So, the heart of the issue is that each object’s path changes continuously, and the forces involved change in kind. Even worse, the objects interact with each other, again continuously - it’s not one-sided.

If you imagine trying to do it pre-Calculus, some kind of “just map it all out into a grid, etc.”, you can see the problems this continuous change imposes (exercise left for the reader).

By involving the Stravinsky Interpretation, it quickly becomes clear that the dimorphic superposition destabilizes. The clever reader might object “but what if you fold in all the noodly surfaces to recohere the manifold?”

And that clever reader would be right! But we didn’t know that until old Dr. Isaac “Zeke” Newton came along and made it that way.

Some say the devil himself taught him how it’s done, because no one else can read his notes! So keep your eye on old Zeke when you run into him.

“Dark Pathways” indeed, really telling on themselves lmao

Wow, what a write-up, this is lovely.

I’ve also been in a lot of the situations you’re describing and ultimately became the person providing shelter and stability for others, too (of course it’s far more complex than such a simple statement, as you know).

We’ve never made those arrangements permanent, it’s always been phases of some years where people who’ve needed it most have come and then gone when they’re ready. To be clear we’ve never kicked anyone out, nor (many years earlier) have I been kicked out, nothing like that. I just suspect the genetics in my family make it very difficult for us to be told how to live by another for long, no matter how reasonably or gently, lol.

For instance my pops having to ultimately be subject to my rules (I just mean in the ways you described) was eventually too much for him and he made the necessary steps to move on, and the relationship stayed healthy.

Like you said there’s lots of different ways to do things and the most important part is that everyone’s dignity is preserved, and everyone involved is prioritizing each other person as best they can in addition to their own needs, which is hard to do.

I’d be open, perhaps, to a more unconventional long-term arrangement with several of the family members in my life (including chosen family), especially as the world gets harder and harder, but I’m also content to be a temporary place of calm and respite for folks as I can.

And like you said, the mutual give and take that’s involved is everything. With the right people, anyway - I have to acknowledge there’s a broad swathe of folks I’d never want to live closely with and who I expect would be largely uninterested in compromising and prioritizing the well-being of others. Quite unfortunate for folks who grow up surrounded by too much of that.

Yeah, but I’m still glad to see those over the sprawling parking lot retail district approach we’ve been using everywhere for decades in the US. Maybe we’ll do a better job on the revision when the ones you described start to fail lol, one can dream!

Also gives a solid advantage to the small mom and pop over the soulless profit machine, I like this idea :)

It’s funny, this kinda stuff reminds me of the best parts of the (largely bygone) punk rock and hacker subcultures. Feels like almost the specific overlap between the two. And lately it feels like there’s been more and more of that, like the condition of the world is causing those ethos to reawaken, to recapitulate their evergreen salience, maybe even to combine.

Probably projecting a bit, to be fair. I feel I’ve internally stayed an old punk rocker and hacker, and feel those old flames reigniting, despite the indignities and compromises that come with middle age and spending eventual adulthood trying to survive in corporate America. Not so punk after all, lmao

Edit: minor grammar

:(

Any interesting patterns in the users being systematically targeted for downvotes? Wondering if this is personal grudge or enemy action, basically.

You’re not really engaging with my points or questions so I’m gonna move on. I understand how the current situation works quite well, having been involved in many businesses in many different roles throughout my life. Most of us agree the way things work today is awful. I was here to explore fruitful changes to make to the status quo. Not to be told how one can, in fact, seek risk through the joys of sole proprietorship.

Cheers, have a good weekend.

That’s a super naive understanding of how it works to “setup a business”, outside of I guess a sole-proprietor tiny little situation.

And regardless - let me ask you, why must it be all or nothing? Under your scenario, I either take all of the risk myself by founding the business, or I am strictly paid in dollars by someone who did, and nothing in between - but why? What’s the argument that this is a good way to do things? Am I not taking some risk by buying into the company I work for? Why is that only an option for the very top of the company? Because “risk” is a misnomer that focuses on the wrong part, and actually it’s freaking great to have a true stake in your place of employment?

I’m not arguing that it’s impossible to start a business, or to work and scrape and get lucky and transition into the ownership class in some small capacity. I’m saying having only a few people have true skin in the game for any business is frickin stupid, a bad way to do things, likely to produce half-hearted efforts from employees, and guaranteed to produce the extreme wealth inequality we see today.

Edit: bit more detail on my preferred approach

Thank you, very useful to have someone who has done it in the thread. Would you agree that being born into one of the wealthy families in America would dramatically reduce the difficulty and risk of everything you’ve described above? All that stuff sounds so much easier if you’re rich enough to pay others to do a bunch of it, and rich enough to still be fine (even still rich, usually!) if it doesn’t work out.

What if instead of zero profits, all employees are paid in part via some amount of ownership stake in any company?

My issue with the “we take all the risk, tho!” argument is that I’m never even allowed to take the risk, too. For example, my current company is small, compensation has grown disappointing after we were acquired by VC, and there is no pathway for me to begin purchasing any kind of ownership stake. We’re just the labor, despite all of us having been here longer than the new owner, in many cases having been here to build the thing the new owners bought.

So it must be pretty damn attractive, actually, for those at the top to continually offer that to one another, while withholding it from anyone below executive leadership. I’m pretty tired of hearing it as a justification when those “taking all the risk” end up doing so goddamn well, and the rest of us are locked out of it in the first place. It’s just abusive language we’ve all internalized.

Edit to add: ya know, it was probably easier to swallow and originated in the prior eras, where a steady paycheck was a safe and stable way to go through life. These days being an underpaid wage slave is far riskier than being any kind of investor. I don’t think “all the risk” is even meaningful or remotely accurate anymore.

I mean, “theft” implies depriving someone of something, to me. But I don’t want to bicker about definitions if your position is more about morality of taking something for free than about the definition of theft.

For myself, I’ll happily pay for things that provide fair value and a fair agreement / relationship. That includes donating to stuff that is offered for free - there are a handful of content creators and other services (Internet Archive, Signal, etc.) that I directly support, every month. And by the same token, I don’t feel bad at all about enjoying something, for free and against their wishes, from a company or publisher that only offers unacceptable (to me) terms.

To me those are perfectly consistent. My dollars go to individuals and publishers that produce the kind of media ecosystem I think is good for us. Because - we must be clear - it’s not a level playing field, and the shift away from consumer ownership is a plague of exploitation inflicted upon us. It’s now metastasizing away from strictly digital domains, now to physical hardware, which is outrageous. Roku, for instance, can update your streaming device overnight and force you to accept their new terms, in order to keep using your device. This is not hypothetical, it happened (may have gotten company wrong).

Do you think the companies enacting policies, particularly ones prohibiting ownership outright, are operating from an ethical or moral framework? I promise they don’t believe in anything like that. They screw us precisely as hard as the courts, and the court of public opinion, allow. And they’re always trying to move that line in their favor.

Why do you care about pirating? Who or what are you standing up for, I guess I’m asking?

Oh, yeah that makes sense too. Bad premise all around I guess.

I mean, are you taking your definition of “theft” from the law? Or from your own internal set of ethics for right and wrong? Is it theft if no one is deprived of anything, because bits copy, and because you’d never trade dollars for the privilege of maintaining an exploitative relationship with a company but that is all they’ve made available?

If you’re hung up on whether the legal system thinks it’s theft - I dunno what to tell ya, it obviously does.

Edit: uh, maybe you’re literally asking for how the logic in that statement works, which I read as just “if it can’t be owned, how can it be stolen?”

I mean, say what ya want (and what we deserve in most cases), but the US has a ton of diverse wildlife. A crazy amount. And even more fun, it’s super regional, including lots of pockets supporting healthy amounts of big and diverse fauna, including large predators. Many species of deer, elk, goat, we have moose, multiple kinds of bears, canines, and small numbers of various (badass and distinct) wildcats. Enough to reliably run into many of these in places, and run the risk in many more.

And that’s to say nothing of the variety of smaller life, which is again regional and diverse. Just utterly bewildering. Uhh…guess I got carried away there lol

Some areas get little quail families, running along single-file. Dangly bits on their heads and all, it’s the best!

The idea of elegant old French women doing sick vape tricks is just…really something.

Easy, teeth mash the plants into plastic 👍 makes sense if you squint real hard and have a few TBIs

You say complacent, I say complicit.