Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anarch: Super small public domain no-dependency from-scratch suckless Doom clone

gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: Anarch: Super small public domain no-dependency from-scratch suckless Doom clone

#61

Post by ddingus »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #60
ddingus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now. That's getting harder to do. Eventually, everything will be monetized. It's getting more difficult to find public spaces where there isn't an expectation of spending money now. Noticeable. And maybe it's not a fight. Better management is a plausible path. More people more happy, maybe with the cost of some people not being peak happy.

I don't understand what you are saying, especially with a sentence that just says "Noticeable." You do realize that an hour outside of almost any city in the US is practically uninhabited right? Land as a whole is not in short supply.

In urban settings, parks, even rest stops on the Interstates, as examples, the expectation of spending money is on the increase.

This isn't a land availability issue. It's a monetization of public spaces issue.

"Noticable" == increased to a point of concern when compared to the same sorts of places in the past.

Re: Anarch: Super small public domain no-dependency from-scratch suckless Doom clone

#62

Post by CyberDildonics »

ddingus wrote: post #61
CyberDildonics wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you are saying, especially with a sentence that just says "Noticeable." You do realize that an hour outside of almost any city in the US is practically uninhabited right? Land as a whole is not in short supply.

In urban settings, parks, even rest stops on the Interstates, as examples, the expectation of spending money is on the increase. This isn't a land availability issue. It's a monetization of public spaces issue. "Noticable" == increased to a point of concern when compared to the same sorts of places in the past.

I have zero idea what you are talking about here. I was saying that it isn't difficult to find enough land to be isolated and self sufficient and you are talking about "concern over rest stops on the interstate being monetized".

Re: Anarch: Super small public domain no-dependency from-scratch suckless Doom clone

#63

Post by ddingus »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #62
ddingus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In urban settings, parks, even rest stops on the Interstates, as examples, the expectation of spending money is on the increase. This isn't a land availability issue. It's a monetization of public spaces issue. "Noticable" == increased to a point of concern when compared to the same sorts of places in the past.

I have zero idea what you are talking about here. I was saying that it isn't difficult to find enough land to be isolated and self sufficient and you are talking about "concern over rest stops on the interstate being monetized".

Can't help you. Sorry.

Re: Anarch: Super small public domain no-dependency from-scratch suckless Doom clone

#64

Post by c22 »

phaemon wrote: post #59
qayxc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bit it's a bit much when you end up with someone who has 10,000,000x the comfortable persons wealth. That's not human nature: that's a structure set up to funnel the wealth that ordinary people have created, to a tiny number of individuals. And I see that as a problem even if you don't. That is not enforced by capitalism, though. Capitalism isn't a single incarnation of an economic system, it's an entire landscape…

> This however, didn't stop party officials...[gaining massive wealth]... Well, exactly. And you don't think they earned that wealth, I presume? You think they took it from the ordinary working person. So why are you arguing that this exact same behaviour is acceptable under a Capitalist system? Your other points are worth addressing and you argue well, but there are too many for one post. I don't like the funneling…

Do you think Carmack could have made 60 million under a communist system? I don't know if he really "earned" it (this seems extremely subjective), but wealth accruing to the people who make cool video games seems better than wealth only accruing to the people who make the rules.

Sure, there's a fair amount of wealth accrual to the people who make the rules in capitalist systems as well--that effect is perhaps orthogonal to the economic system in play, but the fact that capitalism provides opportunities for people to accrue wealth also by their own initiative is what makes it so attractive.

It's definitely not perfect, but what is?

Post reply on HN