If it's free, YOU are the product!

>pay for my HRT

This is pretty basic stuff.
The next level is to realize is that it's not free, but you are paying for it with money.
Think about it. Economy is a closed system. For someone to gain money, someone else has to lose said money.
Tech giants are making tons of money. Who is losing this money?
It is you, the consumer, who is losing the money through the economy.
So no. It is not free.

>For someone to gain money, someone else has to lose said money.
This is Jow Forums on economics.

Attached: 02b.jpg (1111x597, 64K)

fuck off dad

>For someone to gain money, someone else has to lose said money
i mean you're right, but you're wrong

mark zuckerberg is commonly described as a billionaire, but it's not like he could walk into a bank and get a cashier's note for 1,000,000 shekels to spend on faberge eggs

not if you compile from source yourself

Obviously it is not that simple, but at the end of the day, this is what it boils down to.

you're right, and i don't mean to nitpick. it's silly to get caught up in WELL TECHNICALLY discussions as long as we both understand each other

That's why we still have the standard of living as cavemen

I have definitely done this, except the address, for a free beer

Does this mean all profit is unethical as in order to gain a profit you must do an unequal exchange, either of labor, materials or the final product?

yes. full communism now bitches

>mom makes my fav chicken tendies (for free)
>i am the product

Attached: 1544225326074.jpg (720x709, 47K)

your mum gave her pussy out for free
you are the product

He is not right and it's not nitpicking. He fails to comprehend basic economics.

who cares lol

Kek

Attached: 1378114418673.jpg (530x450, 166K)

>Implying you're not the product when you pay for it

how to kill air mafia?

I'm pretty sure Mark could buy as many Faberge eggs as he wants. If he sold a million dollars of his stock in reasonable increments it would not be a big deal.

applies to windows 10

Nice.

Attached: 1548702438728.jpg (692x534, 84K)

completely different thing

Friendly reminder there are four essential software freedoms.

Attached: 1524103156584.jpg (700x979, 146K)

HAHAHAH

How will he ever recover.

Attached: 1553160635182.gif (400x225, 1.74M)

>tfw you realize Jow Forums is free

Attached: 1553178656409.png (1024x719, 806K)

>economy is a closed system
No its not

you fucking retard

I like this image a lot

now you get it.

real mong hours

Attached: Faded+dynamic+damaging+loris_baf315_7005932.jpg (1200x1200, 120K)

kek thanks for the laugh user

Attached: 1519128128168.jpg (206x200, 4K)

>Companies are not solely motivated by profit
>Data mining and brokering is not real if I just stick shit in my eyes and ears and sing lalelolu all day.

proof linux is for communists
based toe jam eaters

It's even more frightening in reality.

>he doesn't want to be bread

Attached: 1519526478760.png (300x300, 30K)

This used to be true.
But these days you're the product no matter if it's free or not because companies want to make more money.

Based, true and blackpilled.

gee it's almost like the profit motive is kinda bad

Profit is the sole motivation for any company or business. And that isn't the problem. No moderation whatsoever is the problem.

Some anons pretend to be little girls here.
As a little girl I am disgusted by these filthy neckbeard scum impersonators.

Profit is not a motivator and your ideology is equivalent to last-stage capitalism.

Well, that doesn't seem very good.

It's better to have a profit motive than no motive at all..

...

And you have no choice but to use these abusive services, since that's what the normie uses, so nobody can compete.

>people only do things to make money

I feel you. People posting anime girls while not being ones is just piss.

Very few people do things out of genuine goodwill without wanting to profit from it directly. And that is just as fine as corporations doing it for the profit. But not moderating data mining, data brokering and so on is honestly only our own fault. Is it good? Fuck no not at all, it's horrid, and a lot of corps will go under the way things are currently moving towards more legislation, but in the meantime we are pretty much fucked.

Attached: 1532020042500.jpg (599x429, 35K)

the reason, I think, that most people don't do things out of the "good of their hearts" is twofold; for one, most people are already busy doing things for money. In a capitalist society, you have to either sell your labor to others, or profit off of said labor - that's just a fact. For another thing, most of us are conditioned to believe that we should only make decisions that financially benefit us. Under capitalism, free software doesn't make sense - how the hell do you make money off of that?

TLDR: Blame the game, not the playa.

>implying they would do things for no money
you overestimate how stupid people are.

I agree to an extent. It's definitely a mix of being part of the system and the system itself. Absolutely. But judging by sociological and psychological studies communist like systems where people do things not for profit but "for the community" fall apart once the community in question has too many members and you don't know your neighbour anymore so to speak.

tl;dr shits fucked brehs

>how the hell do you make money off of that?
By not reciting plebeian rhetoric as if economics is anything other than a failure to model human ingenuity.

You wot?
No matter what economic theory you believe in, it has nothing to do with the fact that free software is not exactly a starting recipe for a highly profitable company.
What the fuck are you even saying beyond some words you picked up and now feel smug about using.

That's called a failure to delegate. You don't actually have any reason to suspect that a population of five million derives genuine value from operating on a purely voluntary basis. It's fine if the largest we can sustain as a community is thousands of individuals.

I think the solution to this is to not have "one big commune," but thousands of small ones working in tandem.

Agreed. Economics is basically a pseudoscience.

>starting recipe for a highly profitable company
That's exactly what it is. The old (outdated) adage that it takes money to make money is canonically false in the modern era.

>I think the solution to this is to not have "one big commune," but thousands of small ones working in tandem.
Those will compete with each other. It's just the way humans are. Small communities don't work in our modern world simply because our industry is too complex to break it up into many small ones. And if we did those soon would ask why should I work for someone I don't even know and give them my [Food|Rare Earth Metals|Processor Chips|Etc]

>giving a product away for free is the recipe for a highly profitable company
user, did you read what I said?

Just invent in 3D printing then fuck. It's not hard people.

How does 3D printing solve resource problems though?

>why would I give away my X?
Because in return, you gain Y, Z, A, and B.

As for competition, I don't think that it's intrinsic to humans. As society changes, so will we.

>invest in
You're modeling my words from the wrong axis.

The need for competition is biological, it's literally our nature, the fittest most competitive ones survived and the "weak" died off.
>As society changes, so will we.
Basic human nature hasn't changed just because we have a better life than a hundred years ago and even if we somehow attained post scarcity right now I bet there'd still be people competing just because it's a biological instinct to have a better chance of survival which nowadays translates to making more money or simply having more stuff.

>resource problems
Those don't get solved. Million of people alive today are going to die regardless of what you do or don't do. All it helps with is the effects of the inevitable crash. When you can print your own circuitboards, it doesn't matter if industry collapses. We can rebuild from 3D printing. If there are resource to exploit, a sufficiently advanced 3D printer will exploit them most effectively.
This as well. Communities can specialize even in a voluntary manner. We could all be like the Amish and have our own customs for the various components of industry, and on our 16th birthday we have a chance to explore the other cultures out there.

>We can rebuild from 3D printing
The problem is we are heading for collapse, absolutely, but this time there is no easily exploitable resource left to kick start a second industrial revolution. 3D printing is still in it's infancy at best. If we collapse this century that's it for this race. No rebuilding, no second chances.
Easily attainable coal and oil is gone and requires highly specialised equipment that can't be 3D printed now or probably ever, and that can't be easily produced either. Solar, wind or water on the scale we'd need is beyond unattainable at that point.
Simple circuit boards are the most advanced we'll be post collapse. We definitely won't rebuild.

Also not to forget post collapse transporting resources across the globe like we do today is literally impossible too. And there simply is no place that has access to all resources you'd need for rebuilding.
tl;dr if only you knew how bad things truly are

The fed prints billions of dollars per year

3D printing is just the concept for plebs. Recycling is the next wave before the century ends for actual survivalists. Look into fungi, controlled decay, and biocomputing. Materials science is the path. (It's a hard dependency for 3D printing anyway, so the statements are equivalent on qualified analysis.)

Yeah but those techs are just as much in their infancy at best just like 3D printing. Especially bio computing. They are far from your average survivalists grasp.
Personally I think we still have a few decades until actual global collapse. But I doubt tech will progress at such a rapid pace that most of our currently "promising" tech will be actually viable by then.

and what was your income compared to say mark zuckerberg?

the fedcan print what they want but essentially its all funneled directly into jeff bezos account anyway

the rich get richer

I'm meming it to you now so you can help alter the trajectory for the better. People are clueless. The current form of scarcity is primarily intellectual.

>nothing good is truly free!!!

Attached: 65467657453.png (800x799, 616K)

>your mum gave her pussy out for free
>you are the product
LOL get fucking wrecked OP, you ugly fat faggot.

Attached: vlcsnap-2019-03-15-02h17m06s086.png (960x720, 439K)

>help alter the trajectory for the better
I think we are beyond that point.
>The current form of scarcity is primarily intellectual
I fully agree with that though.

We're not beyond anything. Peak oil was a huge psyop. Economics is what it is precisely because it tries to become a sensor for obscure aspects of the global market. We can easily stretch things to 300, 400 years with memetic engineering alone.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. There are exchanges where both parties leave richer than before

Peak oil will hit sooner or later. Just because it didn't hit us in the 2000s like some retards screamed about doesn't mean it'll never happen. And the way things are looking right now I wouldn't hold out hope that we'll find another big oil field lying around on the attic to postpone peak oil.
There's also the problem of climate change that is currently on track to wipe us of the earth faster than anything short of a big fuck off meteor could.
Even memetic engineering is not gonna make enough people change their lifestyle to really change things. According to newest climate models we are on track for best case "only" +2.8°C till 2100, worst case we are looking at 6°C+. The US is refusing to change away from coal and oil, Europe is doing jackshit, China is honestly the one with the most progress right now.

or anything else really

We have time to work on alternatives to peak oil. Also: The US at least (sorry everyone else) has huge oil reserves. If anything the psyop drove us to innovate long before we actually needed to. (Except because everything runs on a delay, now IS when we needed to start.)

I haven't done much climate science, but most of the big polluters, just as a general principle, are industry. I went to a green conference at one point and one of the speakers told a story about how they got one of the Walmart CEOs in a boat and more or less changed their entire mode of thinking. After that they cut down on excess packaging and started Doing Shit to fix the problems they're causing as a corporation. I never followed up on the research, but if we can get to people like that then we can change the world. The key is to understand that it's not just consumers that are plebs—CEOs are just as gullible and ignorant. It's really easy to run a massive corporation and not even realize all the abuses that you're helping organize every day.

The US, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia still have great reserves yes, but the rest of the world? Especially countries in Europe might already have passed peak oil considering their falling production rates. And tech will only progress so far, some oil fields will remain unavailable to us. My guess is peak oil is already here, it's just not distributed evenly.
And I agree we made some massive steps in recent years to leave oil dependence finally behind us, but we still have a long way to come. The biggest oil related issue I see is our reliance on petrochemical fertilizers. We made massive improvements in electro mobility in recent years, but everyone is ignoring the fact that we only are where we are today and can focus so much on tech because of petrochemical fertilizers making farming basically trivial in comparison to 100 years ago. All our time as a species farming was our most important industry, most humans in our history worked as farmers to sustain themselves and the race, now we got petrochem fertilizers. Once they run out it's game over for literally all of Asia and Africa. Europe and the US will be hit as well but not as bad as those regions.
And I again agree with you. We can change things, I just fear that it might already be to late, runaway climate change is a frighteningly realistic possibility as well, it's possible we might have passed it already. I agree we should do everything we can, but I am kind of a pessimistic realist is what I'd call it, and I simply fear that it might already be too late without us even realising.

It's not going to be runaway in the same way Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect. Even if it wipes out half the world population (it wouldn't, because we don't all live on the coasts like that) then we still have 3.5 BILLION people left. Exponential growth is cool like that. We could lose 85% of the population and still bounce back in just 200 years. Even if there is a massive loss of human life, there will still inevitably be enough people to continue on. "Collapse" in an economic sense is only loosely correlated to mass dieoffs.

Once you realize people are already going to die, you have a lot of freedom to shift things around to favor the ones that are worth saving. Not exactly optimistic I admit, but no point calling it pessimistic either.

I agree we won't see the planet become venus in this century or ever, now call me a cunt a psycho whatever, but I don't care about the people we'll loose. But we will loose a considerable amount of fertile land no matter if we see 3° or 30°+ in this century. And sustaining even half the worlds population will be hard. Well loose fertile land, valuable resources and so on. It will be hard either way. And honestly I doubt we *should* bounce back.
And not gonna lie, this is when I wish all the conspiracy theories of a world government leading things were true, cause as it is right now, we are still kinda directionless when we actually should be focusing on saving what is worth saving and preserving what we can while investing much more into "future" tech before it's too late. Cold Fusion, reliable cheap solar cause let's be honest as much as I'd like it fusion will probably not work out, battery tech, non petro sustainable fertilizers and so on.
So to make this really short:
I completely agree, we can't save everyone, trying to would be stupidly optimistic at best, so we should set priorities.

Thanks, Debbie Downer!

Attached: Debbie_Downer.png (241x188, 87K)

How about You appreciate that we're born into the Best Times, ever?

Attached: Shanaiah Twain2.jpg (920x1318, 314K)

OP is correct in the case for Windows™
the name of the game is [or was] monopoly - they just needed everyone to use it - MS could care less if you ''''steal'''' it - you eventually pay for it, their profits come from the big gov contracts [ie your taxes] not home users

>Think about it.
>Economy is a closed system.
>For someone to gain money, someone else has to lose said money.

Does economic illiteracy lead people to communist ideologies?

Attached: unknown-4.png (638x711, 517K)

Include me in the screenBRAP.

>free aS iN freedom

Attached: A collection of Blurred Pictures of Mike Wazowski - Album on Imgur.png (209x214, 117K)