Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411283 Posts in 69325 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 29, 2024, 02:29:28 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralForget the Bread Book: Invest in Teleplates, find out how!
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: Forget the Bread Book: Invest in Teleplates, find out how!  (Read 4103 times)
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« on: July 06, 2020, 06:48:55 PM »

In dealing with those pithy men who have told me to “Read the Bread Book” I have a short dissent I’d like to explore.

The airlines: I could write a lengthy tome explaining the flaws of these wretched floating tin cans. Sometimes the planes crash, killing all on board. Even worse, the seats are small, the food is bad, you have to sit next to and have awkward conversations with strangers. They search you when you get on, it sometimes smells, they are germ infested. And not to mention some people get preferential treatment because they pay for the best seats. They even get a little bottle of booze too!

So if I were to tell you that there is a radical new solution to dealing with transportation: “the teleplate,” I assume you would be on board? No? Well let me explain its wonders. A teleplate is simply a metal plate, no thicker than a manhole cover, and always shaped like an octagon that when you step onto it and stop moving much the plate transfers you to any other teleplate in the known universe without traversing any distance. These teleplates actually know where you want to go and transport you perfectly every time. If you just step on one by accident, nothing will happen. And if someone is using one they will emit a safe but stern beep and wait till you are clear before they activate. They are 100% safe, and can be installed anywhere. Also they require no electricity to run, they are great! Dare I say it is the perfect transit system. They could even replace cars too! Now: are you on board with teleplates yet? No?

Now I’m starting to doubt your commitment to understanding the flaws with airlines, and the need for a revolutionary new system to replace them. Don’t you understand that sometimes the flight attendants are underpaid and treated poorly? Don’t you realize that planes, while statistically a good means of transportation are not 100% safe like teleplates? Not to mention that airlines discriminate against people who pay less for tickets. Did you know that there are even “private planes” that cater to just one passenger? Its a horrible system I could write 10k pages on why its wrong! Surely you want teleplates in stead?

Well, you may ask “how do teleplates work?” Ah, well they are very complicated. In fact I wonder if you are really committed to this new system just because you dared to question it, but I can explain, if you read no less than 10k pages of propaganda about how airlines are terrible, and how we need a revolutionary new system and so on. And I will spare you reading 10k words of babble (Which I could easily write.) To get to the punchline: the fact is that teleplates will only work if 100% of the population believes they will work.

That’s right, there is nothing mechanically special about teleplates, they are just metal octagons, but they will work 100% of the time if simply everyone on earth buys into this new revolution! And why wouldn’t they? I’ve already made a compelling case about the many reasons teleplates are better than the alternative.

So: what we need is to simply get rid of anyone who disagrees with dogma associated with these powerful new transportation devices. I don’t want to get into details: hopefully some of them can be “re-educated” to believe in these new changes. And we can try a moderate approach to dealing with these doubting non-believers, perhaps if we imprison them the teleplates will still function. The thing is, we KNOW That the plates will work once there is a 100% commitment from the population of earth, and that the teleplates are a perfect system of transit that will improve and revolutionize the world. So I don’t see what’s wrong with getting rid of some of the people who don’t accept that this is the new way right?

Now ask yourself: are you seriously interested in teleplates, or would you rather spend your energy improving the wretched airline system we are stuck with?

Edit: I suppose just to make this more direct, I could revise this to say that teleplates will function if and only if the entire population reads my "Teleplates Book" which explains in great detail, flaws of the airline system, famous aviators who were jerks, failed attempts to replace airplanes, as well as hundreds of pages of notes and schematics for how teleplates must be made, organized, stored and so on. What metals they can be made of and what sizes and thicknesses and the like. If everyone reads and complies with this book, the teleplates will work. Now will you read my book?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 09:48:57 PM by michaelplzno » Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2020, 08:55:53 PM »

read the bread book
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2020, 09:35:04 PM »

will you read my 100 page book about the specs needed to create teleplates?

Edit: I'm a north going Zax and I won't read any book written by a south going Zax until they read the nonsense I've written.



« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 09:53:21 PM by michaelplzno » Logged

Schrompf
Level 9
****

C++ professional, game dev sparetime


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2020, 09:51:36 PM »

I would! Airlines really need to go, they're an abomination and also hurtful to the environment! Just think of the children!

But I'd also be grateful if you could link me to the bread book.
Logged

Snake World, multiplayer worm eats stuff and grows DevLog
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2020, 10:01:11 PM »

For the children?





As far as I know this is the bread text in question: https://thebreadbook.org/conquestofbread.html

If I had time I would write my teleplates book as a direct parody.

Edit: I just moved to a random segment in section 3 "To-day the soil, which actually owes its value to the needs of an ever-increasing population, belongs to a minority who prevent the people from cultivating it—or do not allow them to cultivate it according to modern methods." I guess he doesn't know about farm subsidies? "Big Land owns all the soil, can't get any of that!"

Edit 2: My teleplates book has lines like "The sky, which once belonged to dreamers has been defiled by the Wright brothers and others who seek to destroy the purity of its essence. One cannot even imagine what the shape of a cloud is without thinking of the horrible aviators!"
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 10:17:07 PM by michaelplzno » Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2020, 08:39:06 AM »

if your moral objection to the basic concept of public ownership and management of land is that contemporary government subsidies exist (which far from allocates land and water efficiently according to a population's needs (we don't need this much fucking cotton and cow feed while large swaths of people in developed nations lack physical access to sufficient micronutrition)) you probably need to start even more basic than kropotkin
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2020, 10:02:48 AM »

No, I object to "read the bread book" as a meaningful line of discourse.

If you want to talk about how land should be managed, we can talk about how land should be managed. I'm not a farmer so I might not be the best expert but I can engage in that topic just for armchair purposes.

The rhetoric about how "the soil is owned by a minority who prevent people from cultivating it..." is just nonsense and I guess may have been true when feifdoms existed? I'm not sure but its crazy talk now. *Just to pick one example of the unpleasantness associated of reading this rambling propaganda.*

As someone who is sympathetic to liberal causes and the idea that there may be a reasonable way to do some sort of basic income system that could work, I'm saying "read the bread book" is a bad tactic to persuade people to any kind of meaningful discourse.

Edited a typo.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 11:58:46 AM by michaelplzno » Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2020, 01:46:32 PM »

the phrase is a meme, but the sentiment is genuine that it's an important foundational work (and importantly, a very easy read that feels relevant despite its age) if you like thinking about and engaging in DIALECTICS about how society could be reformed to be less awful. I'd recommend at least the first half to understand the moral argument which I find impeccable. It's entirely pointless to zoom in on temporally specific or outdated things like promotion of coal power or whatever.
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
omnilith
Level 2
**



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2020, 02:51:31 PM »

honestly just read the communist manifesto, it's a fairly brisk read and it does a good job explaining Marx' core critique of capitalist economics
Logged

michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2020, 07:55:30 PM »

Alright, so lets talk about section II of chapter 1, which I have read in its entirety. I was desperate to get to the punchline: he says that since the fabric of society is interwoven, we stand on the shoulders of giants, some inventors are ignored, others over credited, therefore how can anyone say "this is mine and not yours?"

Is he saying that if we toil to invent something, like a steam engine, or a computer, or a teleplate, we cannot own that thing because even the chair we sit on when we do the inventing is part of an interwoven tapestry of collaboration? In his logic, should not IKEA get some of the credit too since they are the ones who designed the desk used to invent whatever the thing in question is. And in turn why can IKEA own a chair when chairs have been iterated on for centuries and their manufacturing is multifaceted and involves many components?

Am I summing up bread boy correctly?

If so, I disagree with the MORALS of that argument in a number of ways. Not to get Ayan Rand on it, but "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" Morally society has an obligation to reward individual initiative, which is at the heart of capitalism and indeed very aligned with human nature. If you build a better mouse trap the world *should* beat a path to your door. If building a better mouse trap gets you no reward, why then would anyone strive to create better mouse traps? And if one were to design a new system for [WHATEVER] and the reward was "Oh screw you, you only were able to invent that because you had food and water and housing and scientific papers and the comfort of other past inventions, so you get NOTHING for your work GOOD DAY" then there would be no reason to really do anything other than consume. No?

For example, the man who invented Tetris had a hell of a time trying to protect the rights to his creation. The communists wanted to exploit it without any compensation to him. What do you think that did to the booming communist video game industry? When everyone in Russia saw that the creator of Tetris got his stuff stolen by the state do you think anyone wanted to create video games in Russia ever again?

So right from chapter 1 section II I don't see this argument as completely morally correct. Its quite unfair what is presented there.

 
Logged

Schrompf
Level 9
****

C++ professional, game dev sparetime


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2020, 10:22:45 PM »

And I thought I'm just partaking in shitposting. You go, gals'n'guys.
Logged

Snake World, multiplayer worm eats stuff and grows DevLog
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2020, 03:34:44 AM »

I aint reading shit
Logged
Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2020, 06:57:29 AM »

Protecting the rights to a creation is something you have to do under a system where someone with more power (such as the Soviet government) will otherwise claim it. Tetris is an entertainment product/art however and the discussion about the role of artists and entertainers in a society is another one.

I contest that the natural human drive to invent and improve things stems from wanting to become a millionaire. On any scale, the *point* of invention is making life easier - having to spend less time and effort doing the boring things you don't want to do and enhancing the fun things you want to do.
i.e. the reward for building a better mouse trap is obvious: less mice.
This is why you see workers also spontaneously improving processes at our workplaces as well; because you want things to be easier (except as it is, nobody gets to claim the rights to those improvements, and the increased productivity is not rewarded with more free time as it should).
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2020, 03:12:28 PM »

So that's where my disagreement with the bread book starts. Part 1 chapter II. There should be some form of special compensation for those who go above and beyond, in the name of mere moral fairness. If one worker is reorganizing the machines to improve productivity, and another worker is barely doing any work, taking constant breaks and not producing any product, their compensation should not be equal.

So I disagree.
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2020, 07:04:01 PM »

There should be some form of special compensation for those who go above and beyond, in the name of mere moral fairness.
You're envisioning a radically different society already. Compensation is according to what contract you're able to secure and nothing else. No moral considerations involved.

Just so I know where you're coming from, have you ever worked in production?
That lazy worker/hard worker example is a caricature and not even applicable to how figuring out a smooth operation at workplace actually goes down. You can tally how many bananas someone picks, but for improvements to work flow, calculating some kind of "fair share" according to productivity boost following patent logic would be a fruitless task. Having everyone in the mindset that they should claim ownership of a trick to faster calibrate a machine would also be entirely counter-productive.
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2020, 07:39:17 PM »

No, I have never worked in production. I agree that only paying those who come up with some invention that gives a grand boost in productivity is not a good extreme for a number of reasons.





And yeah, there are a LOT of cases under the current system we have where people who work hard are not fairly compensated. Similarly, it wouldn't even be a good idea to give a giant boon of capital to some people for a number of reasons too. (Free Britney btw) But the idea of compensation for work seems to be moot if you get rid of the concept of capital. Hey listen, maybe you have a book "compensation without capital" but it seems almost as good as my teleplates concept.
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2020, 10:00:00 AM »

Capital at its base just means the combined productive capacity of a society (machines, land, brains and hands, etc.).
The proposed compensation for work when access to the fruits of that productive capacity (which we posit can't be claimed to belong to anyone in particular in any meaningful sense, because all of humanity throughout all of history built it (if it wasn't downright just created by nature)) aren't held ransom according to arbitrary rules of states, employers and and finance (which are at this point in history is more decoupled from actual productivity than ever) is living in a more functional society with more free time and physical and mental energy to be a human.

A meaningful possible compromise or stepping stone is the concept of UBI (or some of them) which rests on a similar moral assumption.
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2020, 09:19:46 AM »

I agree that you are talking about what I consider capital, which still exists no matter how socialist you get. I disagree that capital can't be owned in any meaningful way. I hear the argument, that it is complicated to know who owns what and the process of doling out that power there is often unfairness, but by tearing up the "arbitrary" rules by which capital is controlled, managed and transferred, these golden rules of acquisition that we Farengi hold dear, you end up with chaos unless a new set of rules are imposed.

So for example Valve, which prides itself on not having a hierarchy because they just don't like that concept created their "flat structure." But because there are no *explicit* rules the system becomes even worse: there is an *implicit* hierarchy that is even tougher to navigate because it is not regulated or known. There is no attempt to ensure fairness, and control of the company becomes a bare knuckle fight: https://medium.com/dunia-media/the-nightmare-of-valves-self-organizing-utopia-6d32d329ecdb

So that's on hierarchies. On capital we can imagine, and in fact have seen, that when it becomes unclear who *owns* capital (For lack of a better word, semantically we can consider: controls, influences, manages, organizes, has access to, benefits from, etc.) the imbalances in power get even worse, and in fact it magnifies the disparity between those who *own* capital and those who do not.

Just to be clear: I love the idea of more free time and energy to be human, or farengi as the case may be, and I'm not entirely unsure UBI could never work, but even with UBI you would need a capitalist structure on top of everything just to make who owns what explicit. Otherwise all the effort one exerts would be in trying to navigate an ephemeral hidden shadow ownership structure that "doesn't exist" no?
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2020, 12:59:56 PM »

I know this is a game dev forum but I'm not sure about the value of considering a game dev company within our current system when pondering society-wide organization (over more relevant attempts like say, kibbutzes or spanish communes during the civil war). As an anthropological study it additionally seems more like an issue of lacking organization than of ownership?

To also be clear I hold these things not as blueprints but as ideals: perhaps unattainable goals to strive towards and hopefully arrive somewhere better. We might be somewhere pretty close to the same page there.
i.e. Just as a society without violence or threat of violence might not be feasible, so might a society without formal hierarchies, but both these (related) elements are undesirable in and of themselves, should always be treated as undesirable, and should be sought to be minimized, especially in those parts of society where there is no democratic control of who lords over whom.
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2020, 08:41:19 PM »

So yeah, sure, as far as ideal utopias go, I would love to be able to walk into a grocery store and just take what I need and walk out, not pay any rent, get paid basic income even if I didn't do anything other than watch tv and eat bonbons, but there are a couple of problems even taking this as an idealistic view:

1) Without structure, life sucks. So even if we could just "do nothing" as per the movie Office Space, eventually it would be good to have some external force push us in the right direction towards productivity. So as an idealistic view, the concept of not having any kind of coercion to do something valuable with your time would get very boring but beyond that it would be bad. Without some kind of motivation, many would find themselves depressed, using substances, and just generally in a bad way. They get a bit into the philosophy of this in "The Good Place" the TV show that recently ended: they are in the afterlife and can do anything, and they soon get bored and long to end that experience, to escape from having no rules or restrictions. In fact, this kind of true freedom, where you can change anything and experience anything you can imagine, would likely be a hell to a lot of people.

2) Even if we say the ideal is no hierarchies, and no ownership, and no coercion and so on, that kind of utopic thinking has no place in real life politics other than as a slight of hand style bait and switch. We can say "Don't you want utopia? Vote for me!" and then of course, the ideal is known to be impossible. The origins of the concept of utopia are that it cannot be, it is a fiction. Its "Rainbow Land" which is not really politically good (NSFW language):





3) By pushing for this ideal, socialists make more realistic politicians look like jerks. When someone like Biden proposes some kind of real legislation he is just being too moderate, but when Warren proposes that she is going to revolutionize the world or Bernie proposes that he is going to end the concept of billionaires they raise the bar to the moon where no one can reach it, not even Warren and Bernie. It conflates the ideal with what can be really accomplished in a sleazy trick to convince voters that the impossible dream is possible and those who disagree belong in the gulags.
 
I brought up the "teleplates" as an example of these problems: its clear that the system I propose is ideal. We could colonize the moon in a few years with this kind of technology, it would be incredible and fantastic if we could have that kind of perfect transportation system. But it would be disingenuous to try to convince people that that kind of thing is real, even though it sounds lovely. That's my big dissent with things like the bread book: it cannot, and even should not, be.


I guess I'm just venting because it seems so hard to even get a word in edgewise against the socialist movement without being labeled some kind of conservative jerk. Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I'm sure at some point I'll be canceled for this but whatever.


Logged

Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic