DAW and isn't too dependent on mental models from other audio software."
I recommend against this kind of framing. It comes off as judgmental. My mental models form based on my needs and experience. They're just as valid as your mental models, needs, and experience. Your way of seeing my perspective leads to faulty assumptions about my experience and models.
For example...
>> "I would agree, re: rough edges, if we were talking about Ardour 2 or 3, which both missed some important features and weren't as stable as I'd like. But in the last few years, ardour has improved. I do most of my work in it now."
I tried 5 from Mint's repos. Yesterday. I try every version to see if it'll work for me. Ardour continues to be critically lacking for me, based on my needs. Take a step back any time you want to assume someone's view is based on not knowing something you know. It's much more likely you don't know what they know.
I think we agree, and you should heed your own advice not to assume what someone else thinks.
What I mean by mental models: Some producers rely on their favorite DAW's workflow. I'd never tell someone to ditch the DAW they're more productive in.
This is not a judgement. I'm not implying you don't "get" Ardour. On the contrary, I'm endorsing your approach: choose the DAW that meets your needs.
I said Ardour had improved a lot for me. I never said it would work for you. My comment was for the benefit of other people here. Giving a counterexample to your experience. No DAW is good for everyone. Ardour doesn't work for you. It does work for me. And if someone's looking for a DAW, I think Ardour is worth trying. I wouldn't tell you to try it.
And you already know it doesn't work for you, so you don't need to try again. I support you in sticking to the tools that you're most productive in. Nothing is more annoying than someone dictating what tools you use to do your job.
> My mental models form based on my needs and experience
Except that the workflow for e.g. Live or FL Studio or Bitwig is entirely different from the workflow for e.g. ProTools or Logic or Ardour.
So the extent that your needs and experience dictate a Live-style workflow, then sure, you're right. But if you don't actually know what you're doing or alternatively actually need the linear-timeline recording model of PT/Ardour, then there's no judgement here, just a correct observation.
