From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 7/17/26 7:21 PM, Creon wrote:

At Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:02:12 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/17/2026 2:07 AM, dart200 wrote:

On 7/17/26 1:39 AM, Creon wrote:

At Fri, 17 Jul 2026 01:31:11 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 7/17/26 12:47 AM, Creon wrote:

At Thu, 16 Jul 2026 15:10:13 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:24:04 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:

On 7/16/2026 12:52 PM, Dude wrote:

On 7/16/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:55:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 7/14/2026 1:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:05:47 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

On 7/14/2026 12:41 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:37:50 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

On 7/13/2026 11:04 PM, Creon wrote:

At Sat, 11 Jul 2026 16:23:57 -0400, Noah Sombrero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 14:12:19 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

On 7/11/2026 9:44 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 04:05:43 +0000, Creon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <creon@creon.earth>

wrote:

At Fri, 10 Jul 2026 23:35:46 -0400, Noah Sombrero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:

If they succeed, then the most likely thing is that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will get
bought out by big guys who know that buying new little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
businesses is cheaper than doing r&d.-a And actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful
competition cuts profits, cheaper to buy them out too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I suppose that might happen if we were publically- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traded...but we
aren't.

Founder guys can be given an offer they can't refuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One thing's for sure, not knowing what he's talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't stop
Noah from talking.

I'm sorry if you don't know what I'm talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm sorry you don't understand the "shadow of the future", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor the
years of "lesson learned" about how a growing business can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make one
more money than "selling out".

And sometimes creating and running a business is about more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the
payout at the end of the rainbow.

Certainly.-a That does not mean that big corps do not work to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate
competition.

So what?

For that, you need to go all the way back to where you told me >>>>>>>>>>>> I did
not understand commercialism, and then I said, I'm sorry you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
understand what I am saying.

Corps buy out startups with new ideas because that is cheaper >>>>>>>>>>>> than
r&d.

Yes.

Corps buy out successful competition because that eliminates the >>>>>>>>>>>> effect of competition on profit.

Of course.

I say these are a couple of way that corp behavior in action >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
fit with your idealistic view of commercialism.

Again, you don't understand what I understand or believe about >>>>>>>>>>> capitalism.

You mean I don't agree with you.

-a-a >
Since you failed to define what you mean by the term capitalism, >>>>>>>>> for the
record, I like the idea of capitalism: The economic theory of >>>>>>>>> private
property ownership and the free market. YMMV.

The main theory of capitalism is classical free-market economics. >>>>>>>>> Me and
Rita like choices. In a free market, multiple businesses compete to >>>>>>>>> provide goods and services.

This drives innovation, keeps prices fair, and maximizes overall >>>>>>>>> societal welfare.

Obviously, an economy runs most efficiently when governed by self- >>>>>>>>> interest, competition, and supply and demand.

Without government interference!

Individuals and businesses have the legal right to own tangible >>>>>>>>> assets
(like land and factories) and intangible assets (like stocks and >>>>>>>>> bonds).

The theory assumes that individuals act in pursuit of their own >>>>>>>>> good,
which naturally drives the production of goods and services that >>>>>>>>> others
want and so everyone can prosper.

It's all good!

Those of us who believe in the efficacy of a free market system >>>>>>>> that's
mostly unfettered by centralized control systems don't talk about the >>>>>>>> necessity of cooperation often enough. I think this is because we >>>>>>>> take
it as a given, as inherent, necessary, and something that naturally >>>>>>>> happens often. But Nick and Noah's responses here have shown that >>>>>>>> they
apparently don't think it's even a thing.

So perhaps you can explain how corporate acquisition of competitors >>>>>>> and successful new ideas fit in with your scheme.

Here's the thing though, without widespread voluntary cooperation >>>>>>>> free-market capitalism cannot exist.

Does not exist.

Pardon me, Sir, but I don't think you've thought that out.

the fact some cooperation happens does not mean the cooperation defines >>>>> the system

u could list a thousand examples of cooperation that exist ... and for >>>>> example that u list, there exists thousands upon thousands of examples >>>>> of blatant forms of exploitation. heck in every single thing i buy, i'm >>>>> exploited by basic information inequity...

i won't even bother putting further effort here into responding to you >>>>> creon, because u repeated demonstrated that you're not going to put
effort back

fucking dud-ass toy internet company founder

You know "envy" is a deadly sin, right?-a There are seven of them.

But you said we were all beneath you, so I guess those 8 long-form
posts I made tonight weren't good enough.

no, it's clearly not actually enough creon ...

ur still bragging about all the shit u had to do to accomplish basic
file transfers as if that's a badge of honor. i'm just over all that
shit. it's annoying. it stems from our deep and systemic lack of greater >>> cooperation because everyone's stuck in a fucking existential
competition with on another.

Just die in a fire already.-a I wouldn't trust you to pay attention,
much less bills.

But since you haven't impressed, well, _anyone_ with telling us
what you would do in your situation, how about you tell me what
_you_ think _I_ should be doing differently?

That's the "bazaar" model -- grass roots, bottom-up.-a It's the
American Way.

After all:-a Usenet allows people like you to talk to people like me,
or at least until we *plonk*

i really can't take the word plonk with any amount of seriousness

your trolling ass.

nvm that:

-a> idiots who censor their reality, will suffer their delusions
-a>
-a> #god

free speech is only as useful as people listen. if u don't listen, u
don't get the benefits of free speech

i do troll on occasion, but i don't need to make up shit constantly like >>> dud to piss people off

people are retarded enough i can piss them off with how honestly
frustrated i am at them

Good work, Nick!

You came here and brought the board down to a whole another level!
>

This activation of countertroll radar brought to you by the
dim-wit that can't construct a proper sentence, with proper
punctuation, with any amount of imagination.

following arbitrary rules isn't a measure of intelligence. but u clearly >>> haven't figured that out yet

I had a draft reply to respond to dart200 being in over his
head, but it's not worth finishing -- and barely worth
mentioning.

cause ur not going to get a response u like. i'm just not impressed by technobabble. i have a decade of professional experience myself, and am
now deeply involved with examining the fundamental theory on the matter
of computable decidability, because i'm so damn unfulfilled by how we've
gone about with our entire implementation of computing as a practice Efn+

if u don't feel it already, i don't think i can help u understand at
this point in time. it's just not ur place to be undertaking that level
of innovation

there is only one _me_, with the precise set of experiences i've had, so
it's my task to prove on my own, to _everyone_ else...

maybe u'll start to come around after my paper goes live, but i don't
expect anything more than shitposting back and forth until then

I'll just mention that -- just as a square is a rectangle, but a
rectangle is not necessarily a square -- a file can be represented
as a stream, but a stream may not represent a file, since it can
go on limitlessly.

cause i'm again still not impressed by all the artificial complexity u
had to overcome in order to perform the basic computing operation of an in-order ~~file~~ data transfer

(And I don't think dart200 has ever logged into a shell on a Fire TV.)

again: bragging about all the work you have to do that would be totally irrelevant if we actually knew how to cooperate simply just doesn't
impress me anymore. i get that it's time consuming to figure out
arbitrarily complex specifics ... but it's also a complete waste of time compared to us actually cooperating on a more fundamental level

that fact u think it ought to be impressive is heavily related to why u
still can not only tolerate, but actively support, the uncooperative
nonsense that is "late stage capitalism"
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2