Incorrect. I don't think I've met one person that were actually good at their job but didn't wanted to share the skill.

It's because management didn't value it. They put the veteran on on more jobs rather on moving them to training, because short term it's more profitable, and mid term it's easier to poach veterans off competition rather than train them in house

How do you explain guilds restricting supply then? (The most common example is Physicians).

Explain how that restriction is working in the face of NPs?

We are debating the attempt to restrict supply here as a counterargument to "everyone wants to share their skill", not the success or failure of such attempts.

Thanks for the link. Well that's pretty sad.

You link to that press release like it means something more than changing a lake's name by fiat.

13000 euro a year is the yearly drinking budget of an outgoing San Francisco resident.

And then everyone started doing it, which meant that your local retailer isn't in business anymore (see local high streets in many countries). The choice you had 10-15 years ago doesn't exist anymore because everyone went for the cheaper price, and now the question is where the extra goes that we used to pay to the local retailer.

AliExpress and Temu would refund you if you complained about a delivery. Zero risk.

What’s with those streets? Any examples?

Burning books and destroying them in a way that nobody else can access the content anymore is a distinction without a difference.

> Like it or not, all publicly available information will inevitably become accessible to anyone and anything that has permission to access it. This is the baseline scenario people need to plan around.

The entire point of the situation is that permission is not involved. They just do it. Meanwhile, if I do it to them, I am fined/sent to prison/executed. Until such a time that this baseline scenario of inequality is somehow remedied, there will be a motivation to stop them.

Given the vacuum left by pinhole-sized states, Vodafone could become the issuer of propaganda itself as it would have the airwaves and the power of a large state.

Well, I suppose my argument does turn on the scope on which you consider each of these 10 points.

My presumption is that, as nation-states are deprecated, coordination between them will have to take the shape of sufficiently decentralized technology that the "networks have the ability to vet and ignore" portion becomes a local and voluntary process.

And - probably an area where reasonable people disagree - it's the (real or perceived) authority that makes it possible to "be used for evil"; if there is no badge and gun, and each message (broadly considered) is to be considered on its own merits (both for its truth and its persuasiveness), then I think that corporate propaganda just lands in the 'ignore' (or even 'spam') pile.

You do understand that the communist party of China has very different ideas about networks, vetting and voluntary processes than you do right?

It doesn't sound like a particularly large leap to think that polities as large as the Indian federal states could work as countries.

Your idol wants people to die for being who they are and no other reason at all. He says so himself. What's the narrative?