41–50 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?
These are corporations, not groups of people. The rule can be observed if you look at groups in that corporation.
"Less is different -- small groups of people can engage in kinds of interaction that large groups can't. And so we blew past that interesting scale of small groups". Leopold Kohr thesis (such as "Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes") are pertinent.
> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?
Tragedy of the commons is the killer of decentralization since day 1. Try polluting the shared space around your building (with clutter for example) and see how long it takes for you to be censored. Self-censoring is how we maintain our liberty to pollute but it can go too far though; some deep-pocket people can largely avoid feedback because no one dares to go against them. There is always some tension between censo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?
Chat services usually rot and go the way of MySpace. Remember cuseeme, aol instant messenger, icq, irc, Skype, Skype for business, Lynq, paltalk, Facebook messenger, tivejo, … Facebook was originally where cool kids hang out now grandma is on it. Facebook is always buying a competitor or imitating one or aiming a service at really young kids to stay ahead of the rot.
I actually think for a messenger platform it's probably a good thing that even grandma is on there. The problem with having a bunch of Boomers around is of course the social media posting aspect.
The user of social software is the group, not the individual."
Is there a TL;DR?
The people using your software, even if you own it and pay for it, have rights and will behave as if they have rights. And if you abrogate those rights, you'll hear about it very quickly."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chat services usually rot and go the way of MySpace. Remember cuseeme, aol instant messenger, icq, irc, Skype, Skype for business, Lynq, paltalk, Facebook messenger, tivejo, … Facebook was originally where cool kids hang out now grandma is on it. Facebook is always buying a competitor or imitating one or aiming a service at really young kids to stay ahead of the rot.
I agree a lot of young people don't really use Facebook profiles anymore, but most people I know still use Facebook messenger. It's easy to find people because most people are on there with real name/picture, and the group chats work pretty smoothly. Granted I'm a millennial so maybe the actual kids these days don't use it at all, but I wouldn't lump it in with those dead services. I actually think for a messenger pl…
When people born in 2001 are grand(p|m)as I think they'll have a similar relationship to the cohort of 2061. That is, there will be some things 2061ers will want to share with them and other things 2061ers won't.
There is some cohort ⨯ age interaction, for instance the boomer cohort has been so large that some tv viewing slots are saturated for ads about "you might not be getting all the medicare benefits you deserve" to the point that it drives away other viewers.
"Less is different -- small groups of people can engage in kinds of interaction that large groups can't. And so we blew past that interesting scale of small groups". Leopold Kohr thesis (such as "Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes") are pertinent.
> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?
I also agree with TheFreim's comment, each corp is a group of groups. Alexander Zinoviev wrote that real (useful, innovative...) work is always done by a single person or a small group. Google, Amazon, Apple and other successful huge companies genius and key-to-success is to maintain small groups, each as autonomous as possible and producing some valuable thing, then to compose their results.
Any productive big institution isn't a perfectly consistent and stable machine built with all-tightly-coupled human components, but an unstable (constantly renewed) patchwork/hodgepodge where a few entities (groups) are productive (most aren't), each small and much more free to act as they want to than it may appear to the casual observer.
In Apple's case S. Jobs was pretty clear about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f60dheI4ARg , see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5enAGG51PQ
Tragedy of the commons is the killer of decentralization since day 1. Try polluting the shared space around your building (with clutter for example) and see how long it takes for you to be censored. Self-censoring is how we maintain our liberty to pollute but it can go too far though; some deep-pocket people can largely avoid feedback because no one dares to go against them. There is always some tension between censo…
I now what you mean, but I just wanted to add something to your one example. What do you mean by "nude beach vs downtown big city"? There are parks in some European cities where you can sunbath in the nude. I guess it is still an example of this, because it is getting less common, because of globalization and risk of being recorded for the whole world to see.