Strict licensing of emerging technologies is often self-defeating, slowing adoption and inviting competitors to outpace you. In early stages, value lies in network effects, developer engagement, and iterative improvement, not raw technical advantage. Licensing throttles these dynamics by limiting who can use or build on your technology, reducing the combinatorial value that comes from broad participation. This pushes others to create open alternatives, making the originator irrelevant.

Philosophically, this reflects Metcalfe's Law, which applies beyond social networks: value scales with the number of participants, whether they are devices, apps, or developers. It also illustrates Schumpeterian Creative Destruction, which argues that markets advance through waves of innovation that dismantle incumbents. When firms try to protect a fragile lead with legal barriers rather than innovation, they often create space for rivals to bypass them entirely, leapfrogging with superior, more accessible designs. History shows that "creative destruction" punishes firms that cling to scarcity and control, rewarding those who embrace iteration and openness. Open innovation theory further reinforces this, showing breakthroughs thrive in porous, collaborative environments.

History supports this:
-IBM's open PC architecture enabled widespread cloning and adoption, while Apple's closed Mac stayed niche.
-Sony's Betamax licensing drove manufacturers to adopt VHS, which dominated despite weaker specs.
-Tesla's open patents accelerated EV infrastructure and cemented its leadership.
-QWERTY vs. Dvorak demonstrates that openness and early adoption can outweigh technical merit.

Restrictive control signals scarcity thinking and isolates companies. Openness builds ecosystems, standards, and staying power, while licensing walls create space for faster, more accessible alternatives. For a firm hoping to shape a market, early openness is a strategic advantage, not a concession. Charles Strauss called it.

I find that reassuring: It's the sort of thing billionaires do upon receiving a poor prognosis.

No no, not refusing to answer a question. Constantly dodging all the important questions. And inappropriate laughter is creepy for a reason: it demonstrates certain tenancies that have, when ignored, led to enough people dying or otherwise not reproducing that we've developed an INSTINCTIVE DISTRUST of it. I get that you want to make this about what's between her legs, but it really, really isn't.

It doesn't seem like a strong opinion to me, but here, let me repeat it for you.

You can be a woman and not laugh at weirdly inappropriate times, all while refusing to ever actually answer a question. She was just an awful candidate.

If I ask for water I shouldn't have to specify "tap water". I don't enjoy having to be pedantic to avoid excess charges, disagreeable as I am.

You have a point. What would be your suggestion?

3 hour parking isn't intended to limit the time a single car parks there so much as the total amount of time per car in that area. If a waymo pulls out to allow another waymo to pull in the intent of the regulation is bypassed. This is going to become more of a problem as more automated cars are on the streets whose owners aren't inconvenienced by which 3 hour parking slot their car is in.

Instead of relying on people being inconvenienced enough by the regulation to actually have their car there for 3 hours, it should be updated to specify 3 hours on that block, or in that parking lot.

Even if this was true (which is dubious at best considering the constant conservative whining about cancel culture) This would be a clear cut example of a PRIVATE company exercising it's rights to deliver to it's own users based it's own internal classification of what counts as junk mail.

The standard conservative answer to this sort of disagreement used to be "Change providers", "Work elsewhere", "Spin up your own version" and "Buy a different brand". The standard liberal answer was always "Write your congressman" "Sponsor legislation", and "There aught to be a law"

It's like we're living in upside-down-backwards world. The conservative administration in power is buying stakes in private business, and clearly attempting to control commerce from the top down with tariffs, regulation, lawsuits and threats. They're insisting big government do something about every little thing they don't like, and choosing winners and losers based on political ideology, while the left is now crying for less government, fewer laws, and generally less executive power.

It really is a crazy time to be alive. It's gotta be confusing as hell for young people who're just beginning to pay attention to politics what with the fun new GOP armed troop janitorial units in DC and ICE jumpout black bag squads in blue cities and whatnot.. Especially considering the complete 180 so many of those in public office have performed on so many issues over the past year and half or so. I've been paying attention for a while and it's still damn hard to keep it all straight.

Private companies are still able to conduct business the way they want.. right? We as consumers are still allowed to choose what and what not to use/consume, right? The government is still the referee between the consumer and big business right? We're still against monopolies, right?

>...it will be quickly politicized into full-blown politically motivated censorship.

It already has been. Try asking about anything that's actually controversial and it will fight for the party line.

Job boards are not a useful metric. Ghost jobs, evergreen non-hiring, attempts to make it look like the company is doing well, jobs that will actually only go to the right sex and/or race or Bob's son -- the job boards are useless. If one looks at wages versus inflation, the reality is the opposite: a tightening of opportunity, especially in knowledge sectors once thought immune. The mismatch reveals that job boards are not neutral tools of transparency but part of the signalling ecosystem. It's designed to impress investors and regulators more than to match workers with work.

The core indicator of labour demand is price. If employers are desperate for talent, they must bid up wages, just as with any scarce good. When wages stagnate or fall against inflation, that is a market saying "we don't need you badly enough." And indeed, Bureau of Labor Statistics data and industry surveys show that real wages in many sectors, particularly IT, have flatlined or declined since the mid-2010s, as the cost of living rose.

have you tried dark ale? It's a completely different taste

The payload of this article isn't the call to influence Tor. It's the claim that anything short of demanding the head of every pedophile or suspected pedophile for ever-more-strident definitions creates more pedophiles. In short, it's a call for more witch hunting.

When the government is out to keep you and your children safe they are always, always actually out for your liberties.

In Leviathan, Hobbes argued that individuals cede freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for security, but even he admitted that this makes the sovereign absolute: your liberty is no longer yours. Locke and later Mill pushed back, insisting that the purpose of government is to secure life and liberty, not to suffocate them. Once a government arrogates the role of universal protector, it becomes both parent and warden.Empirical evidence confirms the danger. The "War on Drugs" promised to keep children safe from narcotics; it resulted instead in mass incarceration, militarised policing, and whole communities stripped of economic and civic freedom. Covid-19 restrictions, however one assesses their necessity,saw governments worldwide testing the boundaries of control: curfews, lockdowns, travel bans, speech policing. Even after the threat abated, many of the mechanisms for tracking and censoring remained. The ratchet rarely reverses. When it does, it usually costs blood and always costs more than what was protected against.

The Patriot Act in the United States followed the September 11th attacks with sweeping surveillance powers; wartime rationing and censorship in multiple nations were justified as "protection of the people"; even seatbelt and insurance laws, reasonable though they seem, represent the state declaring itself arbiter of acceptable risk. To live freely is to accept that not every danger can be pre-empted by bureaucratic decree. When government claims to eliminate risk, it does so by eliminating choice. And without the capacity to choose -- even wrongly -- what remains of liberty? Thus, whenever the state announces that it is âoekeeping you safe,â one must ask: from whom, and at what cost? The answer is that you are being kept safe from your own free decisions, and the cost is your children's inheritance of liberty.

Insulting someone for not having sex? Kind of a step lower than judging a woman for being a virgin. You know what incels are? Generally poor, disabled, and/or just too awkward of ugly. Either he's an incel and you're punching down in a pretty vile way or he's not, but it's not your business.

Well this comes as a shock. Who could possibly have imagined that decades of inflation, graft, and deliberate movement of productivity-related wealth to the very richest people combined with a deliberate drive to suppress wages and accept more immigrants would result in a large number of people unable to afford education or gain employment that pays the cost of living?