Proof that software as service/cloud based, will never work for long term ...

[Nominal Animal]

It always surprises me how humans are utterly willing to deal with products they paid for working against them, not with them, and even praise the products nevertheless.

[SilverSolder]

It always surprises me how humans are utterly willing to deal with products they paid for working against them, not with them, and even praise the products nevertheless.

Those people and those products deserve each other...   The problem becomes real when there are no alternatives available for people with other goals in life than diverting their incomes to subscription based versions of what you used to be able to own...

[SiliconWizard]

They do not see the part that works against them, and mostly feel the benefit of doing what (almost) everyone else does. Peer pressure, social validation, etc.
That's how you sell crap to people and manage to make them feel happy.

[SilverSolder]

They do not see the part that works against them, and mostly feel the benefit of doing what (almost) everyone else does. Peer pressure, social validation, etc.
That's how you sell crap to people and manage to make them feel happy.

Maybe they are happy...  who are we to judge?

The issue is that we also want to be happy, by not buying our underwear on a subscription basis! 

[Nominal Animal]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

[SiliconWizard]

Point is, if more people didn't feel the urge to be validated by others all the time, none of this crap would be happening. (Including all the victimization stuff as well, btw.)

I'm still not sure if better education would help, or if not needing this constant social validation is something that you just acquire by yourself somehow, and no amount of education is going to change this. It's a complex matter.

[SiliconWizard]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

Yeah. As he also said once in french: "il ne faut pas affoir peur!" (That was more or less about mass surveillance and social credit.)

[SilverSolder]

Point is, if more people didn't feel the urge to be validated by others all the time, none of this crap would be happening. (Including all the victimization stuff as well, btw.)

I'm still not sure if better education would help, or if not needing this constant social validation is something that you just acquire by yourself somehow, and no amount of education is going to change this. It's a complex matter.

It seems we can be a victim of our own instinctive behaviour.  - which gets used against us, or at least used to the advantage of others!

[SiliconWizard]

Point is, if more people didn't feel the urge to be validated by others all the time, none of this crap would be happening. (Including all the victimization stuff as well, btw.)

I'm still not sure if better education would help, or if not needing this constant social validation is something that you just acquire by yourself somehow, and no amount of education is going to change this. It's a complex matter.

It seems we can be a victim of our own instinctive behaviour.  - which gets used against us, or at least used to the advantage of others!

I think the need for social validation *is* largely an instinctive behavior. For a very social species such as ours, it likely optimizes survival. At least that was once the case and we still carry this baggage.

[thinkfat]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

There is something to it, yes. However, you better fully control the things your livelihood depends on. About luxury, it's better not to cling to it. It weighs you down. If you cling to stuff serving your vanity, you've got problems.

[Nominal Animal]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

There is something to it, yes. However, you better fully control the things your livelihood depends on. About luxury, it's better not to cling to it. It weighs you down. If you cling to stuff serving your vanity, you've got problems.

Sure, but the reason they (meaning WEF, the lobbying and ideologial training organization for the thousand or so biggest corporations in the world, and the software companies switching to subscription based revenue model) is that they want to keep the ownership, and rent things to you, instead of selling them to you.  That is, you will rent things from us, because we will own everything, and you will own nothing.  And you will be happy, because if you are not, we'll exclude you from the society.

There is no conspiracy whatsoever here, though.  This all only happens because you can easily make several times the profit by renting instead of selling.  There is no human goodwill here, just common rent-seeking behaviour.

It has also happened before; just look up history and "company towns".  This is all just taking a long step backwards to the era when humans are cheap, and owners are the controlling class.

[BravoV]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

There is something to it, yes. However, you better fully control the things your livelihood depends on. About luxury, it's better not to cling to it. It weighs you down. If you cling to stuff serving your vanity, you've got problems.

Sure, but the reason they (meaning WEF, the lobbying and ideologial training organization for the thousand or so biggest corporations in the world, and the software companies switching to subscription based revenue model) is that they want to keep the ownership, and rent things to you, instead of selling them to you.  That is, you will rent things from us, because we will own everything, and you will own nothing.  And you will be happy, because if you are not, we'll exclude you from the society.

There is no conspiracy whatsoever here, though.  This all only happens because you can easily make several times the profit by renting instead of selling.  There is no human goodwill here, just common rent-seeking behaviour.

It has also happened before; just look up history and "company towns".  This is all just taking a long step backwards to the era when humans are cheap, and owners are the controlling class.

Just one word to summarize your lengthy explanation ... feudalism. 

"YOU" peasants will own nothing, and will be happily work on our land (or assets), and bring the harvest to us, and leave just enough for you to barely survive. 

[PlainName]

just look up history and "company towns"

Those were/are both good and bad. In the UK I think the tendency was to good (see, for instance, Bournville which improved life immeasurably for employees). Don't know about anywhere else, though.

How would, say, a Google town turn out? On the one hand their employee experience is supposed to be pretty decent, providing one doesn't stand up and wave too much, but they don't really care about people.
 

[Nominal Animal]

just look up history and "company towns"

Those were/are both good and bad.

I was trying to refer to the ones that paid their workers with slips that were only valid for exchange in the company-owned stores, and the workers had to pay for absolutely everything, including lodging, and couldn't own their own homes for example.  You know, the model WEF is pushing: no cash money either.  And everyone should be aware of how easily Visa and MasterCard are already willing to cut off people just because of wrongthink – see Youtube, Patreon, etc.  Even if you have money in the bank, if the card processors refuse to deal with you and cash money is no longer used, you can't actually buy anything anymore.

It is very straightforward.  If you trust that the 1000 or so biggest companies and the politicians trained in their preferred ideas are the best ones to decide what is good for you, then by all means, do support WEF with all your political power.  I do not, so I have to oppose them and their political lobbyists and stooges, like Finland's current Prime Minister, who truly believe they have people's best interests in mind.

(That said, I have no doubt that Klaus Schwab himself, and the others pushing the Agenda, do actually firmly, honestly believe that their plan is actually good for mankind.  They do really see themselves being good people.  It's just that they are utterly, horribly wrong: all this has been done before, it has never ended up well, and there is no sociological or cultural indicators it could succeed this time either.)

[PlainName]

I was trying to refer to the ones that paid their workers with slips that were only valid for exchange in the company

OK

The rest I would have to strongly agree with you.

[Marco]

For all the shit Central Bank Digital Currencies get, the government is actually much more limited in how it can censor and deny service to citizens than private companies. Unless they do it because you are a protected class, private companies can dump you into a no service wasteland for any reason they want.

Looked at honestly, even Diem was infinitely superior freedom wise over paypal/creditcards and the privacy was fine too looking at the actual implementation. But unfortunately Facebook can do no right, between Trump Derangement Syndrome (Cambridge Analytica haunts them, though liberals will try their damnedest to rationalize their new found dislike for them) and kneejerk privacy aficionados it had no chance.

The internet and the move towards online commerce won't go away, even if government doesn't go full China most transactions will become digital. People don't want a completely permissionless and code is law payment system, crypto is for weirdos (only Diem would have been a crypto for normies, because Novi would have offered fraud protection). So pick your poison, government based digital transaction systems or paypal/creditcards.  No nefarious conspiracies brought us to this choice, just organic progress. Given the choices, give me government over private industry. Bring on CBDC or at least a better government based digital payment system (most banks don't even support SEPA QR codes, also SEPA isn't instant).

[SiliconWizard]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

There is something to it, yes. However, you better fully control the things your livelihood depends on. About luxury, it's better not to cling to it. It weighs you down. If you cling to stuff serving your vanity, you've got problems.

Although that's somehow philosophical and highly personal rather than an absolute truth, there's something to it, yes. It's a bit like buddhist philosophy.

But if you think the WEF is in any way buddhist, I would beg to differ.

[SilverSolder]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

There is something to it, yes. However, you better fully control the things your livelihood depends on. About luxury, it's better not to cling to it. It weighs you down. If you cling to stuff serving your vanity, you've got problems.

Although that's somehow philosophical and highly personal rather than an absolute truth, there's something to it, yes. It's a bit like buddhist philosophy.

But if you think the WEF is in any way buddhist, I would beg to differ.

Arguably, religion is subscription based! 

[Sal Ammoniac]

Another reason not to use cloud-based software like word processors:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/15/1056042/chinese-novel-censored-before-shared/

[SiliconWizard]

Another reason not to use cloud-based software like word processors:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/15/1056042/chinese-novel-censored-before-shared/

No kidding!

[SiliconWizard]

Yu vill own notzhing, and yu vill be happy.
 - Uncle Klaus

There is something to it, yes. However, you better fully control the things your livelihood depends on. About luxury, it's better not to cling to it. It weighs you down. If you cling to stuff serving your vanity, you've got problems.

Although that's somehow philosophical and highly personal rather than an absolute truth, there's something to it, yes. It's a bit like buddhist philosophy.

But if you think the WEF is in any way buddhist, I would beg to differ.

Arguably, religion is subscription based! 

Ahah. That said, I dont think buddhism is a religion. Well, that's probably a question for some debate, but I don't think it is one.

Anyway, while not "clinging" to physical property may be a "good" thing on a *personal* level (read: personal), this should be a complete choice, such as if you embrace buddhism, not something forced upon you allegedly for your own good.

And, I do think that a bunch of billionaires telling modest people that they should own nothing for their own good, is as perverse as it is hilarious.

[madires]

Another reason not to use cloud-based software like word processors:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/15/1056042/chinese-novel-censored-before-shared/

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

[MrMobodies]

Re: Proof that software as service/cloud based, will never work for long term ...

Joke: It works for them long term but only short term for the customer.
To which they will assign this same "cloud" setup and equipment to do another short term based service.
I think they mean by their definition of "cloud", you see the "cloud" in the sky and later it's gone.

[madires]

In case your cloud service is too hot ...
Google, Oracle cloud servers wilt in UK heatwave, take down websites (https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/19/google_oracle_cloud/)

[MrMobodies]

Cloud services and servers hosted by Google and Oracle in the UK have dropped offline due to cooling issues as the nation experiences a record-breaking heatwave.

When the mercury hit 40.3C (104.5F) in eastern England, the highest ever registered by a country not used to these conditions, datacenters couldn't take the heat. Selected machines were powered off to avoid long-term damage, causing some resources, services, and virtual machines to became unavailable, taking down unlucky websites and the like.
...
We're told at least part of Oracle's cooling infrastructure broke down around lunchtime, UK time.

Joke: It could produce a cloud of it's own when the magic smoke escapes from enough of them.