Tech

10:36 Sunday, 26 July 2026
Current Wx: Temp: 71.46°F Pressure: 1013hPa Humidity: 79% Wind: 1.52mph
Words: 146

I've just installed the latest beta of Tinderbox so I wanted to see if the time issue I'd been seeing is still present. Not so, at least on this post.

For the most part, Golden Gate has been pretty well behaved. Launches are faster, but I've noticed that waking from sleep can be annoyingly slow. Sheep Shaver, the 68K Mac emulator doesn't work and when it fails it kind of locks up the computer, forcing a reboot.

Parallels works well. Something I didn't really want to know, but having bought it and Windows 11, I feel I should mention that it seems to work under MacOS 27.

Photos has lost Messages as a Share option, I have no idea why that would be the case. Seems like a regression. I suppose I should send some feedback.

That's probably enough about all that.

The beat goes on...

✍️ Reply by email

Economy

08:11 Sunday, 26 July 2026
Current Wx: Temp: 65.23°F Pressure: 1014hPa Humidity: 88% Wind: 3.96mph
Words: 304

I listened to this Paul Krugman discussion with Lina Khan as I was making breakfast, and of course competition in the context of tech firms and AI was central.

And in that context, the discussion was perfectly rational. That the absence of competition is a net negative.

But that's because it's embedded in the larger construction that is our economy, which is structured, mostly, on the concepts of capitalism.

But what purpose does an economy serve? It provides an abundance of things we don't need. It extracts resources from the environment and creates waste that becomes problematic. Waste is an "externality," a cost of a good or service that is not captured in its price. Is that a "good" economy? A "functioning" economy?

And what is "growth"? How is "economic growth" a good?

Can economies defy physics? Is economic growth sustainable?

Capitalism focuses on private ownership and private wealth.

What is "ownership"? It's an abstraction. An illusion that is propped up by laws and customs. It has no inherent existence or meaning in nature.

"Private property," used to be something sacred. That "a man's home is his castle." No one could tell you what you could do with your "private property."

Yet we make enormous exceptions whenever it's convenient or necessary. Everything from HOAs and zoning laws to eminent domain.

There is nothing concrete about the idea of "private property." It's a consensual illusion that benefits some at the expense of others. And whenever it's necessary or convenient, we remove that benefit from people who thought otherwise.

I don't think there's any way we can disentangle this mess.

A sustainable civilization is going to have to come up with a structure that doesn't rely on competition and capitalism, and doesn't view growth as an objective to be pursued at the expense of everything else.

✍️ Reply by email

Equality

07:19 Sunday, 26 July 2026
Current Wx: Temp: 63.55°F Pressure: 1014hPa Humidity: 92% Wind: 4.41mph
Words: 319

Another book I'm going to have to add to the pile.

A fascinating chapter moves between Sumner’s laudatory musings about how “competition is hurrying on the survival of the fittest” and Carnegie’s more tormented conscience.

The concept of "competition" is embedded in our culture. The other night, in an effort to get her son into bed, Mitzi's daughter posed the effort as a race, "I'm going to beat you!"

I'm not suggesting that competition is a toxic concept. I am saying that the thoughtless embrace of competition as a means for ordering society or institutions is toxic. Competition has a place, but it's not above empathy, mutual respect, compassion, kindness and the other humane virtues.

We used to teach kids that, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game that counts." I don't think we do that very much anymore, if indeed we ever really did.

We call people "winners" and "losers." We have a president who demeans prisoners of war as "losers," because he prefers people "who don't get caught."

Does the idea of "merit" emerge from the idea of competition among individuals in society or organizations? Does competition give us the intellectual means of rationalizing ranking individuals, some being "better" than others? And where does that end?

But people are wedded to the notion of competition as something that is good in any context. "May the best man win," when winning is often a matter of chance. Victory "celebrations" often resemble riots. Identifying with sports teams becomes a kind of tribalism, where it's expected and encouraged to demean and denigrate the supporters of other teams. "All in good fun," I suppose.

Why can't we impose a moratorium on AI development? Because of competition, and the fear that if we did, then someone else would gain an advantage. The notion of cooperation or collaboration is crushed by the worship of competition.

We're doomed.

✍️ Reply by email

Despicable

06:55 Sunday, 26 July 2026
Current Wx: Temp: 63.05°F Pressure: 1014hPa Humidity: 92% Wind: 4.41mph
Words: 21

Blind ambition. Grotesque. Dishonorable. Faithless. Selfish. Shameful. Embarrassing.

Whatever "leadership" qualities this individual possessed, he's just flushed them down the toilet.

✍️ Reply by email