Re: Let's discuss
A more comical version of competition can be found from the early 1990s, between the Supernintendo and Sega Genesis.
"Sega Genesis has "blast processing". Supernintendo doesn't".
This was a term made up pretty much on the spot to explain the shorthand for how the Genesis had slightly better graphics-rendering capabilities. But what it actually did was make it sound like the Genesis had some sort of awesome-sounding advantage, and people bought it.
Advertising has gotten crazier since. Everyone is trying to one-up the other guy. How often do you hear the phrase "better than the leading brand"? What tripe! If it's "leading", then how you can be better than it? Or, if you have to tell the truth, then what other metric is it leading in?
This idea that you have to have competition in order to fuel innovation is actually not proven, as far as I'm aware. But even if it were, that competition shouldn't be weaponized in order to kill those who fail at it. That's just capitalism at its worst.
Nocturnis, I agree with you, as it happens. I know damn well that I'm not going to convince anyone, and I'm not actually trying to do that, because my far-future scenario is a long, long way off. In the meantime, I just think it's important to build the infrastructure, redistribute the wealth and make sure everybody's needs get met. Universal basic income might be a nice way to start that, for instance. And yes, it has been tried before, and no, it didn't spectacularly blow up either.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
